Gary said:
Or maybe you would like to explain Suras 33:25-26, 4:24, 33:4, 8:70, 9:29, 8:7, 33:27, 59:5, 59:2...
Sleeker said:
The first makes it seem like Allah will do all of the fighting and that Muslims need not to fight.
9:29 is the only one that provokes fighting, but whether that means violent fighting or not depends on interpretation.
What are some rules of jihad?
1. Conquered women and children may be enslaved.
In AD 627 Muhammad and his followers and allies withstood a large army of Meccans and their allies, without ever slugging it out in pitched battle. The Meccans attacked Muhammad because they were fed up with his aggressions against their trade. He dug trenches in spots around Medina to diminish the advantage that the Meccans had with their cavalry. After about a month the Meccans withdrew because of a fair that was about to begin, and this large gathering from all over brought in money. But Muhammad was not finished. While he was bathing, the archangel Gabriel allegedly appeared to him and told him to attack the large Qurayza tribe of Jews. He besieged them in their fortress, and after some negotiations and a "trial," the men were beheaded and their bodies and heads dragged and tossed into the trenches, whereas the women and children were sold into slavery.
These three verses, especially v. 26, in Sura 33 deal with this indefensible atrocity:
- 33:25 Allah turned back the unbelievers [Meccans and their allies] in a state of rage, having not won any good, and Allah spared the believers battle [q-t-l]. Allah is, indeed, Strong and Mighty. 26 And He brought those of the People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you slew [q-t-l] and some you took captive. 27 And he bequeathed to you their lands, their homes and their possessions, together with land you have never trodden. Allah has power over everything. (Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Quran, NYUP, 2000, 2004)
These verses seem to celebrate death and conquest. The key root word in brackets, q-t-l or qital or qatala, means killing, warring, and slaughtering. This meaning is much more restricted than jihad, though this latter word can also mean killing, warring, or slaughtering. Next, Allah permits the enslavement of Qurayza women and children, so later Muslim familiar with the background of this verse will follow their prophet in this practice. Finally, Allah permits Muhammad to take the Jewish clan’s property on the basis of conquest and his possession of all things. This is a dubious revelation and reasoning. Allah speaks, and this benefits Muhammad materially. This happens too often in Muhammad’s life.
Selling humans into slavery produced a lot of wealth, so the Allah-inspired prophet never got a revelation that this practice should stop permanently and forever.
Muslim apologists (defenders of Islam), understandably, are quick to explain (away) this atrocity against the Qurayza, but their standard lines of defense have been answered here (scroll down to "Politics, Warfare, and Conquest," and point no. 5).
2. Women captives are sometimes forced to marry their Muslim masters, regardless of the marital status of the women. That is, the masters are allowed to have sex with the enslaved sex objects.
Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, a highly respected Muslim commentator, reminds us that the historical context of the next sura finds Muhammad establishing rules for his community within two to five years after his Hijrah (Emigration) in AD 622. He lays down laws for marriage. What happens to slave women who are captured during the raids that the Muslims go on frequently? Sura 4:24 says:
- 4:24 And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . (Sayyid A’La Abul Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 1, p. 319).
Maududi says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslims to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools, notably one that is analyzed under "Classical legal opinions," below, say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken. But why would a debate over this emerge? The answer is obvious for those who understand simple justice. No marriage should take place between prisoners of war and their captors, married or not. No sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords. But Islam traffics in injustice too often, as we saw with the Qurayza tribe.
Islam allows deep immorality with women who are in their most helpless condition. This crime is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonethelessâ€â€the Quran says so.
The hadith also demonstrate that Muslims jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married.
3. A captured enemy may be killed, ransomed by money or by an exchange, enslaved, or released freely.
Sura 33:26 speaks of killing captured men and enslaving women and children (the same may be done to men in other battles, as the hadith and history demonstrate). A verse that comes earlier in the same sura says that after the captives are bound firmly, they may be released by freely or by ransom.
- 33:4 When you meet the disbelievers in battle, strike them in the neck, and once they are defeated, bind any captives firmlyâ€â€later you can release them by grace or by ransomâ€â€until the toils of war have ended. That [is the way]. (Haleem)
Imprisonment may be just if the captured enemy may return to fight against the conquerors at a later time. But selling prisoners of war either into slavery or back to their clan was an Arab custom that Allah should have abolished in a revelation to his prophet. But why should Muhammad receive this just revelation when money could be made by ransoming prisoners or selling them into slavery?
Allah should have taken away this option and allowed only free release or imprisonment.
4. The conquered are allowed (or forced) to convert.
In Sura 8, which deals with the Battle of Badr in AD 624, Muhammad proposes these options to his captives.
- 8:70 Prophet, tell those you have taken captive, "If God knows of any good in your hearts, He will give you something better [Islam] than what has been taken from you [the caravan], and He will forgive you" . . . (Haleem)
Muhammad tells them that if the conquered Meccans had any sense, they would realize that Allah had a divine plan: expose them to Islam. This is better than all the material riches they can trade in. However, it is not difficult to imagine a Meccan muttering under his breath that he would prefer to takes his money and goods and return to Mecca, wanting Muhammad to stop harassing the Meccans’ trade.
