By Noura Natour
Summary
The prophetic saying “Islam wipes out what came before it” is far from a passing remark—it has been recited, adopted, and handed down across generations and exploited repeatedly to justify bloodshed and political violence. Historical figures, including revered companions such as Khalid ibn al-Walid, have been absolved of grave acts of violence under the pretext of religious righteousness, often receiving not only pardon but also praise. This article explores how certain historical and religious texts have been repurposed to justify modern political terrorism, whitewash violence, and provide a moral loophole for both ancient and contemporary acts of brutality.
Introduction
Let me begin with the prophetic saying: “Islam erases what came before it.” A powerful statement — yet it raises difficult questions:
- What crimes are truly forgivable upon repentance?
- Does repentance absolve a person of the consequences and responsibilities toward their victims?
- Is verbal repentance alone enough to reenter society, or should it come with psychological, intellectual, and behavioral rehabilitation?
- Can repentance silence the torment of a guilty conscience—assuming such a conscience exists?
Despite not being a historian, I grew up hearing this hadith more than any other. Over 1,400 years, few sayings have been invoked with such frequency and application—often as though they were divine scripture.
From the so-called Islamic conquests to our modern age, much of the Arab and broader Muslim world has lived through cycles of internal and external violence justified in the name of spreading Islam. Swords were drawn, cities were seized, and blood was spilled—followed by monuments glorifying the tools of conquest, justified as the price for religious propagation.
It is not my intent to accuse or exonerate any individual, but to critically examine the roots of the ideology that has enabled atrocities in the name of faith and power.
Historical Forgiveness: A Selective Memory
The hadith “Islam wipes out what came before it” has historically served as a moral reset button—used selectively to absolve even the most heinous acts. Take, for example, Khalid ibn al-Walid, known as “the noble companion,” despite massacring members of the Banu Jadhimah tribe. Prophet Muhammad was reportedly angered by the incident and sent compensation via Ali ibn Abi Talib, who gave reparations even to those left in fear and trauma, remarking: “I gave it for the fright in their hearts.”
Later, Khalid would command brutal campaigns during the Ridda wars under Caliph Abu Bakr, where he allegedly killed Malik ibn Nuwayrah and cooked his head in a pot—actions justified as necessary for stabilizing the Islamic state. Similar narratives surround other prominent figures like Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan, whose rise was marked by political cunning, military victories, and rivers of blood.
These stories are not recounted here to demonize individuals revered by many but to show how their legacies—however complex—have been used to sanctify violence under the guise of religious duty.
When History Is Weaponized
A deeply concerning example is the story of two companions sent to assassinate the poet Kaab ibn al-Ashraf for composing verses critical of the Prophet. They accepted his hospitality, dined with him, and then killed him in his home. This story, cited by historian Ibn Ishaq, remains heavily debated—its authenticity questioned due to its weak chain of narration, yet it is still taught and invoked.
Its underlying message: that critics of religious authority may be killed with divine approval. Abbasid rulers revived such examples to silence opposition, and subsequent regimes followed suit. What began as isolated incidents became ideological precedents for terrorism disguised as divine justice.
Sanctifying Terrorism through Selective Narratives
The most dangerous trend lies in turning these historical acts into moral templates. Terrorists today—whether state actors or non-state extremists—justify violence using selectively interpreted texts. Leaders across the globe have played similar roles: from George W. Bush’s Iraq invasion to Assad, Putin, Erdoğan, and Iran’s leadership—all claiming to combat terrorism while perpetuating it themselves.
In such frameworks, a criminal becomes a hero the moment his side wins. War criminals are cleansed by victory, and mass murder is transformed into religious or nationalistic glory. Merely shouting “Allahu Akbar” while committing murder can serve as absolution in some ideological circles. Women captured in war are declared spoils. Houses and lives are made “halal” for the victor, simply for differing in faith or sect.
This grotesque inversion is not theoretical. I, like many others, once read about the practice of taking female captives in the early Islamic period, wondering how their dignity could be so easily stripped. Yet I didn’t grasp the horror until I saw the same crimes committed during the Syrian war—whether in regime prisons or opposition-held territories. Rape, abuse, and captivity became tools of war again, this time with ideological backing by extremist groups claiming religious legitimacy.
The tragedy is not just in the act—but in the belief that the act is holy.
Ideological Landmines in Sacred Texts
The most lethal weapons are not nuclear—they are unchecked interpretations of scripture. When a man believes he is justified in killing his father for apostasy or disowning his mother for being Christian, we have entered the realm of moral collapse. And if he spares them out of mercy, he may believe he has disobeyed God.
The danger lies not in death itself—but in living next to someone whose worldview allows for righteous killing, waiting only for the right moment to strike.
Conclusion
I grieve the daily deaths in Gaza, but what cuts deeper are the deaths in my own country, where friends and neighbors killed one another not as enemies, but as traitors, apostates, or collaborators—depending on who controlled the narrative.
Yesterday’s justification for violence was fighting terrorism. Today, it is rooting out “remnants of the regime.” Tomorrow, it may be something new. But the result is the same: civilians pay with their lives.
Let me be clear: I am not accusing the Companions. They lived in another time, under vastly different circumstances. But I challenge anyone to justify how today’s extremist killers find their ideological roots in those early events. If you deny this link, then explain how they justify their violence. And don’t offer sanitized arguments—murder is murder, even if the victim is the devil himself.
