ManSinha
Well-Known Member
Where are you getting that from?
-
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!
The Qur'an: Intentions vs. Effects
- Thread starter dybmh
- Start date
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Thank you for this. It's the forced conversions, in addition, to the references in the Qur'an.
I think previously I have stated my opposition to forced conversions, and I think it had already been established that the Qur'an prohibits then as well.
This is an excellent example of the Qur'an's intentions mismatched with the effects.
Thank you, ManSinha, for pointing this out.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@ManSinha ,
I understand that as long as forced conversions continue, a negative opinion of the Qur'an will be natural for many people.
However, I would like to provide an link to a scholarly discussion of the word, Kafir, as further support for my claim that the Qur'an was not intended to instruct Muslims to despise non-Muslims.
Additionally this is why when you asked if you were a Kafir, my answer was, "I vote no".
Excerpt from article:
"...merely being currently a ‘non-Muslim’ or ‘non-believer’ doesn’t mean someone will end up in hell."
"the word ‘Kafir’ to mean all ‘non-believers’ in Islamic revelation is not the same as the English term ‘disbeliever’, since someone who is not a believer in revelation may be sincere and be willing to challenge their society’s assumptions, and search for and accept the truth if they find it."
What is a Kafir? The Confusion in English Regarding the Quranic Use of the Word ‘Kafir’
I understand that as long as forced conversions continue, a negative opinion of the Qur'an will be natural for many people.
However, I would like to provide an link to a scholarly discussion of the word, Kafir, as further support for my claim that the Qur'an was not intended to instruct Muslims to despise non-Muslims.
Additionally this is why when you asked if you were a Kafir, my answer was, "I vote no".
Excerpt from article:
"...merely being currently a ‘non-Muslim’ or ‘non-believer’ doesn’t mean someone will end up in hell."
"the word ‘Kafir’ to mean all ‘non-believers’ in Islamic revelation is not the same as the English term ‘disbeliever’, since someone who is not a believer in revelation may be sincere and be willing to challenge their society’s assumptions, and search for and accept the truth if they find it."
What is a Kafir? The Confusion in English Regarding the Quranic Use of the Word ‘Kafir’
No, it isn’t.
The folk at Islam Q & A acknowledge the prohibition on punishment by burning. No surprises there.
They list the three principal categories that excuse a Shaykh who has issued a duff fatwa (legal decision):
The first is that the Shaykh: ‘Did not believe that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) had issued a given ruling (in our case, the prohibition against punishing by fire).’
I know of no Shaykh who does not know that such a prohibition exists, and that it was declared by the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).
The second is that the Shaykh: ‘Did not believe that he was referring to that issue when he said it.’
The prohibition against punishing by fire is accepted as authentic by all Islamic jurists. Category two makes sense only when applied to an ignoramus. Such a person would be declared unfit to issue fatwas in the first place.
The third is that the Shaykh: ‘Believed that that ruling had been abrogated.’
I know of no Shaykh who believes that this prohibition has been abrogated. The reason is simple: It has not!
In short, there is no excuse – none at all – for ruling that punishment by fire is permissible. Any who did so in the past – or who attempt to do so in the present – were (would be) in manifest error.
Here’s a little more from Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi:
‘The permissibility of burning someone was thus invalidated by the Prophet (PBUH) himself, once and for all. It is reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, on the authority of Abū Hurayra, that the Prophet (PBUH) said that no one except God is allowed to use fire to punish.
In the case we are discussing, the Prophet (PBUH) meant to highlight that under no circumstances would burning people alive be permitted. In another rigorously authenticated (ṣaḥīḥ) hadith, which was collected by Abū Dāwūd, Ibn Mas˓ūd reported that the Prophet (PBUH) saw a burned colony of ants and inquired as to who had done it. When some of the Companions admitted to it he rebuked them by saying, “No one has the right to punish with fire, except the Lord of the fire!”
‘ISIS uses the story of ˓Alī as a proof, as it is narrated that he burned someone. However, the story does not provide any proof to the permissibility of burning people for the following reasons. First, Ibn ˓Abbās, cousin of ˓Alī, opposed him and declared that it was wrong. Second, Imam al-Bukhārī narrated this story to caution the reader that it is not valid, as he narrated the counter-proofs. His job was to compile every text related to the subject, and the job of the doctors of law was to establish what is valid and what is not. Third, ˓Alī himself agreed with his cousin Ibn ˓Abbās that this is forbidden, as narrated by al-Tirmidhī.
‘To conclude this point about the prohibition of burning someone alive, we cite a general principle of the Islamic Shariah: injustice must be prevented, so any and all unjust actions are prohibited. This principle overrules any other consideration which would otherwise allow a given action. Let us now apply this principle to the interpretation of God Almighty’s commandment If you punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith you were afflicted (16:126). At first, the scope of this command’s applicability may seem unlimited, but it is not. That is because the believers are not allowed to exceed the bounds of what is necessary when redressing transgressions. While Muslims are generally allowed to apply retributive justice by fighting back, they are not allowed to employ prohibited means, such as burning, raping, or torturing. Even in the battlefield one is only allowed to employ the means that are permitted by the Shariah.’ (‘Refuting ISIS’).
The Crown Prosecution Service (UK) defines ‘terrorism’ as:
‘The use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.’
The CPS offers several examples of what it defines as terrorism; these include serious violence against a person; damage to property; and endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action).
In 2017, one hundred and twenty-six Islamic scholars signed an open letter to the leader of ISIS.
The letter states that:
‘It is not permissible to kill any Muslim, (nor indeed any human being), who is unarmed and a non-combatant. ….Recently, Shaker Wahib – who was affiliated with what was known at the time as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – appeared in a YouTube video where he stopped unarmed civilians who said they were Muslims. He then proceeded to ask them the number of prostrations (rak’ahs) in specific prayers. When they answered incorrectly, he killed them. This is absolutely forbidden under Islamic Law and is a heinous crime.’
The letter goes on:
‘Regarding Arab Christians, you gave them three choices: jizyah (poll tax), the sword, or conversion to Islam. You painted their homes red, destroyed their churches, and in some cases, looted their homes and property. You killed some of them and caused many others to flee their homes with nothing but their lives and the clothes on their backs. These Christians are not combatants against Islam or transgressors against it, indeed they are friends, neighbours and co-citizens. From the legal perspective of Shari’ah they all fall under ancient agreements that are around 1400 years old, and the rulings of jihad do not apply to them. Some of their ancestors fought alongside the Prophet’s army against the Byzantines; and thus have been citizens of the State of Medina since that time. Others are under agreements that were guaranteed to them by Omar ibn Al-Khattab, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ottomans and their respective states. In short, they are not strangers to these lands, but rather, of the native peoples of these lands from pre-Islamic times; they are not enemies but friends. For the past 1400 years they have defended their countries against the Crusaders, colonialists, Israel and other wars, how, then, can you treat them as enemies?’
The letter quotes sūrah Al-Mumtahana:
‘Allāh may still bring about affection between you and your present enemies ‘ – Allāh is all powerful, Allāh is most forgiving and merciful – and He does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith or driven you out of your homes: Allāh loves the just.’ (verses 7-8).
The letter then continues:
‘You fought the Yazidis under the banner of jihad but they neither fought you nor Muslims. You considered them satanists and gave them the choice to either be killed or be forced into Islam. You killed hundreds of them and buried them in mass graves. You caused the death and suffering of hundreds of others. Had it not been for American and Kurdish intervention, tens of thousands of their men, women, children and elderly would have been killed. These are all abominable crimes.’
