Where in the Qur'an does it say to hurt/kill nonMuslims?

[Popeyesays]

What do you think the forbidden months are, and how do you think they tie in to the previous line about keeping a treaty until the "end of the term"?


QUOTE]

I know what the forbidden months are, do you?
Duhl Qhada, Safar, Rajab, and another month were the sacred months before Muhammed. He changed those months.
The Muslim months that prohibited warfare were: Duhl-Qada, Rajab, Muharram, Duhl-Hijjah = Muharram is the month of the Fast, Duhl-Hijjah is the month of pilgrimage, and Duhl Qada is the month following the Haj.

But the injunction was not binding if muslims were attacked during those months.

Regards,
Scott

 

[JerryL]

The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party show no signs of desisting from their treacherous designs by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes-between Faith and Unfaith

The Muslim months that prohibited warfare were: Duhl-Qada, Rajab, Muharram, Duhl-Hijjah = Muharram is the month of the Fast, Duhl-Hijjah is the month of pilgrimage, and Duhl Qada is the month following the Haj.

One poster's source says this referrs to four months of grace. I'm certainly willing to entertain this, though I need quite a bit more support (such as why this comes right after "alliance" and "term").

Then popeyesays comes in with a different number of prohibited months (three), and asserts something similar. Obviosuly this numerical disagreement needs to be resolved and explained before any other discussion on sacred months can be had.

and the other party show no signs of desisting from their treacherous designs by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes-between Faith and Unfaith

This commentary is even more vague than the Quran itself. What is the conduct in question, and is a war between faith and unfaith a war against the unfaithful (a command to kill non-muslims)?

When war becomes inevitable, it must be prosecuted with vigour...The fighting may take the form of slaughter, or capture, or siege, or ambush and other statagems. But even then there is room for repentance and amendment on the part of the guilty party, and if that takes place, our duty is forgiveness and the establishment of peace.

The Quran is pretty clear there... what it doesn't tell me clearly is what is entailed in repentance. There are several passages about steadfast prayers, giving alms, and allowing repentance on the grounds that they had not yet heard God's word that imply strong to me conversion.

But the injunction was not binding if muslims were attacked during those months.

So then you agree that they were attacking those who were attacking them during the proscribed months?

Who, then, did they wait till later to attack? The only people left were those not attacking the Muslims... which is what you've been disputing.

 

[mr.guy]

What is the conduct in question, ...

If you'll forgive more commentary by the same translator, i'll relate his in part his introduction to the sura:

"In consequence of strong and persistent rumours that the Byzantines (Romans) were prepariong to invade Arabia and that the Byzantine Emperor himself had arrived near the frontier for the purpose, the Apostle collected as large a force as he could, and marched to Tabuk. The Byzantine invasion did not come off. But the Apostle took the opportunity of consolidation the Muslim position in that direction and making treaties of alliance with certain Christian and Jewish tribes neat the Gulf of 'Aqaba. On his return to Medina he considered the situation. During his absence the Hypocrites had played, as always, a double game, and the policy hitherto followed, of free access to the sacred centre of Islam, to Muslims and Pagans alike, was now altered, as it had been abused by the enemies of Islam."

Again, vague, i know. But it suggests they're reserving some rights to make war on more speculative and less positivist grounds.

...and is a war between faith and unfaith a war against the unfaithful (a command to kill non-muslims)?

It doesn't seem "muslim" conversion is that important; while acceptance of base abrahamic values seem to be the minimum requirement for any humanized consideration, as verse 6 implies.

The Quran is pretty clear there... what it doesn't tell me clearly is what is entailed in repentance. There are several passages about steadfast prayers, giving alms, and allowing repentance on the grounds that they had not yet heard God's word that imply strong to me conversion.

I agree; it doesn't sound like pagans are to be highly tolerated.

 

[Popeyesays]

One poster's source says this referrs to four months of grace. I'm certainly willing to entertain this, though I need quite a bit more support (such as why this comes right after "alliance" and "term").

Then popeyesays comes in with a different number of prohibited months (three), and asserts something similar. Obviosuly this numerical disagreement needs to be resolved and explained before any other discussion on sacred months can be had.

Actually, I said FOUR, I could NAME three.

