Fighting in Islam

dybmh said:

OK, first of all, you sent me to read verses 38-72, now you're quoting verse 29.

Click to expand...

You missed some of post 15. Here's how I broke surah 9 down for you so you would understand the chronology:

Surah 9 is not internally compiled in chronological order. According to Islamic scholar and author, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, this surah contains three sections. The first verses chronologically (38-72) deal with Mohamed's preparations for the expedition to Tabuk, where he expected to battle Byzantine forces. The second section (73-129) was revealed after his return, with the third (1-37) coming at the time of the second Hajj.

At this point, I'll read whatever verses in whatever order you choose. Just tell me how. I'm looking for Qur'an quotes to support the idea of Islamic empire building. Directives to expand militarily. I see verse 29, I see your chosen translation. It's a little difficult for me to attribute this to support empire building.

Click to expand...

It's telling Muslims to fight until "those who believe not in Allah" surrender. That to me (and obviously to Mohamed) sounds like empire building.

But maybe you're right. If so, you have one verse.

Click to expand...

No, there are more. I just chose the one that was the most obvious. I still think it is. However, the entire 6,236-verse evolution of the Qur'an has to be taken in to see the transition. It's no small task.

Second, what you're providing is evidence of values that, as you say, are ingrained into Islam. But that's not the topic of the OP. The topic was "... the Quran perscribes ...". If Muhammad lead the charge and conquered, that's sunnah not Quran.

Click to expand...

No. It's Qur'an. Mohamed ordered and took part in several raids, and some of it appears in the Qur'an. That's not my opinion - it's accepted fact.

If your claim is, the sunnah of Muhammad brings an aggressive influence into Islam, I probably wouldn't be debating with you right now. Sunnah. Not Qur'an.

Click to expand...

There are several references in the Qur'an to battles fought. I will compile some for you. It's something I've been meaning to do anyway.[/quote]

stevecanuck said:

Several posters in RF have repeated the oft-stated claim that the Qur'an only prescribes fighting in self defense. However, nobody has offered a plausible explanation for the creation of the Islamic Empire. So, yet again I ask what self defense imperative caused a Muslim army to be (for example) in Tours, France in 732?

Click to expand...

Hi stevecanuck. If at the Battle of Tours, also called Battle of Poitiers, (October 732), victory wasn't won by Charles Martel, Europe may have been Muslim. I don't consider Islam to be a peaceful religion and I suspect people will find out that for themselves as we approach the end of the age. Not all religions are the same. The Bible is inspired by Yahweh, and His Holy Spirit. Can that be said of other so called sacred texts and literature?

@dybmh

I have a busy day, so I'll just offer this for now. It's from my summary of the Qur'an:

Surah 8's 75 verses are revealed after the Battle of Badr, which, as previously stated, was the first major battle between the Muslims and the Meccan pagans. Although this surah is entitled "The spoils of war", only four verses are actually dedicated to that topic. The rest of the surah is part recap of the battle, and part call to arms in a general and on-going sense, both of which create a whole meant to rouse the believers to continued fighting

(The impression I get from this surah is IMO. Quibbles are welcomed.)

stevecanuck said:

It's telling Muslims to fight until "those who believe not in Allah" surrender..

Click to expand...

Yes .. and if the disbelievers had not persecuted and attacked them in the first place, there would have been no fight.

It takes two to tango. One can go on about "who started it", and point the finger at Muslims .. and God knows best.
All you are doing is stirring up enmity. It seems you like picking fights.

muhammad_isa said:

Yes .. and if the disbelievers had not persecuted and attacked them in the first place, there would have been no fight.

Click to expand...

Nope. That's rewriting history. The Meccans had 12 years to kill Mohamed, but they didn't. His story that he had to flee Mecca for his life is his word, and nothing more. The first arrow in the war with Mecca was fired by a Muslim named Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas when his party was sent by Mohamed to raid a caravan (although the raid was eventually called off).

It takes two to tango. One can go on about "who started it", and point the finger at Muslims .. and God knows best.
All you are doing is stirring up enmity. It seems you like picking fights.

Click to expand...

Too funny. "Who started it" is the most telling fact of all.

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me why Muslim armies set out on massive campaigns of conquest if they're only supposed to fight in self defense.

@dybmh

Verse 8:39 is another that suggests on-going fighting to establish world-wide Islamic rule. Here are the seven translations from corpus.quran.com:

Sahih International: And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

Pickthall: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.