‘After tying Syrian soldiers of the 17th Division in North-eastern Syria to barbed wire, you cut
off their heads with knives and posted a video of this on the internet. In the video you said: “We are your brothers, the soldiers of the Islamic State. God has favoured us with His grace and victory by conquering the 17th Division; a victory and favour through God. We seek refuge in God from our might and power. We seek refuge in God from our weapons and our readiness.”
‘You thus attributed this heinous crime to God, and made as if this were an act of humility to God, by saying that He did it and not you. But God says: “And when they commit any indecency they say, “We found our fathers practising it, and God has enjoined it on us”. Say, “God does not enjoin indecency. Do you say concerning God that which you do not know?” (Al-A’raf: 28).’ (from the ‘Open Letter to Dr. Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri, alias ‘Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’).
The Former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Bin Baz (an ardent Wahhabi) declared that suicide attacks are ‘evil, sinful, immoral, corrupt, oppressive and hostile’; and that those responsible for such crimes do not believe in Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) and the Last Day ‘with correct conviction.’ In his opinion, such people are: ‘Indulged in the lewdness of the spirit, corruption of the self and envy.’ (referenced in ‘ISIS - DAESH a Catastrophe and a Tribulation’; by Syed Hussain bin Osman Madani, and reviewed by Shaykh Abdullah Taha Madani).
Syed Hussain bin Osman Madani writes:
‘Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Ramzan Al-Hajari (may Allah preserve him), Lecturer by Royal Commission Al-Jubail, Eastern Province Saudi Arabia said that Daesh and Nusrah Front are not upon truth.
‘He further said that there are no ‘Ulama (scholars) with this organisation, rather all of them are imprudent and foolish…………a bloodthirsty and savage organisation, which is not only a danger for Muslims, but rather the whole humanity. Furthermore, he said that to warn against the perpetuators of mischief and tribulations and to disgrace them is an extremely high level of Jihad.
‘The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdul ‘Azeez Aal Ash-Sheikh (may Allah preserve him) said that organisations like Al-Qaeda and Daesh are Khawaarij, amongst whom extremism, severity, rigidness, mischief and terrorism are found. Moreover, they are the first enemies of Islam, who slaughter the Muslims to begin with. Thus, these organisations have nothing to do with Islam. In fact they are outside the Deen.’ (‘ISIS - DAESH a Catastrophe and a Tribulation’).
The behavior of ISIS, of Al-Qaeda and of the Nusrah Front defines, exactly, what I understand by the term ‘terrorism’.
The poster ‘Samantha Rinne’ claims that the Qur’an endorses terrorism. She has referenced a number of Qur’anic verses, in the belief that they support her claim. It is my intention, in šāʾ Allāh, to dedicate a post to each of these verses, and to demonstrate that her claim is spurious.
I make no apology for the length of my response. To those readers who grow cross-eyed and weary I murmur a heart felt: ‘Volenti non fit injuria.’
‘The use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.’
The CPS offers several examples of what it defines as terrorism; these include serious violence against a person; damage to property; and endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action).
In 2017, one hundred and twenty-six Islamic scholars signed an open letter to the leader of ISIS.
The letter states that:
‘It is not permissible to kill any Muslim, (nor indeed any human being), who is unarmed and a non-combatant. ….Recently, Shaker Wahib – who was affiliated with what was known at the time as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – appeared in a YouTube video where he stopped unarmed civilians who said they were Muslims. He then proceeded to ask them the number of prostrations (rak’ahs) in specific prayers. When they answered incorrectly, he killed them. This is absolutely forbidden under Islamic Law and is a heinous crime.’
The letter goes on:
‘Regarding Arab Christians, you gave them three choices: jizyah (poll tax), the sword, or conversion to Islam. You painted their homes red, destroyed their churches, and in some cases, looted their homes and property. You killed some of them and caused many others to flee their homes with nothing but their lives and the clothes on their backs. These Christians are not combatants against Islam or transgressors against it, indeed they are friends, neighbours and co-citizens. From the legal perspective of Shari’ah they all fall under ancient agreements that are around 1400 years old, and the rulings of jihad do not apply to them. Some of their ancestors fought alongside the Prophet’s army against the Byzantines; and thus have been citizens of the State of Medina since that time. Others are under agreements that were guaranteed to them by Omar ibn Al-Khattab, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ottomans and their respective states. In short, they are not strangers to these lands, but rather, of the native peoples of these lands from pre-Islamic times; they are not enemies but friends. For the past 1400 years they have defended their countries against the Crusaders, colonialists, Israel and other wars, how, then, can you treat them as enemies?’
The letter quotes sūrah Al-Mumtahana:
‘Allāh may still bring about affection between you and your present enemies ‘ – Allāh is all powerful, Allāh is most forgiving and merciful – and He does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith or driven you out of your homes: Allāh loves the just.’ (verses 7-8).
The letter then continues:
‘You fought the Yazidis under the banner of jihad but they neither fought you nor Muslims. You considered them satanists and gave them the choice to either be killed or be forced into Islam. You killed hundreds of them and buried them in mass graves. You caused the death and suffering of hundreds of others. Had it not been for American and Kurdish intervention, tens of thousands of their men, women, children and elderly would have been killed. These are all abominable crimes.’
‘After tying Syrian soldiers of the 17th Division in North-eastern Syria to barbed wire, you cut
off their heads with knives and posted a video of this on the internet. In the video you said: “We are your brothers, the soldiers of the Islamic State. God has favoured us with His grace and victory by conquering the 17th Division; a victory and favour through God. We seek refuge in God from our might and power. We seek refuge in God from our weapons and our readiness.”
‘You thus attributed this heinous crime to God, and made as if this were an act of humility to God, by saying that He did it and not you. But God says: “And when they commit any indecency they say, “We found our fathers practising it, and God has enjoined it on us”. Say, “God does not enjoin indecency. Do you say concerning God that which you do not know?” (Al-A’raf: 28).’ (from the ‘Open Letter to Dr. Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri, alias ‘Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’).
The Former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Bin Baz (an ardent Wahhabi) declared that suicide attacks are ‘evil, sinful, immoral, corrupt, oppressive and hostile’; and that those responsible for such crimes do not believe in Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) and the Last Day ‘with correct conviction.’ In his opinion, such people are: ‘Indulged in the lewdness of the spirit, corruption of the self and envy.’ (referenced in ‘ISIS - DAESH a Catastrophe and a Tribulation’; by Syed Hussain bin Osman Madani, and reviewed by Shaykh Abdullah Taha Madani).
Syed Hussain bin Osman Madani writes:
‘Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Ramzan Al-Hajari (may Allah preserve him), Lecturer by Royal Commission Al-Jubail, Eastern Province Saudi Arabia said that Daesh and Nusrah Front are not upon truth.
‘He further said that there are no ‘Ulama (scholars) with this organisation, rather all of them are imprudent and foolish…………a bloodthirsty and savage organisation, which is not only a danger for Muslims, but rather the whole humanity. Furthermore, he said that to warn against the perpetuators of mischief and tribulations and to disgrace them is an extremely high level of Jihad.
‘The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdul ‘Azeez Aal Ash-Sheikh (may Allah preserve him) said that organisations like Al-Qaeda and Daesh are Khawaarij, amongst whom extremism, severity, rigidness, mischief and terrorism are found. Moreover, they are the first enemies of Islam, who slaughter the Muslims to begin with. Thus, these organisations have nothing to do with Islam. In fact they are outside the Deen.’ (‘ISIS - DAESH a Catastrophe and a Tribulation’).
The behavior of ISIS, of Al-Qaeda and of the Nusrah Front defines, exactly, what I understand by the term ‘terrorism’.