This commentary is even more vague than the Quran itself. What is the conduct in question, and is a war between faith and unfaith a war against the unfaithful (a command to kill non-muslims)?

The Quran is pretty clear there... what it doesn't tell me clearly is what is entailed in repentance. There are several passages about steadfast prayers, giving alms, and allowing repentance on the grounds that they had not yet heard God's word that imply strong to me conversion.

Those who were monotheist, followers of "the Book" and the God of Abraham were believers whether they accepted Islam or not. Opposed to those several religions are the pagans, who worship idols, multiple gods and were prone to such practices as infanticide that offended the laws of Islam. The keys to those monotheistic religions were prayer, alms (giving to the poor) and repentance. In the old testament or TaNakh you can find the minimum belief structure under the "Noahid laws" which are still used today in Judaism to define "righteous" behavior.

So then you agree that they were attacking those who were attacking them during the proscribed months?

Who, then, did they wait till later to attack? The only people left were those not attacking the Muslims... which is what you've been disputing.

Try it this way, warfare was prohibited during the months in question by strong taboo and tribal law. You could not attack anyone during that time. The idolators DID attack during that time, and the muslims were allowed to defend themselves to the extent of going out in the field and ambushing the armies that were attacking and raiding them - this was allowed as defensive by Muhammed. When the months are over and the restriction is removed, then you attack the same offenders without let or hindrance to bring them to stop fighting. Stopping fighting included surrender, treaty, whatever . . . once the agreement was in place then the war was over, and the parties to the treaty could not be attacked by the muslims unless and until the other parties violated the agreement.

Warfare in that place and at that time was governed by SOCIAL laws. Muhammed put in place SPIRITUAL laws to amplify and delineate those social laws. Islam in that time and place offered the first protection to infants deemed "surplus", the first codified women's rights, the first marriage laws which referred to women as other than chattel of the husband, the first binding laws on the conduct of warfare. Those laws and ordnances have since been ocassionally violated by the kings and mullahin of Islam, but they did so at their own spiritual peril.

Regards,
Scott

 

[JerryL]

"In consequence of strong and persistent rumours that the Byzantines (Romans) were prepariong to invade Arabia and that the Byzantine Emperor himself had arrived near the frontier for the purpose, the Apostle collected as large a force as he could, and marched to Tabuk. The Byzantine invasion did not come off. But the Apostle took the opportunity of consolidation the Muslim position in that direction and making treaties of alliance with certain Christian and Jewish tribes neat the Gulf of 'Aqaba. On his return to Medina he considered the situation. During his absence the Hypocrites had played, as always, a double game, and the policy hitherto followed, of free access to the sacred centre of Islam, to Muslims and Pagans alike, was now altered, as it had been abused by the enemies of Islam."

At the risk of asking you to posit on someone else's comment (he's not here).

Do you think these "alliance with certain Christian and Jewish tribes neat the Gulf of 'Aqaba" are the one's discussed in 9:4? If so, that would seem to qualify them as "idoloters".

If not, did he have alliances with the pagans in Medina? This sounds reasonable to be the "sedition" discussed in the passage. Perhaps 9 is an order to drive out the pagans in Medina?

It doesn't seem "muslim" conversion is that important; while acceptance of base abrahamic values seem to be the minimum requirement for any humanized consideration, as verse 6 implies.

Regular prayer is part of the requirement. This does seem to require belonging to one of the abrahamic religions.

I agree; it doesn't sound like pagans are to be highly tolerated.

The strong impression I get is one of putting up with Jews, Christians, and agnostics who attend services (no compulsion in religion) while not allowing paganism or worshippers of any god other than Jehovia/Allah.

 

[Ryan2065]

Obviosuly this numerical disagreement needs to be resolved and explained before any other discussion on sacred months can be had.

