• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Contradiction in the Qur'an.

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
I give up explaining. I do follow sufism as a pasifist.

Well I guess I was looking to see whether you might challenge traditional understandings of what is right or acceptable on this score, and what your basis for that might be (e.g. references to particular verses of the Qur'an, particular Hadith, or the sayings of particular masters, scholars, or teachers).
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I get that your personal inclination and the focus of your belief and practice is pacifist in nature, I'm just wondering how you square that with traditional Islamic law, given that you have said that you do not go against Allah and His Law.

What do you mean by "traditional Islamic law"? Which one? Or do you have a particular combination in mind?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Well I guess I was looking to see whether you might challenge traditional understandings of what is right or acceptable on this score, and what your basis for that might be (e.g. references to particular verses of the Qur'an, particular Hadith, or the sayings of particular masters, scholars, or teachers).

I think you should be specific. Since you spoke of something called "traditional Islamic law", you should know that as a whole, it does not quote "particular hadith" or "particular verses". What you are referring to is something called Ahad which is a negated philosophy in any school of Islamic Fikh.

Also, Islamic law does not rely or bank on "sayings". It may take Fatawa's, but the fatawas should be based on Al Quran wassunnah, and different schools would have two different views on what Sunnah is.

So can you precisely define what you are speaking about?
 

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
What do you mean by "traditional Islamic law"? Which one? Or do you have a particular combination in mind?

Good point. I was wanting to keep an expansive definition of Shariah both as it was originally developed and elaborated during the first centuries of Islam and as it has been elaborated by scholars since then, but without necessarily committing myself to how that relates to God's Actual Law one way or the other for the sake of my discussion with Conscious thoughts.
 

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
I think you should be specific. Since you spoke of something called "traditional Islamic law", you should know that as a whole, it does not quote "particular hadith" or "particular verses". What you are referring to is something called Ahad which is a negated philosophy in any school of Islamic Fikh.

Also, Islamic law does not rely or bank on "sayings". It may take Fatawa's, but the fatawas should be based on Al Quran wassunnah, and different schools would have two different views on what Sunnah is.

So can you precisely define what you are speaking about?

Thank you for the request for clarification. So I agree that such an approach would not be a traditional (or accepted) one according to standard interpretations of Fiqh but it may be that Conscious thoughts is not bound by traditional or standard interpretations in their approach to justifying the basis for their beliefs and practices and I wanted to keep an open mind to that.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Thank you for the request for clarification. So I agree that such an approach would not be a traditional (or accepted) one according to standard interpretations of Fiqh but it may be that Conscious thoughts is not bound by traditional or standard interpretations in their approach to justifying the basis for their beliefs and practices and I wanted to keep an open mind to that.

If I comment, it will sound condescending. See, Sufism is a very very traditional arm of very traditional Islam. Just the name is new. Even with this name there were many who developed very traditional and orthodox Sunni type of mainstream Islamic thought. Though Imam Gazzali is said to be a Polymath, that itself could be a Sunni apologetic. He was Sufi. Sufism does not mean they are all about the mystical elements and the love. Sufism is highly political, highly scientific, highly rational and extremely Sunni if the definition is based on Ahle Sunnah.

Conscious thoughts is a fantastic guy. He is not learned. So when I say that, one may say its condescending. But I say this since you brought this up.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
I never said that was necessary.

Then do you agree that Muslim armies that created the Islamic Empire engaged in offensive (in both senses of the word) actions?



God revealed the Qur'an as the Ultimate Guide-Book, but has nevertheless given us free will and will reward or punish us in accordance with what we believe and how we act in this world.

Muhammad (pbuh) was only a man. He is not responsible for the actions of other Muslims.

Of course he is. As the "perfect exemplar" of being a Muslim, he had the Banu Quraiza (and other) tribes wiped out or thoroughly subjugated. It was this example that subsequent Muslims were trying to copy.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Im sorry I cannot recall what ever the previous interaction was. But I would like to focus on this particular thing.

You quoted a verse here, and that's what I responded to in this particular case.

1. In this Surah, who exactly is it talking about and why is this "fighting" prescribed?
2. Which particular group are you supposed to quarrel with if any?

Any one who has read the Surah, just the plain text would tell you these two things.