The poster ‘Samantha Rinne’ claims that the Qur’an endorses terrorism. She has referenced a number of Qur’anic verses, in the belief that they support her claim. It is my intention, in šāʾ Allāh, to dedicate a post to each of these verses, and to demonstrate that her claim is spurious.
I make no apology for the length of my response. To those readers who grow cross-eyed and weary I murmur a heart felt: ‘Volenti non fit injuria.’
‘Samantha’ begins with a reference to sūrah Al-Nisa 89. Here is the verse, emphasised and set in its context:
‘(Believers), why are you divided in two about the hypocrites, when Allāh Himself has rejected them because of what they have done? Do you want to guide those Allāh has left to stray? If Allāh leaves anyone to stray, you (Prophet) will never find the way for him. They would dearly like you to reject faith, as they themselves have done, to be like them. So do not take them as allies until they migrate (to Medina) for Allāh’s cause. If they turn (on you)*, then seize and kill them wherever you encounter them. Take none of them as an ally or supporter. But as for those who seek refuge with people with whom you have a treaty, or who come over to you because their hearts shrink from fighting against you or against their own people, Allāh could 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, then Allāh gives you no way against them. (Al-Nisa: 88-90).
* The intended meaning is clear from the context; it is to ‘turn with aggression’; to ‘attack’.
There are two timeless messages in these verses. The first is that folk, when attacked, are entitled to defend themselves, even if this entails (of necessity) the use of deadly force. The second is that all retaliation must cease the moment an aggressor stops their attack.
There is no endorsement for terrorism in these verses.
‘(Believers), why are you divided in two about the hypocrites, when Allāh Himself has rejected them because of what they have done? Do you want to guide those Allāh has left to stray? If Allāh leaves anyone to stray, you (Prophet) will never find the way for him. They would dearly like you to reject faith, as they themselves have done, to be like them. So do not take them as allies until they migrate (to Medina) for Allāh’s cause. If they turn (on you)*, then seize and kill them wherever you encounter them. Take none of them as an ally or supporter. But as for those who seek refuge with people with whom you have a treaty, or who come over to you because their hearts shrink from fighting against you or against their own people, Allāh could 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, then Allāh gives you no way against them. (Al-Nisa: 88-90).
* The intended meaning is clear from the context; it is to ‘turn with aggression’; to ‘attack’.
There are two timeless messages in these verses. The first is that folk, when attacked, are entitled to defend themselves, even if this entails (of necessity) the use of deadly force. The second is that all retaliation must cease the moment an aggressor stops their attack.
There is no endorsement for terrorism in these verses.
‘Samantha’ then refers to Al-Nisa 95:
‘Those believers who stay at home, apart from those with an incapacity, are not equal to those who commit themselves and their possessions to striving in Allāh’s way. Allāh has raised such people to a rank above those who stay at home – although He has promised all believers a good reward, those who strive are favoured with a tremendous reward above those who stay at home.’
The word ‘striving’ comes from the verb ‘jāhadū’. In his introduction to the ‘Book of Jihad and Expedition of Sahih Muslim’ the translator (Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui) makes the following comment:
‘The word Jihad is derived from the verb jahada which means: ‘he exerted himself’. Thus literally, Jihad means exertion, striving; but in a juridico-religious sense, it signifies the exertion of one's power to the utmost of one's capacity in the cause of Allah. Thus Jihad in Islam is not an act of violence directed indiscriminately against the non-Muslims; it is the name given to an all-round struggle which a Muslim should launch against evil in whatever form or shape it appears.
‘Qital fi sabilillah (fighting in the way of Allah) is only one aspect of Jihad. Even this qital in Islam is not an act of mad brutality. It has its material and moral functions, i. e. self-preservation and the preservation of the moral order in the world. The verdict of all religious and ethical philosophies - ancient and modern - justifies war on moral grounds. When one nation is assaulted by the ambitions and cupidity of another, the doctrine of non-resistance is anti-social, as it involves non-assertion, not only of one's own rights, but of those of others who need protection against the forces of tyranny and oppression.’
Al-Nisa 95 does not mention ‘qital fi sabilillah’ at all.
The verse does not endorse terrorism; rather, it invites those who are able to strive against that which is false; that which is evil; that which causes harm in this world. Such people are deemed better than those (able folk) who do nothing; who ‘stay at home’.
‘Those believers who stay at home, apart from those with an incapacity, are not equal to those who commit themselves and their possessions to striving in Allāh’s way. Allāh has raised such people to a rank above those who stay at home – although He has promised all believers a good reward, those who strive are favoured with a tremendous reward above those who stay at home.’
The word ‘striving’ comes from the verb ‘jāhadū’. In his introduction to the ‘Book of Jihad and Expedition of Sahih Muslim’ the translator (Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui) makes the following comment:
‘The word Jihad is derived from the verb jahada which means: ‘he exerted himself’. Thus literally, Jihad means exertion, striving; but in a juridico-religious sense, it signifies the exertion of one's power to the utmost of one's capacity in the cause of Allah. Thus Jihad in Islam is not an act of violence directed indiscriminately against the non-Muslims; it is the name given to an all-round struggle which a Muslim should launch against evil in whatever form or shape it appears.
‘Qital fi sabilillah (fighting in the way of Allah) is only one aspect of Jihad. Even this qital in Islam is not an act of mad brutality. It has its material and moral functions, i. e. self-preservation and the preservation of the moral order in the world. The verdict of all religious and ethical philosophies - ancient and modern - justifies war on moral grounds. When one nation is assaulted by the ambitions and cupidity of another, the doctrine of non-resistance is anti-social, as it involves non-assertion, not only of one's own rights, but of those of others who need protection against the forces of tyranny and oppression.’
Al-Nisa 95 does not mention ‘qital fi sabilillah’ at all.
The verse does not endorse terrorism; rather, it invites those who are able to strive against that which is false; that which is evil; that which causes harm in this world. Such people are deemed better than those (able folk) who do nothing; who ‘stay at home’.
‘Samantha’ then refers to a section of Al-Ma’ida 33. Here is the verse, emphasised and set in its context:
‘We decreed to the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person – unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land – it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind. Our messengers came to them with clear signs, but many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. Those who wage war against Allāh and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot, or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, unless they repent before you overpower them – in that case bear in mind that Allāh is forgiving and merciful. (Al-Ma’ida: 32:34).
Al-Ma’ida 33 describes what may be done to those convicted of crimes that undermine the moral fabric of society. Such crimes include terrorism; armed robbery; rape; and murder. In Islam it is forbidden to start – or to participate in – a war of aggression. It is forbidden to harm, in any way, non-combatants; women; children; the old; the sick; and those enemy combatants who no longer wish to fight, or who are prisoners of war. It is forbidden to destroy property; homes; churches; synagogues; mosques; and so on. It is forbidden to destroy crops or livestock, or to poison water supplies. Punishment for such crimes is severe, and is intended to deter.
Take especial note of that part of verse 33 that ‘Samantha’ had chosen to omit: ‘….unless they repent before you overpower them – in that case bear in mind that Allāh is forgiving and merciful.’
Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:
‘Here, as in the case of all sins, even grave ones, the door of repentance is left open. Repentance for these crimes may spare the perpetrators punishment in the Hereafter, but is considered to spare the perpetrators earthly punishment only if they repent before they are ‘overpowered,’ that is, before they are caught and brought to the authorities. This parallels the idea that repentance spares a person punishment in the next life only if it is made before death, after which the Divine sentence and punishment become certain.
‘In most schools of law, once the perpetrator of a major crime has been brought before the authorities and convicted, applying the prescribed ḥadd punishment is mandatory; but if a perpetrator is forgiven by the victim and not denounced to the authorities, then the punishment need not be applied.