Also, it is laughable for the prophet to offer only Islam in lieu of the Meccans’ material goods. Preaching religion at newly captured prisoners and justifying the aggressive Battle of Badr that robbed the Meccan of their caravan is misguided. Why not return their goods? Why go out on this raid in the first place?
5. Is it lawful to kill old men and Christian monks?
One school of law in the section "Classical legal opinions" says that it is legal to kill old men and monks. Where may they get this opinion? We should recall that Sura 33:26 says that all the men of the Qurayza tribe were killed, so that verse alone justifies this atrocity. It is possible that the school of law analyzed in the section "Classical legal opinions," below, justifies the death of monks from two passages.
First, Allah says to fight Jews and Christians or People of the Book in Sura 9, the historical context of which has been discussed above ("What is the purpose or goal of jihad?"):
- 9:29 Fight [q-t-l] against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Hilali and Khan)
Then Muhammad condemns rabbis and monks who devour the property of people and bar them from following the path of Allah (read: convert to Islam) in the same sura:
- 9:33 O believers [Muslims], many of the rabbis and monks devour the property of the people unjustly and bar others from the Path of Allah [Islam]. Those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend them in Allah’s path, announce to them a very painful punishment. (Fakhry)
It is true that Muhammad goes on to explain an eternal hellish punishment for monks (v. 35), but it is not farfetched to believe that a strict school of law would combine the command to fight People of the Book (v. 29), with the condemnation of unjust and greedy monks. Why would these monks not be the first ones to be killed in a battle? However, it may be the case that the strict school of law may justify their deaths simply because they are Christian leaders.
6. Property may be stolen.
Muhammad fought the Battle of Badr in AD 624, in which 320 or so Muslims won a surprise victory over about 1000 Meccans. Their caravan was traveling south from Syria back to Mecca, and Muhammad intended to capture it. The Meccans got word of this raid and sent their army up to meet their caravan. Sura 8 deals with this (in)famous battle, and this verse says that Muhammad wanted the unarmed group (the large caravan), but Allah gave him not only that one, but also the armed group so that truth may prevail.
- 8:7 Remember how God promised you [believers] that one of the two enemy groups [The Meccan trade caravan or their army] would fall to you: you wanted the unarmed group to be yours, but it was God’s will to establish the truth according to His word and to finish off the disbelievers (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qu’ran, Oxford UP, 2004)
This verse says that only the Muslims wanted the caravan or material goods, whereas Muhammad rose above such petty concerns. However, history and simple reasoning says that he too wanted the material goods. If not, then he should have given back all the goods. It is always dubious to connect God’s truth with military victory, but no matter, for Muhammad captured a huge caravan, and now he was richer than ever before.
Also, we should not overlook Sura 33:27, quoted above, that promises all of the property of the Qurayza tribe:
- 33:27 And he bequeathed to you their lands, their homes and their possessions, together with land you have never trodden. Allah has power over everything. (Fakhry)
The word "bequeathed" is a euphemism for "stole" by conquest. As noted, timely and coincidental revelations that benefit Muhammad materially come often enough in his life.
7. Fruit trees may be destroyed.
In AD 625, Muhammad is strong enough to exile the Nadir tribe of Jews, besieging them in their strongholds for fifteen days until he started destroying their date palms, their livelihood. Their livelihood undergoing destruction and then theft, they departed to the city of Khaybar, seventy miles to the north, where they had estates. This takeover helped relieve the ongoing poverty of many Muslims, who took over their date orchards.
This verse in Sura 59 justifies his illegal act:
- 59:5 Whatever you [believers] may have done to [their] palm treesâ€â€cutting them down or leaving them standing on their rootsâ€â€was done by God’s leave [permission], so that He might disgrace those who defied Him. (Haleem)
This is another coincidental and timely revelation that seeks to justify the unjustifiable. Later Muslim warriors may use this practice to destroy other assets that are valuable to civilians, so this is unjust for Allah and his prophet.
8. Homes may be destroyed.
In the same sura, Muhammad destroys the homes of the Nadir tribe.
- 59:2 . . . God came upon them [Jews of the Nadir tribe] from where they least expected and put panic into their hearts: they brought ruin to their own homes by their own hands, as well as the hands of the believers [Muslims] . . . (Haleem)
A classical opinion of one school of law agrees and also says that homes may be destroyed. This is also unjust for the revelation-soaked religion of Islam.
9. Three options are imposed on the enemy.
It should be recalled that Sura 9:29 lays out some conditions for the People of the Book, when a Muslim army gathers outside their city gate, as Muslim interpreters agree:
(1)
Fight and die; (2)
convert; (3)
keep their religion, but pay a tax, the jizyah, which Muslim apologists (defenders) argue amounted to "protection" for the "privilege" of living under Islam (read: not be attacked again).
This is as close as Muhammad can get to forcing the enemy to convert without technically forcing them. This policy will be worked out and further imposed after Muhammad dies of a fever in AD 632, and the policy will not always keep these fine line distinctions.
Source and further reading:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/ ... conomy.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/ ... /jihad.htm
:o :o
: 
:
