Fighting in Islam

[dybmh]

If I remember correctly, this is in regard to the siege of Mecca. It's telling Muslims to leave alone those in the city who do not try to repel the would-be conquerors. There's no peace in that - only sweeping in, taking over, and not killing those who didn't resist. Hitler didn't kill all the Parisians when he swept into Paris.

The point is, they are not to be harmed even if they are disbelievers. All they have to do is offer peace and leave them alone. This is in stark contrast to the allegation that anyone who disbelieves is "fighting". Not according to 4:36.

 

[stevecanuck]

The point is, they are not to be harmed even if they are disbelievers. All they have to do is offer peace and leave them alone. This is in stark contrast to the allegation that anyone who disbelieves is "fighting". Not according to 4:36.

They will not be "left alone". They will simply not be killed. They will have to agree to live under Islamic rule as second-class citizens. This is exactly what 9:29 describes. Again I give you the example of Paris under the Nazis. They weren't killed either, but they lost all their rights, just as the people of Mecca did after Mohamed conquered the city.

 

[loverofhumanity]

LOL!

So, Allah spent all that time and effort to create Islam only for this prime audience to IMMEDIATELY get it wrong????? You are too funny.

Sadly the failure is always ours due to freedom of choice. God offers us guidance but then it’s up to us whether to follow it or not. Baha’u’llah appeared and appealed for the world leaders to unite but instead they chose to have a couple of world wars and perhaps another one. If we’re silly enough to massacre ourselves instead of coming together and establishing a lasting peace then that’s the bed we make and must sleep in. Our destiny is in the palm of our own hands. The patient has been offered the remedy by the All Knowing Physician but refused it. So the sickness of disunity worsens.

 

[stevecanuck]

Sadly the failure is always ours due to freedom of choice. God offers us guidance but then it’s up to us whether to follow it or not. Baha’u’llah appeared and appealed for the world leaders to unite but instead they chose to have a couple of world wars and perhaps another one. If we’re silly enough to massacre ourselves instead of coming together and establishing a lasting peace then that’s the bed we make and must sleep in. Our destiny is in the palm of our own hands. The patient has been offered the remedy by the All Knowing Physician but refused it. So the sickness of disunity worsens.

Right. God is too incompetent to figure out how to stop his own creation from killing each other. Enjoy your fantasy world while you have the last word. Bye.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Right. God is too incompetent to figure out how to stop his own creation from killing each other. Enjoy your fantasy world while you have the last word. Bye.

Fantasy world? We are living in a fantasy world right now made by our imaginations. The real world knows no limitations or borders or boundaries. It’s not Russians fighting Ukrainians but human beings killing other humans while human beings watch on. In the real world there is no such thing as an American or Chinese or Korean. These are imaginations we create to divide us from one another. These barriers we erect in our mind is the fantasy world that we live in now.

Baha’u’llah has come to eliminate these restrictive barriers and imaginary borders so we can see all humanity as one people which is the true reality. When we can destroy these imaginary barriers in our minds we can accept all humans as citizens of one homeland the earth. The earth has no borders. We erected all these divisive barriers that are in our imagination but do not really exist.

Baha’u’llah has come to bring us back to reality from the imaginary world we have created.

 

[dybmh]

They will not be "left alone". They will simply not be killed. They will have to agree to live under Islamic rule as second-class citizens. This is exactly what 9:29 describes. Again I give you the example of Paris under the Nazis. They weren't killed either, but they lost all their rights, just as the people of Mecca did after Mohamed conquered the city.

Can we agree that they cannot be harmed regardless of their belief or disbelief per 4:36. If they break treaties, become hostile, if they refuse to submit to the tax, or whatever else, we can discuss that later. The point is, they are not harmed regardless of their disbelief. Disbelief is not a death sentence.

 

[stevecanuck]

Can we agree that they cannot be harmed regardless of their belief or disbelief per 4:36. If they break treaties, become hostile, if they refuse to submit to the tax, or whatever else, we can discuss that later. The point is, they are not harmed regardless of their disbelief. Disbelief is not a death sentence.

I answered this in 102.

 

[stevecanuck]

@dybmh, here's a website with about 60 translations of the qur'an: IslamAwakened

 

[dybmh]

@dybmh, here's a website with about 60 translations of the qur'an: IslamAwakened

Btw, this isn't as good as corpus quran, at least on 4:90. It only has 3 translations. Corpus Quran has 7.

I answered this in 102.

But your answer doesn't make sense. The verse I'd like to focus on is 4:90.

Sahih International: Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

Notice: the "cause against them" has not been made.​

Pickthall: Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them.

If they do not wage war against you...
​

Yusuf Ali: Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

Same basic idea. If the disbeliever withdraws and sends peace...​

Shakir: Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.