‘Although repentance averts the ḥadd punishments listed in verse 33, the rights of the victims are maintained insofar as the perpetrator is still required to pay restitution for damaged or stolen property and is liable to retribution, or qiṣāṣ. As in the case of the law of retribution itself, a victim has the right to have justice exacted from the perpetrator; but to forgive the perpetrator and avoid a public denunciation is considered to be of higher spiritual merit and a way of participating in the Divine Attributes Forgiving and Merciful, invoked at the end of this verse.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).
Al-Ma’ida 33 condemns terrorism.
‘We decreed to the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person – unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land – it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind. Our messengers came to them with clear signs, but many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. Those who wage war against Allāh and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot, or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, unless they repent before you overpower them – in that case bear in mind that Allāh is forgiving and merciful. (Al-Ma’ida: 32:34).
Al-Ma’ida 33 describes what may be done to those convicted of crimes that undermine the moral fabric of society. Such crimes include terrorism; armed robbery; rape; and murder. In Islam it is forbidden to start – or to participate in – a war of aggression. It is forbidden to harm, in any way, non-combatants; women; children; the old; the sick; and those enemy combatants who no longer wish to fight, or who are prisoners of war. It is forbidden to destroy property; homes; churches; synagogues; mosques; and so on. It is forbidden to destroy crops or livestock, or to poison water supplies. Punishment for such crimes is severe, and is intended to deter.
Take especial note of that part of verse 33 that ‘Samantha’ had chosen to omit: ‘….unless they repent before you overpower them – in that case bear in mind that Allāh is forgiving and merciful.’
Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:
‘Here, as in the case of all sins, even grave ones, the door of repentance is left open. Repentance for these crimes may spare the perpetrators punishment in the Hereafter, but is considered to spare the perpetrators earthly punishment only if they repent before they are ‘overpowered,’ that is, before they are caught and brought to the authorities. This parallels the idea that repentance spares a person punishment in the next life only if it is made before death, after which the Divine sentence and punishment become certain.
‘In most schools of law, once the perpetrator of a major crime has been brought before the authorities and convicted, applying the prescribed ḥadd punishment is mandatory; but if a perpetrator is forgiven by the victim and not denounced to the authorities, then the punishment need not be applied.
‘Although repentance averts the ḥadd punishments listed in verse 33, the rights of the victims are maintained insofar as the perpetrator is still required to pay restitution for damaged or stolen property and is liable to retribution, or qiṣāṣ. As in the case of the law of retribution itself, a victim has the right to have justice exacted from the perpetrator; but to forgive the perpetrator and avoid a public denunciation is considered to be of higher spiritual merit and a way of participating in the Divine Attributes Forgiving and Merciful, invoked at the end of this verse.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).
Al-Ma’ida 33 condemns terrorism.
Next we have Al-Anfal 59-60. Here are the verses, emphasised and set in its context:
‘The worst creatures in the sight of Allāh are those who reject Him and will not believe; who, whenever you (Prophet) make a treaty with them, break it, for they have no fear of Allāh. If you meet them in battle, make a fearsome example of them to those who come after them, so that they may take heed. And if you learn of treachery on the part of any people, withdraw from them in a just way, for Allāh does not love the treacherous. The disbelievers should not think they have won; they cannot escape. Prepare whatever forces you (believers) can muster, including warhorses, to frighten off Allāh’s enemies and yours, and warn others unknown to you but known to Allāh. Whatever you give in Allāh’s cause will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged. But if they incline towards peace, you (Prophet) must also incline towards it, and put your trust in Allāh: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing.’ (Al-Anfal: 55-61).
Take note of verse 58 (‘And if you learn of treachery on the part of any people, withdraw from them in a just way, for Allāh does not love the treacherous’).
Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:
‘One enters into a treaty only when one has a reasonable expectation that the other side will uphold it, and conversely one can reasonably withdraw when that expectation no longer holds. The verse is worded as it is so that there will be an “equality of knowledge” between the two sides, meaning that the withdrawal will be done to bring the two sides back to their situation before the treaty was signed; the withdrawal is not to be used as a stratagem of war. ‘In a just way’ renders ʿalā sawāʾ, and some commentators state that this phrase indicates that the reason for withdrawal is not to create an unfair advantage, but to make things equal or level (sawāʾ) between the two sides.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary.’)
The need to refrain from betrayal is stressed in verse 27 of this same sūrah: ‘Believers, do not betray Allāh and the Messenger, or knowingly betray (other people’s) trust in you.’
The Muslims are advised to prepare themselves for battle against an enemy who, having broken their agreement – their treaty – are likely to attack.
Take note of verse 61, in which Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) commands: ‘But if they incline towards peace, you (Prophet) must also incline towards it, and put your trust in Allāh: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing.’
There is no endorsement of terrorism in these verses.
‘The worst creatures in the sight of Allāh are those who reject Him and will not believe; who, whenever you (Prophet) make a treaty with them, break it, for they have no fear of Allāh. If you meet them in battle, make a fearsome example of them to those who come after them, so that they may take heed. And if you learn of treachery on the part of any people, withdraw from them in a just way, for Allāh does not love the treacherous. The disbelievers should not think they have won; they cannot escape. Prepare whatever forces you (believers) can muster, including warhorses, to frighten off Allāh’s enemies and yours, and warn others unknown to you but known to Allāh. Whatever you give in Allāh’s cause will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged. But if they incline towards peace, you (Prophet) must also incline towards it, and put your trust in Allāh: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing.’ (Al-Anfal: 55-61).
Take note of verse 58 (‘And if you learn of treachery on the part of any people, withdraw from them in a just way, for Allāh does not love the treacherous’).
Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:
‘One enters into a treaty only when one has a reasonable expectation that the other side will uphold it, and conversely one can reasonably withdraw when that expectation no longer holds. The verse is worded as it is so that there will be an “equality of knowledge” between the two sides, meaning that the withdrawal will be done to bring the two sides back to their situation before the treaty was signed; the withdrawal is not to be used as a stratagem of war. ‘In a just way’ renders ʿalā sawāʾ, and some commentators state that this phrase indicates that the reason for withdrawal is not to create an unfair advantage, but to make things equal or level (sawāʾ) between the two sides.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary.’)
The need to refrain from betrayal is stressed in verse 27 of this same sūrah: ‘Believers, do not betray Allāh and the Messenger, or knowingly betray (other people’s) trust in you.’
The Muslims are advised to prepare themselves for battle against an enemy who, having broken their agreement – their treaty – are likely to attack.
Take note of verse 61, in which Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) commands: ‘But if they incline towards peace, you (Prophet) must also incline towards it, and put your trust in Allāh: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing.’
There is no endorsement of terrorism in these verses.
‘Samantha’ cites verse 5 from sūrah ‘Al-Tawba’. Here it is, emphasised and set in its context:
‘A release by Allāh and His Messenger from the treaty you (believers) made with the idolaters (is announced) – you (idolaters) may move freely about the land for four months, but you should bear in mind both that you will not escape Allāh and that Allāh will disgrace those who defy (Him). On the Day of the Great Pilgrimage (there will be) a proclamation from Allāh and His Messenger to all people: ‘Allāh and His Messenger are released from (treaty) obligations to the idolaters. It will be better for you (idolaters) if you repent; know that you cannot escape Allāh if you turn away.’ (Prophet), warn those who ignore (Allāh) that they will have a painful punishment. As for those who have honoured the treaty you made with them and who have not supported anyone against you: fulfil your agreement with them to the end of their term. Allāh loves those who are mindful of Him.’ (Verses 1-4).