Tell ya what. I summarized the qur'an in chronological order. Below is what I wrote about surah 9. It should tell you everything you need to know about how I saw it. Enjoy:

Surah 9, the penultimate chapter, is next. It is not internally compiled in chronological order, but I am going to summarize it as though it were. Therefore, I will be starting with verse 38. 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.

Again Mohamed found himself having to rouse the reluctant bedouins (hypocrites) to risk their lives for "the cause of God". Justification for attacking the Byzantines is a matter of debate that would only distract from this summary, so I will leave that discussion for another time. It is enough for now to know that Mohamed's plan to fight the Byzantines is the context for these verses:
- 38-39 indicate that Mohamed had gained little ground in convincing the bedouins to fight, but that he was still willing to refer to them as believers in the hope of coaxing them into joining the impending battle, "You who believe, what is the matter with you, that, when you are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, you cling heavily to the earth?". (This is another example in which "go forth in the cause of God" is clearly used to describe fighting.) The established pattern of following cajoling with threats is shown here, "Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? ... If you do not march for His cause, He will afflict you with a painful punishment and replace you by another nation". Again we see where a specific circumstance yielded a statement (underlined) of universal applicability.
- 41 provides another irrefutable link between fighting and the word 'jihad' as it refers to being armed, and because it was revealed in the context of fighting the Byzantines, "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive [jihad] with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah".
- 42 Accuses the hypocrites of only being interested in easy spoils, "Had it been an easy gain and a moderate trip, the hypocrites would have followed you, but distant to them was the journey".
- 43 is the first half of another blatant contradiction, "May Allah pardon you [Mohamed]. Why did you give them [hypocrites] permission to remain behind?". The Qur'an then refutes itself in verse 46 by claiming it was God, not Mohamed, who allowed them to stay behind, "Allah disliked their being sent [because of their obvious lack of preparation], so He kept them back".
- 44-45 again use 'jihad' to describe fighting, and calls those who refuse to fight disbelievers, "Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask permission of you to be excused from striving [jihad] with their wealth and their lives ... They only ask leave of you [to be excused from fighting] who do not believe in Allah and the latter day".
- 47-48 explain why God (or Mohamed?) held them back, "Had they marched out with you, they would have added to you nothing except disorder ... Indeed they had plotted sedition [fitnah] before".
- 49 quotes the hypocrites begging God to "Grant me leave [to be exempted from Jihad] and put me not into trial", then goes on to tell them that not only is it too late for forgiveness, but that they have lost their status as 'believers', and are now considered to be among 'al kafarina' (disbelievers), "Surely, they have fallen into trial. And verily, Hell is surrounding the disbelievers".
- 50 is another nail in the spiritual coffin of the hypocrites, "If good befalls thee [Mohamed and the Muslims], it grieves them; but if a misfortune befalls thee, they say, 'We took indeed our precautions before', and they turn away rejoicing".

God's frustration with the hypocrites comes to a head in verse 52, as He threatens them with violence because of their refusal to fight and die for Him, "Say [to the hypocrites, Mohamed], 'Are you waiting for us [Muslims] to achieve one of the two rewards most fair [victory or martyrdom]? We are awaiting in your case too, for God to visit you with chastisement. from Him, or at our hands; so await; we are awaiting with you'".

Anyone who thinks God might be done lecturing the hypocrites has not been paying attention. In fact, the next 18 verses are dedicated to listing their short-comings. I see no point in quoting each one, but suffice it says they are called liars, abusers, cowards, ungrateful, mockers, deniers of the truth, devoid of all virtue, apostates, greedy for charity, and of course, bound for the fires of Hell.

Verses 71-72 end this series by reminding the faithful that God has not forgotten about them:
- 71 "The Believers, men and women, are protectors of each other: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger".
- 72 "Allah has promised the believing men and believing women gardens beneath which rivers flow".

continued ...
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
At this point, Mohamed had returned from Tabuk without so much as seeing the Byzantines, let alone fighting them. However, that did not diminish his desire to make war:
- 73 "O Prophet! Strive [jihidi] against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh against them". Sahih International and Muhammad Sarwar continue to demonstrate the interchangeability of 'jihad' and 'qatl' by translating this conjugation of 'jihad' as 'fight'.