Yusuf Ali: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

Shakir: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

Muhammad Sarwar: Fight them so that idolatry will not exist any more and God's religion will stand supreme. If theygive up the idols), God will be Well Aware of what they do.

Mohsin Khan: And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

Arberry: Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely; then if they give over, surely God sees the things they do;

Did you notice the implication here? "Persecution" (fitnah) versus religion being "all for Allah" are described as a dichotomy. Mohsin Khan frequently adds his own take on what Allah really meant, and in this case he thinks anything other than Islam qualifies as 'fitnah'.

stevecanuck said:

Too funny. "Who started it" is the most telling fact of all..

Click to expand...

I don't find it funny..
Wars have occurred throughout history, for all sorts of reasons.

Allah does not love the mischief makers. Those that encourage enmity.
That is what you do, by your cherry-picking and taking verses out of context.

Messianic Israelite said:

Hi stevecanuck. If at the Battle of Tours, also called Battle of Poitiers, (October 732), victory wasn't won by Charles Martel, Europe may have been Muslim. I don't consider Islam to be a peaceful religion and I suspect people will find out that for themselves as we approach the end of the age. Not all religions are the same. The Bible is inspired by Yahweh, and His Holy Spirit. Can that be said of other so called sacred texts and literature?

Click to expand...

It is said of EVERY religious scripture that it comes from the god(s) those scripture are about, one way or the other.

I am not aware of any scripture of which it is said that it is just the ramblings of a puny mortal human without any supernatural / divine "inspiration" at least.

Under what rock have you been living?

stevecanuck said:

Several posters in RF have repeated the oft-stated claim that the Qur'an only prescribes fighting in self defense. However, nobody has offered a plausible explanation for the creation of the Islamic Empire. So, yet again I ask what self defense imperative caused a Muslim army to be (for example) in Tours, France in 732?

Click to expand...

It was not based on true Islam. It was mis-application of the Quran.

stevecanuck said:

Several posters in RF have repeated the oft-stated claim that the Qur'an only prescribes fighting in self defense. However, nobody has offered a plausible explanation for the creation of the Islamic Empire. So, yet again I ask what self defense imperative caused a Muslim army to be (for example) in Tours, France in 732?

Click to expand...

It’s very simple. People don’t always obey the law. Thou shalt not kill is a commandment but we have had so many religious wars involving Christians. It’s the same with Islam. The Quran only permits defense if attacked first (2:190) but Muslims, like Christians, drifted away from their scriptures.

The fault is not with the scriptures but the disobedience of the followers is to blame.

The Holy Books are very clear about premeditated murder it is forbidden and a sin. The Umayyads and Abbasids who went on conquering adventures did so against the specific laws of the Quran.

InvestigateTruth said:

It was not based on true Islam. It was mis-application of the Quran.

Click to expand...

True, there is nothing in the Qur'an that advocates a war of conquest.

stevecanuck said:

Several posters in RF have repeated the oft-stated claim that the Qur'an only prescribes fighting in self defense. However, nobody has offered a plausible explanation for the creation of the Islamic Empire. So, yet again I ask what self defense imperative caused a Muslim army to be (for example) in Tours, France in 732?

Click to expand...

I assume part two of this series explores the Fourth Crusade, right?

People do things. Some of those things are informed by their religion, some are done in spite of their religion. I don't see Islam as a 'religion of peace', but there's pretty strong evidence that dominant cultures and civilizations expand regardless of religion.

muhammad_isa said:

I don't find it funny..
Wars have occurred throughout history, for all sorts of reasons.

Allah does not love the mischief makers. Those that encourage enmity.
That is what you do, by your cherry-picking and taking verses out of context.

Click to expand...

The underlined are the final refuge of those who have no argument.

InvestigateTruth said:

It was not based on true Islam. It was mis-application of the Quran.

Click to expand...

If you believe that, then you have to admit that Allah failed spectacularly in his attempt to communicate with mankind. You're suggesting that a perfect god spent 22 years and 6,236 verses trying to educate us, and the first thing we do is misapply what we were just told. Really? Can you not see how absurd that is? Allah would have to have been utterly clueless to mistake the cognitive abilities of a being that HE created in order for that to be the case. Again - utterly absurd.

loverofhumanity said:

It’s very simple. People don’t always obey the law. Thou shalt not kill is a commandment but we have had so many religious wars involving Christians. It’s the same with Islam. The Quran only permits defense if attacked first (2:190) but Muslims, like Christians, drifted away from their scriptures.