‘When the (four) forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post; but if they turn (to Allāh), maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go on their way, for Allāh is most forgiving and merciful.’ (Verse 5).
‘If any one of the idolaters should seek your protection (Prophet), grant it to him so that he may hear the word of Allāh, then take him to a place safe for him, for they are people with no knowledge (of it). How could there be a treaty with Allāh and His Messenger for such idolaters? But as for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque, so long as they remain true to you, be true to them; Allāh loves those who are mindful of Him.’ (Verses 6-7).
(How,) when, if they were to get the upper hand over you, they would not respect any tie with you, of kinship or of treaty? They please you with their tongues, but their hearts are against you and most of them are lawbreakers. They have sold God’s message for a trifling gain, and barred others from His path. How evil their actions are! Where believers are concerned, they respect no tie of kinship or treaty. They are the ones who are committing aggression. If they turn to Allāh, keep up the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, then they are your brothers in faith: We make the messages clear for people who are willing to learn. But if they break their oath after having made an agreement with you, if they revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief – oaths mean nothing to them – so that they may stop. How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is Allāh you should fear if you are true believers.’ (Verses 8-13).
Let’s look more closely at a number of these verses:
Verse 1 announces the annulment of a treaty (possibly the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyah) between the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and the Quraysh.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr informs us that: ‘Among (the various tribes) were the Banū Khuzāʿah on the side of the Prophet and Banū Bakr on the side of the Quraysh. Banū Bakr later launched an attack on the Banū Khuzāʿah, stemming from a vendetta that pre-existed the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyah, and it was reported that the Quraysh assisted the Banū Bakr with arms and a small number of men.
‘The Prophet considered this act to be a breach of the treaty, thereby nullifying the need to observe the truce, and this ultimately led to the final conquest of Makkah by the Prophet and his followers. According to this account, the repudiation of the treaty is addressed to the Makkans.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).
According to Nasr, a majority of commentators opine that verse 1 was revealed a year after the breach of the Treaty; and that there is ‘a considerable difference of opinion as to which idolaters are addressed and the legal import of both the repudiation (v. 1) and the announcement (v. 3).’
Verse 4: (‘As for those who have honoured the treaty you made with them and who have not supported anyone against you: fulfil your agreement with them to the end of their term. Allāh loves those who are mindful of Him.’) commands the Muslims to honour any peace treaty they have with those (disbelievers) who have also honoured their obligations; and who have not supported military action against the Muslims.
Verse 6: (‘If any one of the idolaters should seek your protection (Prophet), grant it to him so that he may hear the word of Allāh, then take him to a place safe for him….’) makes it perfectly clear that the Muslims are not to consider a peaceful disbeliever an enemy. Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) goes further, and commands the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to give his protection to any non-Muslim who seeks his help; and to deliver them to a place of safety.
Verses 7-8 refer to the hostile attitude of Meccan idolaters who cared nothing for kinship, and who initiated acts of aggression. It is because of this that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is released from his treaty obligations.
Verse 13 sets the context for war; namely the breaking of treaty obligations by the idolaters, and the causing of harm to the Muslims.
And now for verse 5:
This 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 verse 2:190:
‘Fight in Allāh’s cause against those who fight you, but do not transgress (‘la taʿtadū’) the limits: Allāh does not love those who overstep the limits.’
Professor M.A.S Abdel Haleem states that: ‘The Arabic command la taʿtadū’ is so general that commentators have agreed that it includes prohibition of starting hostilities, fighting non-combatants, disproportionate response to aggression, and so on.’ (‘The Qur’an).
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 this verse abrogated the verses that came immediately before it, and the ones that came immediately after? 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 this question: In what way is murder better than co-operation; war better than peace; love better than hate?
‘Samantha’ makes no reference to verse 29, but here it is:
‘Fight those of the People of the Book who do not (truly) believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submit.’
This is the so-called ‘Jizya Verse’.
It is important to note that the following non-Muslims were exempted from paying the tax (around 1 dinar a year): women; children; the elderly; the handicapped; the sick; monks; hermits; slaves; and the insane. Non-Muslim foreigners, whose residence in a Muslim State was temporary, were also exempt. Non-Muslims who elected to join the State’s armed forces were also exempt.
This verse does not address all People of the Book, but only their young men of military age.
The offence is failing to pay what is due to the Muslim state in which these young men live. They are tax-dodgers. They are not required to become Muslims, merely to pay the tax.
‘A release by Allāh and His Messenger from the treaty you (believers) made with the idolaters (is announced) – you (idolaters) may move freely about the land for four months, but you should bear in mind both that you will not escape Allāh and that Allāh will disgrace those who defy (Him). On the Day of the Great Pilgrimage (there will be) a proclamation from Allāh and His Messenger to all people: ‘Allāh and His Messenger are released from (treaty) obligations to the idolaters. It will be better for you (idolaters) if you repent; know that you cannot escape Allāh if you turn away.’ (Prophet), warn those who ignore (Allāh) that they will have a painful punishment. As for those who have honoured the treaty you made with them and who have not supported anyone against you: fulfil your agreement with them to the end of their term. Allāh loves those who are mindful of Him.’ (Verses 1-4).
‘When the (four) forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post; but if they turn (to Allāh), maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go on their way, for Allāh is most forgiving and merciful.’ (Verse 5).
‘If any one of the idolaters should seek your protection (Prophet), grant it to him so that he may hear the word of Allāh, then take him to a place safe for him, for they are people with no knowledge (of it). How could there be a treaty with Allāh and His Messenger for such idolaters? But as for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque, so long as they remain true to you, be true to them; Allāh loves those who are mindful of Him.’ (Verses 6-7).
(How,) when, if they were to get the upper hand over you, they would not respect any tie with you, of kinship or of treaty? They please you with their tongues, but their hearts are against you and most of them are lawbreakers. They have sold God’s message for a trifling gain, and barred others from His path. How evil their actions are! Where believers are concerned, they respect no tie of kinship or treaty. They are the ones who are committing aggression. If they turn to Allāh, keep up the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, then they are your brothers in faith: We make the messages clear for people who are willing to learn. But if they break their oath after having made an agreement with you, if they revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief – oaths mean nothing to them – so that they may stop. How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is Allāh you should fear if you are true believers.’ (Verses 8-13).
Let’s look more closely at a number of these verses:
Verse 1 announces the annulment of a treaty (possibly the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyah) between the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and the Quraysh.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr informs us that: ‘Among (the various tribes) were the Banū Khuzāʿah on the side of the Prophet and Banū Bakr on the side of the Quraysh. Banū Bakr later launched an attack on the Banū Khuzāʿah, stemming from a vendetta that pre-existed the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyah, and it was reported that the Quraysh assisted the Banū Bakr with arms and a small number of men.
‘The Prophet considered this act to be a breach of the treaty, thereby nullifying the need to observe the truce, and this ultimately led to the final conquest of Makkah by the Prophet and his followers. According to this account, the repudiation of the treaty is addressed to the Makkans.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).
According to Nasr, a majority of commentators opine that verse 1 was revealed a year after the breach of the Treaty; and that there is ‘a considerable difference of opinion as to which idolaters are addressed and the legal import of both the repudiation (v. 1) and the announcement (v. 3).’
Verse 4: (‘As for those who have honoured the treaty you made with them and who have not supported anyone against you: fulfil your agreement with them to the end of their term. Allāh loves those who are mindful of Him.’) commands the Muslims to honour any peace treaty they have with those (disbelievers) who have also honoured their obligations; and who have not supported military action against the Muslims.