Also left intact was his passion for berating the bedouin hypocrites. Although they had repeatedly been labeled as liars and unbelievers beyond redemption, much of the remainder of this surah is dedicated to having another go at them. The usual complaints of lying, apostasy, and greed, along with promises of damnation are dredged up, and again I am going to avoid the boring redundancy of quoting many of them.

Verses that are worth a closer look relate to the one issue that Mohamed obviously sees as their greatest sin, which is a reluctance to fight. In the later years, this obsession with judging Muslims by their willingness to fight had become a major component in the evolution of Islam:
- 81 "they hated to strive and fight with their properties and their lives in the Cause of Allah".
- 83 "You shall never go out with me nor fight with me against a foe. You were content with sitting still the first time. So sit still, with the useless".
- 86 "And whenever a chapter is revealed, saying: Believe in Allah and strive hard along with His Messenger, they ask permission of you and say: Leave us (behind), that we may be with those who sit".
- 87 "They preferred to be with those who remained behind, and a seal is set on their hearts so they do not understand".
- 88 "But the messenger and those who believe with him strive with their wealth and their lives".
- 90 "And the Bedouins came with their excuses, asking for leave [from fighting]".
- 93 "The blameworthy ones are those who ask for exemption despite their ability and who preferred to stay at home with those who are truly exempt".
- 94 "They will present their excuses to you".

The Qur'an is not merely a history book describing events that mean nothing 1400 years after the fact. Its verses serve as commands, lessons, and examples of what being a Muslim meant back then, and what it still means today, as explained in verses 14:25 and 39:27, "We have put forth for men, in this Qur'an every kind of Parable, in order that they may receive admonition".
Since surah 2, in which the command to fight was first given, perhaps no verse captures the essence of the expectation that God has of His followers more so than 9:111, "Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill and are killed ... Then rejoice in the bargain which you have made". Not only are Muslims expected to fight, but to do so with joy.

The remaining 18 verses offer little new. Their main focus continues to be on the bedouins, and after years of complaints and threats, the command to fight them is finally given:
- 120 "It is not for the people of the City and for the Bedouins who dwell around them to not follow God's Messenger, and to prefer their lives to his".
- 123 "O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you".

In the middle of this call to attack the bedouins is instruction on how to maintain religious studies while making war, "Nor should the Believers all go forth together [to battle]: if a contingent from every expedition remained behind, they could devote themselves to studies in religion, and admonish the people when they return to them (122)".

continued ...
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
This brings us back to the second Hajj and verses 1-37. Their primary function is to determine when and against whom to declare war. They explain that existing treaties with the pagans may be broken if circumstances warrant, but not if they are being honored. In either case, once a treaty is deemed to have expired, the order to attack, after allowing a four month period for the pagans to capitulate without fighting, is given. These verses drop the pretense of initiating hostilities preemptively in self-defense. This is pure aggression:
- 1 "God and His Messenger declare the abrogation of the peace treaty that existed between them and the pagans".
- 2 "So [pagans] go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers".
- 3 "Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and so is His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you".
- 4 "This does not apply to the pagans with whom you have a valid peace treaty and who have not broken it from their side or helped others against you".
- 5 "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them".

Verses 6-16 are little more than a reiteration of the above and previous verses:
- 6 and 11 reconfirm that pagans who wish to convert to Islam will be welcomed.
- 13 is reminiscent of 2:190-191 wherein Muslims were told for the first time that fighting was required of them, and that expelling the prophet and his followers was worse than killing them (whether they actually expelled him or he simply left because they refused to adopt Islam is moot by this point), "What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths [the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah] and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers". The underlined claim is simply not true. As stated earlier, Muslims fired the first arrow and are proud of the fact.
- 14 is another command to kill in the name of Allah, "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people".
- 16 again warns that God notices those who do not fight, "Do you think that you will be left [as you are] while Allah has not yet made evident those among you who strive [for His cause] and do not take other than Allah , His Messenger and the believers as intimates?".
Verses 17-22 begin by banning unbelievers from entering the Kaaba, and then transition into praising Muslims who fight:
- 17-18 were aimed at the pagans of the day, but are expressed in such a way as to permanently prohibit any unbeliever from entering the site of the Kaaba, "It is not for the idolaters to inhabit God's places of worship ... Only he shall visit the mosques of Allah who believes in Allah". To this day non-Muslims are not even allowed into the city of Mecca, let alone near the Kaaba.
- 19 begins the transition by saying, "Do you reckon the giving of water to pilgrims ... to be the same as one who ... struggles in the way of God?".
- 20-22 complete it with, "The ones who have believed, emigrated and striven [fought] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives are greater in rank in the sight of Allah", and are followed by the usual promises of heaven for fighters.