The fault is not with the scriptures but the disobedience of the followers is to blame.

The Holy Books are very clear about premeditated murder it is forbidden and a sin. The Umayyads and Abbasids who went on conquering adventures did so against the specific laws of the Quran.

Click to expand...

Verse 2:190? Ok, now read 2:191.

For Mohamed to order military action "in the cause of God", he was faced with being able to claim that a clearly offensive strike would be justified and in compliance with God's wishes. The Qur'an would therefore have to supply him with two revelations that were not so much as hinted at in all 86 Meccan surahs - a direct command to fight, and moral justification for taking lives. To that end, the following two verses were conveniently revealed:

- 190 "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors".
- 191 "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression (fitnah) are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith".

Verse 190 provided the order to fight, but only in self defense, which by itself did not justify an attack against the pagans as there is no indication in the Qur'an that any Muslims had been killed. Therefore, Mohamed could not accuse them of being "those who fight you". He immediately solved that problem in 191 by providing a work-around that moves the goal posts in such a vague and open-end manner as to designate virtually any unbeliever an enemy. It breaks down as follows:

- "And slay them wherever ye catch them" removed any doubt that blood-letting had been introduced to Islam.
- "and turn them out from where they have turned you out" is a clear reference to Mohamed's claim that he was forced to flee Mecca.
- "for tumult and oppression (fitnah) are worse than slaughter" introduced 'fitnah' as a catch-all crime against Islam that, in the space of one verse, effectively dropped self defense to second place as a reason to make war.

Truthseeker said:

True, there is nothing in the Qur'an that advocates a war of conquest.

Click to expand...

9:5, 9:29, 9:111. Surah 8. Start there.

stevecanuck said:

The underlined are the final refuge of those who have no argument.

Click to expand...

..but do I need a sophisticated argument to counter your views?
It is really not worth my while engaging in throwing verses at each other.
That is what many Christians do with the Bible here on this site.

I am the Muslim, and not you. I believe that the Qur'an is true.
When I read the whole of it, I see that Allah SWT encourages righteousness, and NOT warfare for worldly gain.

If you claim that the Qur'an is made up by men, then it is no surprise that you would argue against it. That is your choice.

stevecanuck said:

@dybmh

Verse 8:39 is another that suggests on-going fighting to establish world-wide Islamic rule. Here are the seven translations from corpus.quran.com:

Sahih International: And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

Pickthall: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.

Yusuf Ali: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

Shakir: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

Muhammad Sarwar: Fight them so that idolatry will not exist any more and God's religion will stand supreme. If theygive up the idols), God will be Well Aware of what they do.

Mohsin Khan: And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

Arberry: Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely; then if they give over, surely God sees the things they do;

Did you notice the implication here? "Persecution" (fitnah) versus religion being "all for Allah" are described as a dichotomy. Mohsin Khan frequently adds his own take on what Allah really meant, and in this case he thinks anything other than Islam qualifies as 'fitnah'.

Click to expand...

OK, thanks. I read a good chunk of the surrounding verses and I can't fault your reasoning here.

stevecanuck said:

If you believe that, then you have to admit that Allah failed spectacularly in his attempt to communicate with mankind. You're suggesting that a perfect god spent 22 years and 6,236 verses trying to educate us, and the first thing we do is misapply what we were just told. Really? Can you not see how absurd that is? Allah would have to have been utterly clueless to mistake the cognitive abilities of a being that HE created in order for that to be the case. Again - utterly absurd.

Click to expand...

There is other possibilities:

Some Muslims misinterpreted the Quran, because they followed their own wishes, rather than what actually Quran says. In other words, they interpreted the Quran the way they want.
Some other Muslims, were not really believers in their heart, but rather they pretended to be believers because they could then use religion to control and conquer.
Then there are Muslims who believe and also know its interpretation but they did not act on it practically.

muhammad_isa said:

I see that Allah SWT encourages righteousness, and NOT warfare for worldly gain.

Click to expand...

Or not. Verse 8:41 (from the surah entitled 'Spoils of War') says, "And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it".

How is that not "worldly gain"?