Verse 6: (‘If any one of the idolaters should seek your protection (Prophet), grant it to him so that he may hear the word of Allāh, then take him to a place safe for him….’) makes it perfectly clear that the Muslims are not to consider a peaceful disbeliever an enemy. Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) goes further, and commands the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to give his protection to any non-Muslim who seeks his help; and to deliver them to a place of safety.
Verses 7-8 refer to the hostile attitude of Meccan idolaters who cared nothing for kinship, and who initiated acts of aggression. It is because of this that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is released from his treaty obligations.
Verse 13 sets the context for war; namely the breaking of treaty obligations by the idolaters, and the causing of harm to the Muslims.
And now for verse 5:
This 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 verse 2:190:
‘Fight in Allāh’s cause against those who fight you, but do not transgress (‘la taʿtadū’) the limits: Allāh does not love those who overstep the limits.’
Professor M.A.S Abdel Haleem states that: ‘The Arabic command la taʿtadū’ is so general that commentators have agreed that it includes prohibition of starting hostilities, fighting non-combatants, disproportionate response to aggression, and so on.’ (‘The Qur’an).
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 this verse abrogated the verses that came immediately before it, and the ones that came immediately after? 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 this question: In what way is murder better than co-operation; war better than peace; love better than hate?
‘Samantha’ makes no reference to verse 29, but here it is:
‘Fight those of the People of the Book who do not (truly) believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submit.’
This is the so-called ‘Jizya Verse’.
It is important to note that the following non-Muslims were exempted from paying the tax (around 1 dinar a year): women; children; the elderly; the handicapped; the sick; monks; hermits; slaves; and the insane. Non-Muslim foreigners, whose residence in a Muslim State was temporary, were also exempt. Non-Muslims who elected to join the State’s armed forces were also exempt.
This verse does not address all People of the Book, but only their young men of military age.
The offence is failing to pay what is due to the Muslim state in which these young men live. They are tax-dodgers. They are not required to become Muslims, merely to pay the tax.
Samantha goes on the cite Al-Tawba: 41-42:
‘So go out, no matter whether lightly or heavily, and struggle wajāhidū in Allāh’s way with your possessions and your persons: this is better for you, if you only knew. They would certainly have followed you (Prophet) if the benefit was within sight and the journey short, but the distance seemed too great for them. They will swear by Allāh, ‘If we could, we certainly would go out with you,’ but they ruin themselves, for Allāh knows that they are lying.’
Seyyed Hossein Nasr tells us that: ‘Lightly or heavily can mean being either reluctant or eager, or lightly or heavily armed, or young or old , or poorly or well equipped, or rich or poor . Al-Ṭabarī says that it means whether it is easy or difficult.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).
The word ‘struggle’ renders ‘wajāhidū’. Allow me to repeat that this refers, not to fighting, but to the effort required to uphold Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) commandments; and to turn away – in condemnation – from all He has forbidden. We should strive to excel in prayer; in charity; in good deeds of all kinds; in standing up for what is true against what is false.
Had Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) intended the Muslims to engage in acts of war in His cause, then the words
‘Qital fi sabilillah’ would have been used.
‘So go out, no matter whether lightly or heavily, and struggle wajāhidū in Allāh’s way with your possessions and your persons: this is better for you, if you only knew. They would certainly have followed you (Prophet) if the benefit was within sight and the journey short, but the distance seemed too great for them. They will swear by Allāh, ‘If we could, we certainly would go out with you,’ but they ruin themselves, for Allāh knows that they are lying.’
Seyyed Hossein Nasr tells us that: ‘Lightly or heavily can mean being either reluctant or eager, or lightly or heavily armed, or young or old , or poorly or well equipped, or rich or poor . Al-Ṭabarī says that it means whether it is easy or difficult.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).
The word ‘struggle’ renders ‘wajāhidū’. Allow me to repeat that this refers, not to fighting, but to the effort required to uphold Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) commandments; and to turn away – in condemnation – from all He has forbidden. We should strive to excel in prayer; in charity; in good deeds of all kinds; in standing up for what is true against what is false.
Had Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) intended the Muslims to engage in acts of war in His cause, then the words
‘Qital fi sabilillah’ would have been used.
Finally we have a reference to Al-Isra 16. Here it is, emphasised and set in its context:
‘We have bound each human being’s destiny to his neck. On the Day of Resurrection, We shall bring out a record for each of them, which they will find spread wide open, ‘Read your record. Today your own soul is enough to calculate your account.
‘Whoever accepts guidance does so for his own good; whoever strays does so at his own peril. No soul will bear another’s burden, nor do We punish until We have sent a messenger. When We decide to destroy a town, We command those corrupted by wealth (to reform), but they (persist in their) disobedience; Our sentence is passed, and We destroy them utterly.’ (Verses 15-16).
Seyyed Hossein Nasr reminds us that these verses contain:
‘……three themes commonly invoked throughout the Quran, including the related ideas that the consequences of one’s moral actions and one’s state of guidance or misguidance ultimately devolve upon oneself and that no one assumes the burden of another. This means that no one is punished for the misdeeds of another, but all must bear the consequences of their own actions.
‘Although some may lead others astray, the burden of the sins committed by those who were thus misguided is still borne by themselves, although some verses indicate that those who mislead bear an additional burden.
‘That God does not punish a people without warning, identified here specifically with His sending a messenger, is mentioned elsewhere (26: 208; 28: 59); see also 6: 131, which states that God would never destroy towns for their wrongdoing while their people were heedless, meaning before a messenger had made them aware of their wrongdoing and its destructive consequences.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary).
Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) makes it perfectly clear that no person shall be punished for the misdeeds of another; that all must bear the consequences of their own actions.
The words: ‘When We decide to destroy a town, We command those corrupted by wealth (to reform), but they (persist in their) disobedience; Our sentence is passed, and We destroy them utterly’, speak of a punishment that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) alone is entitled to inflict.
At no time was the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) given permission to enforce belief in Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), or in the Qur’an. On the contrary, the Qur’an makes it perfectly clear that his role was to convey the message – to preach and teach the Faith, as expressed in the Qur’an – and nothing more. He was not to impose it by force:
‘Allāh bears witness that there is no god but He, as do the angels and those who have knowledge. He upholds justice. There is no god but Him, the Almighty, the All Wise. True Religion, in Allāh’s eyes, is (devotion to Him alone). Those who were given the Scripture disagreed out of rivalry, only after they had been given knowledge - if anyone denies Allāh’s revelations, Allāh is swift to take account- if they argue with you (Prophet), say: “I have devoted myself to Allāh alone and so have my followers.”
‘Ask those who were given the Scripture, as well as those without one: “Do you too devote yourselves to Him alone?” If they do, they will be guided, but if they turn away, your only duty is to convey the message. Allāh is aware of His servants.’ (Al-‘Imran: Verses 18-20); and again: ‘Obey Allāh, obey the Messenger, and always be on your guard: if you pay no heed, bear in mind that the sole duty of Our Messenger is to deliver the message clearly.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 92).
In short, the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was never given permission to: ‘Use or threaten action designed to influence other leaders; or to intimidate the public; such action to be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.’ (cf. Crown Prosecution Service (UK) definition of ‘terrorism’).
Khaled M. Abou El Fadl writes:
‘What type of arrogance permits a people to name themselves God’s soldiers and then usurp His authority? What type of arrogance empowers a people to inject their insecurities and hatred into the Book of God, and then fancy themselves the divine protectors? Of all the sins of this world, what can be more revolting than usurping God’s Word, and then misrepresenting God’s meticulous Speech?’ (‘The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books’).
In another of his works he writes:
‘In the course of lecturing and teaching about Islam in different parts of the world, I have been asked by many people whether there is something in Islam itself that encourages extremism, because how else would an extremist marginal faction manage to gain so many adherents and become such a visible reality in the world today?’
