..........................
Hello again.
I refer to the first article you cited; the one that – according to you – shows that ‘Muhammad wanted
all NON - BELIEVERS and non supporters of Islam killed’. It is entitled ‘Does the Quran Really Sacntion Violence Against “Unbelievers”’; and was written by Kabir Helminski, a ‘Sufi Teacher, author, activist’. I reproduce it here (my emphasis throughout):
‘Recently some prominent talk-show hosts,
Sean Hannity among them, have been referring to certain verses in the Quran that appear to call for Muslims to kill non-Muslims.
These verses have too often been quoted with what appears to be a willful disregard for the context in which they occur, thus inflaming the emotions of listeners, perpetuating grave misunderstandings, and contributing to the potential for violence on all sides.
‘Though we may not be able to influence those who are hell-bent on hatred, an explanation is owed to all reasonable people who are interested in the truth of the matter and are not looking to create enemies. The vast majority of Muslims deserve to be seen as allies in a common quest for social justice and human dignity — assuming, of course, that we as Americans have the same goals in mind.
‘A careful and unbiased study of these and other verses, in their proper context, will reveal that the exhortations to fight “idolaters” and “unbelievers” are specific in nature and are not general injunctions for the murder of all those who refuse to accept Islam as their way of life.
‘Among the most often cited verses is this one: “Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them, and blockade them, and watch for them at every lookout...” (Quran 9:5).’
‘According to Islamic belief, the Quran was “revealed” to Muhammad in a process of dialog with the Divine, and some parts of the Quran refer to specific situations, while other parts offer universal spiritual principles. To understand this passage, we must take into account the historical circumstances at the time of its revelation.
‘The “idolaters” (Arabic: mushrikeen) were those Meccan “pagans” who had declared war against Muhammad and his community. The Meccan oligarchs fought against the Prophet’s message from the very beginning. When they realized that the flow of converts to Islam was increasing, they resorted to violent oppression and torture of the Prophet and his followers.
The Prophet himself survived several assassination attempts, and it became so dangerous for the Muslims in Mecca that Muhammad sent some of his companions who lacked tribal protection to take asylum in the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia. After 13 years of violence, he himself was compelled to take refuge in the city of Medina,
and even then the Meccans did not relent in their hostilities. Eventually, various hostile Arab tribes joined in the fight against the Muslims, culminating in the Battle of the Trench, when 10,000 soldiers from many Arab tribes gathered to wipe out the Muslim community once and for all. As we know, the Muslims survived these challenges and eventually went on to establish a vast civilization.
‘At the time Verse 9:5 was revealed, Muhammad and his followers had begun to establish themselves securely.
They had returned triumphantly to Mecca without violence, most Meccans themselves had become Muslims, and many of the surrounding pagan Arab tribes had also accepted Islam and sent delegations to the Prophet pledging their allegiance to him. Those that did not establish peace with the Muslims were the bitterest of enemies, and it was against these remaining hostile forces that the verse commands the Prophet to fight.
‘The verses that come immediately before 9:5 state, “Those with whom you have treaties are immune from attack.” It further states, “Fulfill your treaties with them to the end of their term, for God loves the conscientious.” Now, in its proper context, verse 9:5 can be properly understood.
‘This was a guidance to the Prophet at that specific time to fight those idolaters who, as 9:4 mentions, violated their treaty obligations and helped others fight against the Muslims. It is not a general command to attack all non-Muslims, and it has never signified this to the overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout history. Had it been so, then every year, after the “sacred months are past,” (The “sacred months” are four months out of the year during which fighting is not allowed) history would have witnessed Muslims attacking every non-Muslim in sight. This yearly slaughter never occurred. Though the present verse is only one example,
none of the Quranic verses that mention fighting justify aggression nor propose attacking anyone because of their religious beliefs. Nor were forced conversions recognized as valid under Islamic law.
‘The fundamental Quranic principle is that fighting is allowed only in self-defense, and it is only against those who actively fight against you. Indeed, Islam is a religion that seeks to maximize peace and reconciliation. Yet, Islam is not a pacifist religion; it does accept the premise that, from time to time and as a last resort, arms must be taken up in a just war.
‘If the enemy inclines toward peace, however,
Muslims must follow suit: “But if they stop, God is most forgiving, most merciful” (2:192). Also read: “Now if they incline toward peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing” (8:61).'
Comment:
Verse 9:5 is the so-called ‘Sword Verse’ (an ironic title, since the word ‘sword’ does not occur in the Qur’an).
Since the tenth century certain Islamic scholars have claimed that this verse abrogated many Qur’anic verses, including all those that permit Muslims to deal fairly towards non-Muslims, and to live peacefully with them.
Salah Al-Ansari and Usama Hasan write:
‘The Shafi’i school; certain Hanbali jurists; and Ibn Hazm argued that Muslims are permitted to initiate war against unbelievers if they refuse to accept Islam or surrender to Muslim rule by paying the poll-tax (jizyah).
‘The majority of the jurists, including Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim, criticized Shāfi‛ī’s claim that the Qur’ānic texts 9:5 and 9:29 abrogated all other Islamic texts on war. Ibn Taymiyya based his criticism on textual and rational arguments. He stated that the abrogation of a passage can only take place when there is text to support the claim, and as long as there is no evidence to suggest that passages 9:5 and 9:29 abrogated Qur’an 2:190, it cannot be deemed to be true. This is further supported by the view of Umar b. 'Abd al‘Aziz and Ikrima. Rationally, Ibn Taymiyya argued that Qur’an 2:190 advocated an everlasting Qur’anic principle regarding the prohibition of performing acts of injustice and aggression, and these meanings cannot be claimed to be abrogated.’ (‘Tackling Terror – A Response to Takfiri Terrorist Theology’).
This is not the place to discuss the topic of abrogation itself; but it
is necessary to highlight the fundamental problems that arise when applying this concept to verse 5.
Are we to believe that verse 5 has abrogated the verses that came immediately before it, and the ones that came immediately after it? Utter twaddle!
Louay Fatoohi writes:
‘Muslims were commanded to forgive the polytheists, live with them in peace if the latter honored peace, and forgive and consider them brothers if they convert to Islam (9.11). God then emphasizes that the aim of fighting the heads of disbelief is to make them desist and establish peace (9.12).
‘Finally, verse 9.13 urges the Muslims to fight aggression, reminding them of the background of the conflict with the disbelievers. First, it was the polytheists who broke the treaty they had with the Muslims. Second, like the Meccans who forced the Prophet to immigrate to Medina, the polytheists were trying to expel him from Medina. Third, it was the polytheists who attacked the Muslims first.’ (‘Abrogation in the Qur'an and Islamic Law’).
Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) says this: ‘Any revelation We cause to be superseded…..We replace with something better or similar. Do you (Prophet) not know that Allāh has power over everything?’ (Al-Baqara 106).
Those who argue that Al-Tawba 5 has abrogated all verses that require Muslims to refrain from aggressive violence (terrorism), and to live peacefully with those who live peacefully with them, must answer the question: In what way is murder better than co-operation; war better than peace; love better than hate?
The article continues:
‘How then do we explain the early spread of Islam through military conquest? In the two decades following the death of Muhammad, Muslim armies challenged and largely overcame the world’s two greatest powers, the Persian and Byzantine empires.
Were these conquests truly justifiable according to the Quranic principles outlined above? It is a complex question and not one to be readily answered within the limits of a blog post such as this.’
Comment: It is my belief that these conquests were not ‘truly justifiable according to Quranic principles’, since the Qur’an forbids aggressive warfare. Only defensive warfare is permissible; and only then according to well defined constraints.