Same as above. Withdrawl+Offer peace = no "way" against them
​

Muhammad Sarwar: except with those who attach themselves to your allies or come to you with no desire to fight you or their own people. God could have given them power to fight you. Thus, if they retreat, stop fighting and come forward expressing faith in Islam God will not allow you to fight them.

This one is interesting. "expressing faith in Islam" is not at all in the text. And it's the minority opinion. Also note: the word for fighting here is not a derivation of fitnah.​

Mohsin Khan: Except those who join a group, between you and whom there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with their breasts restraining from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. Had Allah willed, indeed He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them.

Same as the concensus: withdrawl + peace = no "way" against them​

Arberry: except those that betake themselves to a people who are joined with you by a compact, or come to you with breasts constricted from fighting with you or fighting their people. Had God willed, He would have given them authority over you, and then certainly they would have fought you. If they withdraw from you, and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God assigns not any way to you against them.

Same as the concensus.​

Here's from the IslamAwakened website:

Muhammad Asad: unless it be such [of them] as have ties with people to whom you yourselves are bound by a covenant, or such as come unto you because their hearts shrink from [the thought of] making war either on you or on their own folk - although, if God had willed to make them stronger than you, they would certainly have made war on you. Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them

Concensus opinion
​

The Clear Quran, Dr. Mustafa Khattab: except those who are allies of a people you are bound with in a treaty or those wholeheartedly opposed to fighting either you or their own people. If Allah had willed, He would have empowered them to fight you. So if they refrain from fighting you and offer you peace, then Allah does not permit you to harm them.

Concensus opinion
​

Safi Kaskas: Some seek refuge with people with whom you are bound by a treaty, or they come over to you because their consciences forbid them to go to war against you or against their own people. Had God willed, He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.

Concensus opinion
​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok. So there you have a bunch of translations. All of them ( except for one ) are saying the same thing. If the disbeliever does 3 things: Withdraw, no hostility, and offer peace, then Allah does not will them to fight and there no harm is done to them.

That's it. Attacking a disbeliever if they do those three things is against the will of Allah. The status of their belief is irrelevent. It's their actions that protect them.

Done.

Now, you've been pointing back to 9:29, so is there a strong connection to that verse? Or is it a minority opinion, like I've been saying?

 

[stevecanuck]

Btw, this isn't as good as corpus quran, at least on 4:90. It only has 3 translations. Corpus Quran has 7.

Scroll down to see the rest.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok. So there you have a bunch of translations. All of them ( except for one ) are saying the same thing. If the disbeliever does 3 things: Withdraw, no hostility, and offer peace, then Allah does not will them to fight and there no harm is done to them.

You keep saying the same thing regardless of my explanations. So, once more:

- This was 'revealed' at the time that Mohamed was laying siege to Mecca (attacking the pagans to take over the city and the kaaba - precisely because of their beliefs, btw).
- There were Meccans who didn't want to fight, so they approached Mohamed to beg to be excluded from any slaughter in exchange for not offering any resistance.
- This suited Mohamed just fine, so he agreed.
- The siege was successful and largely bloodless because the Meccans folded without a fight.
- They then came under Islamic rule. Mohamed had conquered his first city and ruled accordingly.
- As long as conquered people do as they're told, they are not harmed - merely oppressed in terms of losing they're religious freedom.

That's it. Attacking a disbeliever if they do those three things is against the will of Allah. The status of their belief is irrelevent. It's their actions that protect them.

Yet Mohamed oversaw the execution of hundreds of Banu Quraiza men and youth after they had surrendered without a fight. The excuses that Islamopropagandist give as justification aside.

Done.

Now, you've been pointing back to 9:29, so is there a strong connection to that verse? Or is it a minority opinion, like I've been saying?

Just read it. It's self-explanatory.

 

[dybmh]

Scroll down to see the rest.

OOPS. Thanks.

I scrolled through them all, and still, only 1 translation out of ( you said ) 60 supports your claims about the treatment of disbelievers as always fighting.

It appears to be a super-duper minority opinion.

You keep saying the same thing regardless of my explanations. So, once more:

- This was 'revealed' at the time that Mohamed was laying siege to Mecca (attacking the pagans to take over the city and the kaaba - precisely because of their beliefs, btw).
- There were Meccans who didn't want to fight, so they approached Mohamed to beg to be excluded from any slaughter in exchange for not offering any resistance.
- This suited Mohamed just fine, so he agreed.
- The siege was successful and largely bloodless because the Meccans folded without a fight.
- They then came under Islamic rule. Mohamed had conquered his first city and ruled accordingly.
- As long as conquered people do as they're told, they are not harmed - merely oppressed in terms of losing they're religious freedom.

This is history, we are discussing what is written. If you want to discuss sunnah, that's another topic and you may be right. If Muhammad did what you say, he was not following Qur'an 4:90. Can we agree to that?

Just read it. It's self-explanatory.