‘According to moderates, God’s light is not owned by anyone, and so Muslims and non-Muslims can step into the light together. They can share a partnership in which they come to know one another. In the process, they can cooperate to establish virtue and mercy on this earth - they can cooperate to prevent the corruption of the earth through the ugliness of ignorance, hate, war, and destruction. Moderates believe that supremacy belongs only to God. Therefore, when they come to invite the other to step into the light, they do so with utter humility - the humility of knowing that it is impossible to avoid corrupting the earth, and also impossible to achieve any degree of Godliness on this earth, unless they can come to know the other. It is this, the knowledge of the other, that is the requisite for the Divine gift of peace.
‘In the modern age, it would seem that terrorism is the quintessential crime of corrupting the earth. When violence is committed against the defenseless, by stealth and without warning, the net effect is to spread fear and horror among God’s people. Whether one calls the crime hiraba or terrorism, it is fundamentally the same thing. Those who are familiar with the classical tradition will find the parallels between what were described as crimes of hiraba and what is often called terrorism today nothing short of remarkable. The classical jurists considered crimes such as assassinations, setting fires, or poisoning water wells – that could indiscriminately kill the innocent – as offenses of hiraba. Furthermore, hijacking methods of transportation or crucifying people in order to spread fear and terror are also crimes of hiraba. Importantly, Islamic law strictly prohibited the taking of hostages, the mutilation of corpses, and torture.
‘The highest stage of submission is to love God more than any other, even more than oneself, and for those who achieve this lofty position of loving God absolutely and completely, they become God’s beloved, endowed with true perception, wisdom, and compassion. For human beings to love God necessarily means that they must love all that God has created and represents. It would make little sense to love God but hate God’s creatures and creation. To truly love God, one must love all human beings, whether Muslim or not, and love all living beings as well as all of God’s nature. To truly love God means that one must also detest the destruction of what God has created. For those who reach the lofty stature of being God’s beloved, their hearts will be full with love for justice, and full of compassion and love for all. As the classical scholars used to put it, if you find a man full of anger, resentment, hate, and cruelty toward human beings, animals, or nature, then know that the love of God has not entered his heart. In short, it is impossible to love God or be beloved by God and not to exhibit the characteristics of Godliness.’ (‘The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists’).
The Qur’an does not endorse terrorism. Such activity is forbidden; and it makes no difference if the terrorists happen to be a Muslim.
‘We have bound each human being’s destiny to his neck. On the Day of Resurrection, We shall bring out a record for each of them, which they will find spread wide open, ‘Read your record. Today your own soul is enough to calculate your account.
‘Whoever accepts guidance does so for his own good; whoever strays does so at his own peril. No soul will bear another’s burden, nor do We punish until We have sent a messenger. When We decide to destroy a town, We command those corrupted by wealth (to reform), but they (persist in their) disobedience; Our sentence is passed, and We destroy them utterly.’ (Verses 15-16).
Seyyed Hossein Nasr reminds us that these verses contain:
‘……three themes commonly invoked throughout the Quran, including the related ideas that the consequences of one’s moral actions and one’s state of guidance or misguidance ultimately devolve upon oneself and that no one assumes the burden of another. This means that no one is punished for the misdeeds of another, but all must bear the consequences of their own actions.
‘Although some may lead others astray, the burden of the sins committed by those who were thus misguided is still borne by themselves, although some verses indicate that those who mislead bear an additional burden.
‘That God does not punish a people without warning, identified here specifically with His sending a messenger, is mentioned elsewhere (26: 208; 28: 59); see also 6: 131, which states that God would never destroy towns for their wrongdoing while their people were heedless, meaning before a messenger had made them aware of their wrongdoing and its destructive consequences.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary).
Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) makes it perfectly clear that no person shall be punished for the misdeeds of another; that all must bear the consequences of their own actions.
The words: ‘When We decide to destroy a town, We command those corrupted by wealth (to reform), but they (persist in their) disobedience; Our sentence is passed, and We destroy them utterly’, speak of a punishment that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) alone is entitled to inflict.
At no time was the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) given permission to enforce belief in Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), or in the Qur’an. On the contrary, the Qur’an makes it perfectly clear that his role was to convey the message – to preach and teach the Faith, as expressed in the Qur’an – and nothing more. He was not to impose it by force:
‘Allāh bears witness that there is no god but He, as do the angels and those who have knowledge. He upholds justice. There is no god but Him, the Almighty, the All Wise. True Religion, in Allāh’s eyes, is (devotion to Him alone). Those who were given the Scripture disagreed out of rivalry, only after they had been given knowledge - if anyone denies Allāh’s revelations, Allāh is swift to take account- if they argue with you (Prophet), say: “I have devoted myself to Allāh alone and so have my followers.”
‘Ask those who were given the Scripture, as well as those without one: “Do you too devote yourselves to Him alone?” If they do, they will be guided, but if they turn away, your only duty is to convey the message. Allāh is aware of His servants.’ (Al-‘Imran: Verses 18-20); and again: ‘Obey Allāh, obey the Messenger, and always be on your guard: if you pay no heed, bear in mind that the sole duty of Our Messenger is to deliver the message clearly.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 92).
In short, the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was never given permission to: ‘Use or threaten action designed to influence other leaders; or to intimidate the public; such action to be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.’ (cf. Crown Prosecution Service (UK) definition of ‘terrorism’).
Khaled M. Abou El Fadl writes:
‘What type of arrogance permits a people to name themselves God’s soldiers and then usurp His authority? What type of arrogance empowers a people to inject their insecurities and hatred into the Book of God, and then fancy themselves the divine protectors? Of all the sins of this world, what can be more revolting than usurping God’s Word, and then misrepresenting God’s meticulous Speech?’ (‘The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books’).
In another of his works he writes:
‘In the course of lecturing and teaching about Islam in different parts of the world, I have been asked by many people whether there is something in Islam itself that encourages extremism, because how else would an extremist marginal faction manage to gain so many adherents and become such a visible reality in the world today?’
‘According to moderates, God’s light is not owned by anyone, and so Muslims and non-Muslims can step into the light together. They can share a partnership in which they come to know one another. In the process, they can cooperate to establish virtue and mercy on this earth - they can cooperate to prevent the corruption of the earth through the ugliness of ignorance, hate, war, and destruction. Moderates believe that supremacy belongs only to God. Therefore, when they come to invite the other to step into the light, they do so with utter humility - the humility of knowing that it is impossible to avoid corrupting the earth, and also impossible to achieve any degree of Godliness on this earth, unless they can come to know the other. It is this, the knowledge of the other, that is the requisite for the Divine gift of peace.
‘In the modern age, it would seem that terrorism is the quintessential crime of corrupting the earth. When violence is committed against the defenseless, by stealth and without warning, the net effect is to spread fear and horror among God’s people. Whether one calls the crime hiraba or terrorism, it is fundamentally the same thing. Those who are familiar with the classical tradition will find the parallels between what were described as crimes of hiraba and what is often called terrorism today nothing short of remarkable. The classical jurists considered crimes such as assassinations, setting fires, or poisoning water wells – that could indiscriminately kill the innocent – as offenses of hiraba. Furthermore, hijacking methods of transportation or crucifying people in order to spread fear and terror are also crimes of hiraba. Importantly, Islamic law strictly prohibited the taking of hostages, the mutilation of corpses, and torture.