For one this is a nonsense statement... You read "forbidden months" as treaty time, then you are corrected and it really means the months they are to not wage war.. Wether it is 3 or 4 doesn't matter to this discussion.
On that note.... http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa032801b.htm

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]1: Muharram ["Forbidden" - it is one of the four months during which time it is forbidden to wage war or fight][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]2: Safar ["Empty" or "Yellow"][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]3: Rabia Awal ["First spring"][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]4: Rabia Thani ["Second spring"][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]5: Jumaada Awal ["First freezing"][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]6: Jumaada Thani ["Second freezing"][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]7: Rajab ["To respect" - this is another holy month when fighting is prohibited][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]8: Sha'ban ["To spread and distribute"][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]9: Ramadan ["Parched thirst" - this is the month of Islamic daytime fasting][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]10: Shawwal ["To be light and vigorous"][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]11: Dhul-Qi'dah ["The month of rest" - another month when no warfare or fighting is allowed][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]12: Dhul-Hijjah ["The month of Hajj" - this is the month of the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, again when no warfare or fighting is allowed] [/font]

According to this source there are 4...

So then you agree that they were attacking those who were attacking them during the proscribed months?

Yes

Who, then, did they wait till later to attack? The only people left were those not attacking the Muslims... which is what you've been disputing.

The ones left were in two categories... The ones that had treaties with the Muslims, and the ones that did not. Looking at the passage in this new light, I would say they are to attack those that they had no treaty with.

 

[JerryL]

Those who were monotheist, followers of "the Book" and the God of Abraham were believers whether they accepted Islam or not. Opposed to those several religions are the pagans, who worship idols, multiple gods and were prone to such practices as infanticide that offended the laws of Islam. The keys to those monotheistic religions were prayer, alms (giving to the poor) and repentance. In the old testament or TaNakh you can find the minimum belief structure under the "Noahid laws" which are still used today in Judaism to define "righteous" behavior.

So then you do see a requirement ot convert, though any of the traditions of Abraham may work?

Try it this way, warfare was prohibited during the months in question by strong taboo and tribal law. You could not attack anyone during that time. The idolators DID attack during that time, and the muslims were allowed to defend themselves to the extent of going out in the field and ambushing the armies that were attacking and raiding them - this was allowed as defensive by Muhammed. When the months are over and the restriction is removed, then you attack the same offenders without let or hindrance to bring them to stop fighting.

So during those months you could only attack people who were attacking you... but after those months you could also attack people who were not attacking you?

Stopping fighting included surrender, treaty, whatever . . . once the agreement was in place then the war was over, and the parties to the treaty could not be attacked by the muslims unless and until the other parties violated the agreement.

"till the end of their term". What do you think that means in 9:4? Why do you think 9:5 begins with a "but" if not to add a caviat to 9:4? Why do you think 9 has no mention of anything that would restrict the targets with any criteria other than "idoloter"?

Warfare in that place and at that time was governed by SOCIAL laws. Muhammed put in place SPIRITUAL laws to amplify and delineate those social laws. Islam in that time and place offered the first protection to infants deemed "surplus", the first codified women's rights, the first marriage laws which referred to women as other than chattel of the husband, the first binding laws on the conduct of warfare.

You seem to be repeating a good number of superstitions:

There is nothing to prove that infanticide was prevalent in Arabia, except in the Tamim tribe, which appears to have practised it during severe famine. This imputation, too easily admitted by Orientalists, is based upon the disregard of the Bedouins for their female children. - H. Lammens, Islam. Belief and Institutions (London, 1929/1987), 21.

There were two common variants of endogamous marriages: Baal and Sadiqua (William Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (London, 1885). ). "Baal" being the Semitic word for husband, master, and owner. However, the mu'ta type of marriage, a subdivision from Sadiqa, was also common and traces of this type can be found in the Koran. In mu'ta, the woman's rights were greater than in any other marital type, which included mutual rights to end the marriage.

I would guess, actually, that the whole "worshipping graven images" was more offensive.

 

[JerryL]

For one this is a nonsense statement... You read "forbidden months" as treaty time, then you are corrected and it really means the months they are to not wage war.. Wether it is 3 or 4 doesn't matter to this discussion.

It matters to the credability of the claim that both clemants agree on their facts... that said, the original poster has clarified to 4.

The ones left were in two categories... The ones that had treaties with the Muslims, and the ones that did not. Looking at the passage in this new light, I would say they are to attack those that they had no treaty with.

Did they attack other muslims with whom they did not have a treaty? Or did they only attack non-Muslims with whom they did not have a treaty.

What do you make of the term reference in 9:4? What do you make of the fact that 9:5 begins with a "but"? What is it offering an exception to?

 

[michel]

Jerry, I have to hand it to you, you have endurance....................

It's only a pity you are so mistaken; but I guess you are one of many.