Verses 23-24 repeat that fighting for God is more important than family ties or earthly pursuits, "Believers, do not accept your fathers and brothers as your guardians if they prefer disbelief to faith ... If your [family and possessions] are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command [judgement]. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people". Muhammad Sarwar and Mohsin Khan again assumed the context was obvious enough to translate 'jihad' as 'fight'.
Verses 25-26 continue to rally the troops, "Assuredly Allah did help you in many battle-fields and on the day of [the battle of] Hunain your great numbers elated you, but ... you turned back in retreat ... But Allah did pour His calm on the Messenger and on the Believers, and sent down forces which you did not see [swooping angels]: He punished the Unbelievers; thus does He reward those without Faith". The underlined provides another example of a specific event that yielded a proclamation meant as an enduring lesson.
Verse 28 repeats the command given in 18, "O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque".
Verse 29, in my opinion, is the most problematic passage in the Qur'an as it creates a perpetual state of war between Islam and the rest of the world, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [protection tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued".
This verse brings us back to the intended battle with the Byzantines. During the nearly two-year cessation of hostilities between Muslims and Meccans, Mohamed sent emissaries to the remaining holdouts in Arabia and to the Byzantines and Persians with a message - an 'invitation to Islam' - that gives them the options described in this verse. In Hugh Kennedy's book, The Great Arab Conquests, he described on page 113 terms presented to the leaders of various states and tribes (in this case the Persians) thus:
"If you embrace Islam, we will leave you alone. If you agree to pay the poll tax [jizya], we will protect you if you need our protection. Otherwise, it is war". Kennedy goes on to explain, "These three options were becoming the usual offer in negotiations between the Muslims and their opponents".
The options described by Kennedy are essentially verse 9:29, and they served as the template for subsequent conquests.
Verses 30-37 are a final attack on unbelievers:
- 30 "And the Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say The Messiah is the son of Allah ... may Allah destroy/fight/assail/curse [depending on the translation] them". As an aside, Jews will probably be surprised to hear that they claim Ezra to be the son of God.
- 31 "They have taken as lords besides Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah, son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah".
- 32 "They want to extinguish the light of Allah".
- 33 restates Mohamed's ultimate mission, "It is He Who hath sent [Mohamed] with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion".
- 34 "Many rabbis and monks consume other people's property by false means and create obstacles in the way of God. Those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend for the cause of God, should know that their recompense will be a painful torment".
- 35 "On the Day of Judgment their treasures will be heated by the fire of hell and pressed against their foreheads, sides and back with this remark, 'These are your own treasures which you hoarded for yourselves. See for yourselves what they feel like'".
- 36 "fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively". This ignores the fact that there was no fighting until Mohamed sent raiding parties to attack Mecca's caravans.
- 37 "Their evil deeds seem attractive to them".

In his tafsir of surah 9, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (9. Surah At Taubah (The Repentance) - Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an - The Meaning of the Qur'an), summarizes "the problems that were confronting the [Islamic] Community at that time" thus:

- to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam [abode of Islam],
- to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
- to crush the mischief of the hypocrites, and
- to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.


In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State. As the great Roman and Iranian Empires were the biggest hindrances in the way, a conflict with them was inevitable. The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations [non-Islamic religions] upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State.

In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a' conflict with the whole non-Muslim world. That is why those people who had lagged behind in the Campaign to Tabuk or had shown the least negligence were severely taken to task, and were considered hypocrites if they had no plausible excuse for not fulfilling that obligation. Moreover,
a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim's faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr. Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine. This is a reference to verses 81-96.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Surah 9 was created at the time of Mohamed's expedition to Tabuk. Much of the surah is dedicated to his fruitless efforts to get the Hypocrites to fight alongside him.

Verse 9:43 says, (Mohsin Khan translation): "May Allah forgive you (O Muhammad SAW). Why did you grant them leave (for remaining behind, you should have persisted as regards your order to them to proceed on Jihad), until those who told the truth were seen by you in a clear light, and you had known the liars?".