‘The highest stage of submission is to love God more than any other, even more than oneself, and for those who achieve this lofty position of loving God absolutely and completely, they become God’s beloved, endowed with true perception, wisdom, and compassion. For human beings to love God necessarily means that they must love all that God has created and represents. It would make little sense to love God but hate God’s creatures and creation. To truly love God, one must love all human beings, whether Muslim or not, and love all living beings as well as all of God’s nature. To truly love God means that one must also detest the destruction of what God has created. For those who reach the lofty stature of being God’s beloved, their hearts will be full with love for justice, and full of compassion and love for all. As the classical scholars used to put it, if you find a man full of anger, resentment, hate, and cruelty toward human beings, animals, or nature, then know that the love of God has not entered his heart. In short, it is impossible to love God or be beloved by God and not to exhibit the characteristics of Godliness.’ (‘The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists’).
The Qur’an does not endorse terrorism. Such activity is forbidden; and it makes no difference if the terrorists happen to be a Muslim.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
But see @dybmh - that is point - you "vote" no - because of who you are and how you interpret
The same may not be the case with others as @The_Fisher_King pointed out - a text that leaves that kind of margin open to interpretation in such a dangerous and emotion laden area is not the word of god by any stretch of imagination - or at least something has been lost in translation - same end result
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I hear you, but i simply disagree. I think it may be the word of God. I am very open minded. Perhaps too open minded. It makes me very strange and hard to relate to. I accept it. From a religious perspective, I am homeless; a wanderer, a man without a nation nor tribe. But, i am happy and free.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
@Niblo
Thank you for the extensive research oriented posting and quotes
I have the following issues:
There is enough uncertainty when "non believers" are being mentioned that there are disagreements even among Muslim scholars as to what is permitted and what is not
I have actually had posters say "Well the Qu'ran refers to "the others of the book" meaning the Bible - meaning Jews and Christians to be left alone - but not the Hindus and Sikhs -
Granted there is no explicit mention of them in the Qu'ran as Muhammad was probably not aware of their existence - but how is this narrow definition of exceptions condoned?
There is another question for @Niblo and @dybmh
Here is one list of names, I can add names such as Aurangzeb, Mahmud of Ghori from the middle ages - of individuals with vast political power who oppressed others with measures such as forced conversions, suppression of beliefs and jiza'yah - some in the name of Shari'a and some just in the name of Allah
The Qu'ran - as you have taken pains to point out - does not condone these actions especially if those at the receiving end were innocent of most anything except choosing not to believe in Allah.
Now the religion is 1400 years old and per the quotations provided by @Niblo - Allah looks down with disfavor on those that transgress his laws
Just how many of these individuals have been "struck down by Allah"? - many of them died of natural causes - Khomeni at 86, Aurangzeb at 89 (though there are some stories about how his end came about - look up Zafarnama)
I accept that the Qu'ran may have verses rejecting the oppression of the innocent but what of those that continue to do that in the name of Allah? Other than individuals loudly condemning them - I do not see Allah raining lightning or other natural disasters on them. So what is an outsider to make of it?
That there is a "higher entity" that is powerless to stop evil persons from acting in its name? If so - why should we give it the time of the day, much less worship it?
Thank you for the extensive research oriented posting and quotes
I have the following issues:
There is enough uncertainty when "non believers" are being mentioned that there are disagreements even among Muslim scholars as to what is permitted and what is not
I have actually had posters say "Well the Qu'ran refers to "the others of the book" meaning the Bible - meaning Jews and Christians to be left alone - but not the Hindus and Sikhs -
Granted there is no explicit mention of them in the Qu'ran as Muhammad was probably not aware of their existence - but how is this narrow definition of exceptions condoned?
There is another question for @Niblo and @dybmh
Here is one list of names, I can add names such as Aurangzeb, Mahmud of Ghori from the middle ages - of individuals with vast political power who oppressed others with measures such as forced conversions, suppression of beliefs and jiza'yah - some in the name of Shari'a and some just in the name of Allah
The Qu'ran - as you have taken pains to point out - does not condone these actions especially if those at the receiving end were innocent of most anything except choosing not to believe in Allah.
Now the religion is 1400 years old and per the quotations provided by @Niblo - Allah looks down with disfavor on those that transgress his laws
Just how many of these individuals have been "struck down by Allah"? - many of them died of natural causes - Khomeni at 86, Aurangzeb at 89 (though there are some stories about how his end came about - look up Zafarnama)
I accept that the Qu'ran may have verses rejecting the oppression of the innocent but what of those that continue to do that in the name of Allah? Other than individuals loudly condemning them - I do not see Allah raining lightning or other natural disasters on them. So what is an outsider to make of it?
That there is a "higher entity" that is powerless to stop evil persons from acting in its name? If so - why should we give it the time of the day, much less worship it?
Last edited:
Hello, my friend.
That's very kind of you to say so. I must point out, however, that the honour is entirely mine. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to be of help.
May the Exalted continue to bless both you, and your family; and keep you close to Himself.
Many thanks.
Paul.
From the linked webpage:
This prohibition on punishing anyone by burning with fire is general in application, but the majority of scholars made an exception in the case of burning with fire by way of retaliatory punishment (qisaas) and making the punishment fit the crime. If someone burns another person then it is permissible, according to this view, to punish him by burning him, by way of retaliatory punishment.
They quoted as evidence for that the verses in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqoon (the pious)”
[al-Baqarah 2:194]
“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.)”
[an-Nahl 16:126].
The basic principle says that acting upon two sound texts that have not been abrogated is better than overlooking one of them.
For more information, please see fatwa no. 147416
Therefore the majority of fuqaha’ think that it is permissible to burn with fire by way of retaliatory punishment.
Ibn Mulaqqin (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
One group of scholars said: Whoever burns is to be burnt. This is also the view of Maalik, the scholars of Madinah, ash-Shaafa‘i and his companions, Ahmad and Ishaaq.
This prohibition on punishing anyone by burning with fire is general in application, but the majority of scholars made an exception in the case of burning with fire by way of retaliatory punishment (qisaas) and making the punishment fit the crime. If someone burns another person then it is permissible, according to this view, to punish him by burning him, by way of retaliatory punishment.
They quoted as evidence for that the verses in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqoon (the pious)”
[al-Baqarah 2:194]
“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.)”
[an-Nahl 16:126].
The basic principle says that acting upon two sound texts that have not been abrogated is better than overlooking one of them.
For more information, please see fatwa no. 147416
Therefore the majority of fuqaha’ think that it is permissible to burn with fire by way of retaliatory punishment.
Ibn Mulaqqin (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
One group of scholars said: Whoever burns is to be burnt. This is also the view of Maalik, the scholars of Madinah, ash-Shaafa‘i and his companions, Ahmad and Ishaaq.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@The_Fisher_King
Follow-up Questions:
Regarding "Dis-believers" in the Qur'an: what has been your experience with Muslims? In your opinion, do many or most Muslims equate all non-Muslims as dis-believers?
Same question regarding the quote you provided by Ibn Mulaqqin (may Allah have mercy on him). In your experience do many or most Muslims agree with the statement: "Whoever burns is to be burnt"?
Follow-up Questions:
Regarding "Dis-believers" in the Qur'an: what has been your experience with Muslims? In your opinion, do many or most Muslims equate all non-Muslims as dis-believers?
Same question regarding the quote you provided by Ibn Mulaqqin (may Allah have mercy on him). In your experience do many or most Muslims agree with the statement: "Whoever burns is to be burnt"?
Some Muslims are happy to extend the believing category to Jews, Christians, and Sabians (whom some would say are Mandaeans) as per the relevant Qur'anic verses, a few might extend it further still to capture monotheists in general, but most of those I interact with would say that all non-Muslims are disbelievers.
Not something that comes up in conversation!