 

[JerryL]

Yes, Michel, It is a pity you are so mistaken; but I guess you are one of many.

 

[michel]

Yes, Michel, It is a pity you are so mistaken; but I guess you are one of many.

Ah, so I take it we are both mistaken.........

 

[mr.guy]

Do you think these "alliance with certain Christian and Jewish tribes neat the Gulf of 'Aqaba" are the one's discussed in 9:4? If so, that would seem to qualify them as "idoloters".

I couldn't say; I'll save us all from witnessing the indignity of attempting to transform myself into an instant scholar via wikkapedia. However, i'm not sure that this line and verse necessarily equates christians and jews as idolaters. Does the qur'an definitively express pagans and idolaters as identical/interchangeable terms?

Regular prayer is part of the requirement. This does seem to require belonging to one of the abrahamic religions.

To be honest, the sura flips between mercy for "men without knowledge" and condemnation to "those who reject Faith". I see no specific lines here addressing a religion per se, but it does seem to apply to all those who fail to live up to muslim standards, namely:

"But know ye that ye cannot Frustrate God (by you falshood)
But that God will cover With shame those who reject Him."

The meat i get from these verses is jurisprudal: Even if "pagans" adhere to the letter of treaty, any "loophole" exploitation will also be condemned. In this case:

"A (declaration) of immunity From God and His Apostle,
To those of the Pagans With whom ye have contracted
Mutual alliances;-

"Go ye, then, for four months,
Backwards and forwards,
(As ye will), throughout the land,
etc.

The "four months" comes across as a warning of disaproval. While the pagans have not breached treaty, it seems the Muslims are permitted to attack them (with notice) for "frustrating God" if they give four months declaration; enough time for the pagans to repent. I'm not entirely convinced a conversion is necessary, but an acknowlegment of the "right god" certainly seems in order (extremly speculative).

The strong impression I get is one of putting up with Jews, Christians, and agnostics who attend services (no compulsion in religion) while not allowing paganism or worshippers of any god other than Jehovia/Allah.

Gives the impression that pagans are a blanket term to descibe those who are basically out to **** off god.

 

[JerryL]

I couldn't say; I'll save us all from witnessing the indignity of attempting to transform myself into an instant scholar via wikkapedia. However, i'm not sure that this line and verse necessarily equates christians and jews as idolaters. Does the qur'an definitively express pagans and idolaters as identical/interchangeable terms?

In general I don't know. My skills with Arabic are about non-existant. In the case of Sura 9, the same word is translated by some as "pagans" and others as "idoloters". I suspect that it's not a specific reference to Christians/Jews. In point of fact, I tend to agree with the posters who've asserted that Jews and Christians are explicitly not being referred to.

The "four months" comes across as a warning of disaproval. While the pagans have not breached treaty, it seems the Muslims are permitted to attack them (with notice) for "frustrating God" if they give four months declaration; enough time for the pagans to repent. I'm not entirely convinced a conversion is necessary, but an acknowlegment of the "right god" certainly seems in order (extremly speculative).

It does seem to be the repeating pattern. Welcome muslims, tolerate Christians/Jews, War with everyone else unless they repent (but give them the opportunity to repent).

Gives the impression that pagans are a blanket term to descibe those who are basically out to **** off god.

I suspect it generally refers to anyone who worshipps a God who is not Allah (since Muslims consider Allah and Jehovia the same), and specifically referrs to indegenous idol-worshipping Arabs.

 

[mr.guy]

It does seem to be the repeating pattern. Welcome muslims, tolerate Christians/Jews, War with everyone else unless they repent (but give them the opportunity to repent).

However, in the blurb about "four months" (first and second verse), i'm not sure that just being a pagan is necessarily the factor that "frustates" god so much as to propel the muslims into treaty dissolvement and war. I get the impression that conversion (be it to minimal monotheisim) is among the ultimatum tactics available to muslims if pagans prove to be too troublesome of neighbours, or in this sura's instance, manipulative regarding the "spirit" of treaty rights.

 

[JerryL]

However, in the blurb about "four months" (first and second verse), i'm not sure that just being a pagan is necessarily the factor that "frustates" god so much as to propel the muslims into treaty dissolvement and war. I get the impression that conversion (be it to minimal monotheisim) is among the ultimatum tactics available to muslims if pagans prove to be too troublesome of neighbours, or in this sura's instance, manipulative regarding the "spirit" of treaty rights.