This leaves no doubt that Allah thought it was Mohamed's fault that the Hypocrites stayed back because he didn't try hard enough to get them to join his army.

Then 9:46 admits that it was actually Allah, not Mohamed, who was responsible for them not joining the fight, "And if they had intended to march out, certainly, they would have made some preparation for it, but Allah was averse to their being sent forth, so He made them lag behind".

This is a clear contradiction. Comments?

You are correct in that according that translation it would be a contradiction. A Better translation "May God clear you (of their accusations and misconceptions) (as to) why did you grant them until... "
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
You are correct in that according that translation it would be a contradiction. A Better translation "May God clear you (of their accusations and misconceptions) (as to) why did you grant them until... "

Thank you for the response, but none of the translators in corpus.quran.com came close to offering your version. They all clearly show that Mohamed gave them permission to stay behind. And, just to make it worse, I think this is another example of Mohamed making verses up as he went along. He tried extremely hard to get the bedouins to fight, but failed. He then covered his tracks with this verse pretending that he "gave them leave" when in fact they simply refused to go. Then, without apparent regard to the contradiction he was creating, changed the story to having Allah hold them back. Sometimes he just couldn't keep his story together, and this is one of those times.:

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

Sahih International: May Allah pardon you, [O Muhammad]; why did you give them permission [to remain behind]? [You should not have] until it was evident to you who were truthful and you knew [who were] the liars.

Pickthall: Allah forgive thee (O Muhammad)! Wherefor didst thou grant them leave ere those who told the truth were manifest to thee and thou didst know the liars?

Yusuf Ali: Allah give thee grace! why didst thou grant them until those who told the truth were seen by thee in a clear light, and thou hadst proved the liars?

Shakir: Allah pardon you! Why did you give them leave until those who spoke the truth had become manifest to you and you had known the liars?

Muhammad Sarwar: May God forgive you! (Muhammad), why did you not let them join the army so that you could discern the liars from the truthful ones?

Mohsin Khan: May Allah forgive you (O Muhammad SAW). Why did you grant them leave (for remaining behind, you should have persisted as regards your order to them to proceed on Jihad), until those who told the truth were seen by you in a clear light, and you had known the liars?

Arberry: God pardon thee! Why gavest thou them leave, till it was clear to thee which of them spoke the truth, and thou knewest the liars?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I know none of the translations has that, but if you look up the word, it can mean to erase/clear, so it can mean that "may God erase/clear regarding you (their accusations) as to why..."
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Even regarding "pardon", the original Arabic, Pardon really means that God would erase/clear you of sins if it was about pardoning his sins, but in this case, it doesn't mean erase/clear him of his sins but erase/clear him of accusations.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
I know none of the translations has that, but if you look up the word, it can mean to erase/clear, so it can mean that "may God erase/clear regarding you (their accusations) as to why..."

Whose accusations? Again, there's nothing to suggest any accusations against Mohamed were made by anyone other than Allah.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Whose accusations? Again, there's nothing to suggest any accusations against Mohamed were made by anyone other than Allah.

By the context, they thought ill of the Prophet over this event, but Quran is explaining God's reasons as to why he was commanded to do that as to make clear distinction between hypocrites and believers.
 

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
Then do you agree that Muslim armies that created the Islamic Empire engaged in offensive (in both senses of the word) actions?

I don't think it makes sense to talk about a single Islamic Empire. In reality, there were many Muslim states and empires throughout history, quite often in conflict with each other. I'm certainly not familiar enough with all of them to be able to comment on the rightness or wrongness of their establishment and maintenance.

Of course he is. As the "perfect exemplar" of being a Muslim, he had the Banu Quraiza (and other) tribes wiped out or thoroughly subjugated. It was this example that subsequent Muslims were trying to copy.

The Banu Qurayza reneged on their treaty with Muhammad (pbuh) and were guilty of treachery. This is not a general example on which to base conquest.
 
It is enough for now to know that Mohamed's plan to fight the Byzantines is the context for these verses:

What is your view on this "context"?

You are arguing this because it is what (many) Muslims believe while not personally accepting its historicity, or that you are arguing this as factual history?
 
Top