Here's 9:29 ( From Muhammad Sarwar, you've used his translation in this thread already )

Fight against those People of the Book who have no faith in God or the Day of Judgment, who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not believe in the true religion, until they humbly pay tax with their own hands

The condition here is "pay a tax". Their disbelief is irrelevant.
​

 

[stevecanuck]

OOPS. Thanks.

I scrolled through them all, and still, only 1 translation out of ( you said ) 60 supports your claims about the treatment of disbelievers as always fighting

I'm not making that claim, as I've said several times.

 

[stevecanuck]

This is history, we are discussing what is written. If you want to discuss sunnah, that's another topic and you may be right. If Muhammad did what you say, he was not following Qur'an 4:90. Can we agree to that?

No. Verse 4:90 is speaking specifically of those who seek out Mohamed ("Those who come to you") for the purposes of begging for their safety in exchange for not opposing his campaign of conquests.

Here's 9:29 ( From Muhammad Sarwar, you've used his translation in this thread already )

Fight against those People of the Book who have no faith in God or the Day of Judgment, who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not believe in the true religion, until they humbly pay tax with their own hands

The condition here is "pay a tax". Their disbelief is irrelevant.
​

Please read it again. Their faith ("the people of the book"), and their belief, or lack thereof ("who have no faith in God or the Day of Judgment, who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not believe in the true religion") is the criteria given to attack them. Surrendering to live under Islamic rule and paying the tax is given as the desired outcome.

 

[dybmh]

No. Verse 4:90 is speaking specifically of those who seek out Mohamed ("Those who come to you") for the purposes of begging for their safety in exchange for not opposing his campaign of conquests.

Why isn't the subject the hypocrites from 4:88?
'You' cannot be Muhammad, because that wouldn't fit with 4:89.

Here it is: Muhammad Sarwar:

They wish you to become unbelievers as they themselves are. Do not establish friendship with them until they have abandoned their homes for the cause of God. If they betray you, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. Do not establish friendship with them or seek their help
​

Here it is with Muhammad as 'you':

They wish Muhammad to become unbelievers as they themselves are. Do not establish friendship with them until they have abandoned their homes for the cause of God. If they betray you, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. Do not establish friendship with them or seek their help
​

Does that make sense? Muhammad to become disbelievers, plural?. Even if the plural is ignored, the inhabitants want Muhammad to become a disbeliever?

So if it's not Muhammad, then the 'you' are the believers, and the 'they' are the hypocrites ( disbelievers) from 4:88.

​

 

[dybmh]

Please read it again.

Fight ( against those People of the Book who have no faith in God or the Day of Judgment, who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not believe in the true religion,)
until ( they humbly pay tax with their own hands ).

Fight against who:

1. People of the book
2. have no faith in God
3. have no faith in the Day of Judgement
4. do not consider unlawful what is unlawful to God and Muhammad
5. do not believe in true religion

Until:

1. humbly pay the tax in person

That's the verse, per one of your approved translators.

Their faith ("the people of the book"), and their belief, or lack thereof ("who have no faith in God or the Day of Judgment, who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not believe in the true religion") is the criteria given to attack them.

... UNTIL they pay the tax. Their disbelief is irrelevant. Yes, it's unfair to make them pay. We can agree there.

Surrendering to live under Islamic rule and paying the tax is given as the desired outcome.

Yes. But their disbelief is irrelevant. It's unfair to make them surrender, we can agree there. But no one is harmed if they surrender, and pay the tax. Their disbelief is not considered "hostility" or "fighting".

 

[stevecanuck]

@dybmh

Old business: You asked for examples of the Qur'an using 'jihad' and 'qatl' interchangeably and I provided them. Did they satisfy your request?

 

[dybmh]

@dybmh

Old business: You asked for examples of the Qur'an using 'jihad' and 'qatl' interchangeably and I provided them. Did they satisfy your request?

Apologies, I haven't looked at it. I'll go find it and let you know.

 

[dybmh]

using 'jihad' and 'qatl' interchangeably

Kindly would you restate your position on this? What does it mean that they are used interchangeably?

 

[stevecanuck]

Kindly would you restate your position on this? What does it mean that they are used interchangeably?

I don't see how it's not obvious. It shows how 'jihad' is clearly used in the context of fighting infidels, therefore negating the concept that 'jihad' is only used in terms of the so-called "greater jihad".

Some of your responses are baffling. I'm not convinced anymore that you're here in good faith.

 

[dybmh]

I don't see how it's not obvious. It shows how 'jihad' is clearly used in the context of fighting infidels, therefore negating the concept that 'jihad' is only used in terms of the so-called "greater jihad".

Some of your responses are baffling. I'm not convinced anymore that you're here in good faith.

I'm doing my best. We've been discussing something else. Now we're going to focus on this. Your patience is appreciated.