I don't think I follow. Could you rephrase?

 

[Popeyesays]

So then you do see a requirement ot convert, though any of the traditions of Abraham may work?.

No, pagans are believers in multiple gods, the people of the Book are ALL monotheists and followin the tradition of Abraham.

So during those months you could only attack people who were attacking you... but after those months you could also attack people who were not attacking you?.

No, but you could carry on warfare freely with those who had already attacked you - the period of four holy months is when everyone should abstain from warfare. The idolators were the first to break that convention.

"till the end of their term". What do you think that means in 9:4? Why do you think 9:5 begins with a "but" if not to add a caviat to 9:4? Why do you think 9 has no mention of anything that would restrict the targets with any criteria other than "idoloter"?.

The end of the term of any treaty. In that time treaties could have expressed periods of duration, or might not have any fixed duration expressed in the treaty. Idolators wre NOT "People of the Book".

"You seem to be repeating a good number of superstitions:.

There is nothing to prove that infanticide was prevalent in Arabia, except in the Tamim tribe, which appears to have practised it during severe famine. This imputation, too easily admitted by Orientalists, is based upon the disregard of the Bedouins for their female children. - H. Lammens, Islam. Belief and Institutions (London, 1929/1987), 21.

The point is that infanticide was forbidden in Muslim tribes, Jewish tribes and Christian tribes and was permitted in the tribes led by idolators.

There were two common variants of endogamous marriages: Baal and Sadiqua (William Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (London, 1885). ). "Baal" being the Semitic word for husband, master, and owner. However, the mu'ta type of marriage, a subdivision from Sadiqa, was also common and traces of this type can be found in the Koran. In mu'ta, the woman's rights were greater than in any other marital type, which included mutual rights to end the marriage. .

And the Islamic regulations and laws concerning the rights of women were the first WRITTEN and binding set of laws for the emancipation of women in that society - right?

I would guess, actually, that the whole "worshipping graven images" was more offensive.

The worship of graven images was not acceptable to the Islamic faith, but that was not the reason for the war. The reason for the war was that the idolators pursued, attacked, killed and pillaged as they like to wipe out Muhammed and His followers.

Regards,
Scott

 

[mr.guy]

Jerry,

I don't (based soley on this set of verses we're discussing) believe that muslims are here ordered to kill pagans just for being pagans. They are painted as generally ne'er do wells (with "misguided" or "unknowledgeable" exceptions), but my take on this is that these verses basically grant permission to muslims to attack or convert pagans deemed to be too much of a nuisance. I think "gods frustration" is used to condemn the pagans for "shiftyness" (for lack of a better word). The four months gives ample time for the pagans to reflect on what they've done and educate themselves on why their actions, while not expressed in the treaty as violation, are still wrong. If the pagans can't be suitable, well-behaved pagan neighbours, they now have a choice of being muslim (monotheist?) or dead. However, the asylum clause seems to grant small exception to this, but i can't at present deduce what's specifically required, be it "goodness", devoutness, or a nice brownie recipe; i think it may be intended to be somewhat open-ended here.

 

[jamaesi]

As this drags on and on, I think I need to note that tribal groups of pagans and tribal groups of Muslims and tribal groups of Christians and tribal groups of whathaveyou are not running around and making treaties and attacking each other and eating babies and pushing old women into the path of camels- at least where I am- and how is this relevant to today?

It was relevant at the time when this was happening- but that would be adding context into this. However, now, this is just getting ridiculous.

 

[mr.guy]

It was relevant at the time when this was happening- but that would be adding context into this. However, now, this is just getting ridiculous.

Are you suggesting that this discussed passage be removed from the qur'an on the grounds of it's irrelevency?

 

[Popeyesays]

It was relevant at the time when this was happening- but that would be adding context into this. However, now, this is just getting ridiculous.

Its relevant today everytime buldings and vehicles burn in France. Its relevant today every time a suicide bomber kills innocents. It is relevant today whenever a terrorist plot succeeds or fails.

Some want to blame it on the "bloodthirsty nature" of Islam, and Islam is far from blood thirsty.

Regards,
Scott