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

[JerryL]

Okay, you are being willfully ignorant and allowing your prejudices to blind your reason.

That's not constructive. You've attacked me without pinning down what you feel I've read wrong not what the correct interpretation is, nor why.

According to the Qur'an God brings everyone into being, kills them and then raises them up again for judgement. Muhammed makes no exception for Himself either.

I don't see that this realy interacts with the topic or the cited passages.

I assume you mean "if they stop fighting, you stop fighting", right
"God is forgiving and merciful. But fight them that there be no sedition and that the religion may be God's; but, if they desist, then let there be no hostility save against the unjust."
(The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 2 - The Heifer)

If they desist at what? What would they need to do for there to be no sedition? and who are the "unjust"?

What I originally said on this part:
Hard to comment on without knowing who is "unjust" - Jerry Post 153

By the definition of the Qur'an those of the "Book" (Sabaeans, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Mandaeans) are steadfast in prayer, give alms, and do not commit sedition. So - POOOOOOOOOOOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ther goes your argument

But what about the idoloters?

My argument is that there is a passage in the Quran which instructs Muslims to hurt/kill non-Muslims (inferred, because of their non-Muslim status). Sura 9.

I don't see how the fact that there are groups of non-Muslims which may be exempt from Sura 9 (non-idoloters) has all that great an effect on my argument.

 

[JerryL]

Most of what you seem to consider "not a plain reading" is we are telling you are from a plain reading of the entire Qur'an- the

You seem to simply be regurgitating the word "plain reading". It's a dangerous road to reinterpreate what one passage says in light of what you think another passage says... if two passages seem contrary to you, how do you know you are rewriting the correct one?

I'm not suggestin removing context; that's important to understand meaning (though I have to wonder that God's context would not be universal); but "it doesn't mean this because I don't want it to" isn't very helpful... and it's what much of the counter-argument boils down to.

Pagan practices and oathbreaking and so on and so forth.

Sura 9 is very explicit. It discusses oathbreakers, but also discusses those who have behaved honorably and have not aided your enemies. The fact that you and other's here continue to assert traits which the passage clearly and unequivocably contradicts serves to undermine any faith I might otherwise have in your reading.

You just have to read more than one verse- you seem intent on quoting just one verse (and usually a mistranslated verse, at that) and thinking it speaks for the whole religion

1. I did not translate the verse, I am interpreting what the translation means.
2. I have said that it "speaks for the whole religion", nor that it does not.

Here you have asserted a completely false set of properties for what I've said and repeated in this thread. This is not indicitive that I'm the poster showing bias.

 

[JerryL]

Members of the opposition have already agreed with me. Specifically Ryan has already stated that I'm correct (from post 72): "I have already stated that it [Sura 009] is a Quranic command to hurt/kill non-Muslims awhile ago..."

 

[Popeyesays]

But what about the idoloters?

My argument is that there is a passage in the Quran which instructs Muslims to hurt/kill non-Muslims (inferred, because of their non-Muslim status). Sura 9.

I don't see how the fact that there are groups of non-Muslims which may be exempt from Sura 9 (non-idoloters) has all that great an effect on my argument.

Okay, let's try another tack, see if we can beat to windward.

On December 7th, 1941, the Empire of Japan attacked the United States, bombing fleet and military establishments in Hawaii and invading Guam, American Samoa, and the Phillipines - all sovereign territories of the United States. In each of these instances the armed of the United States made some defense as they were capable and resisted the invasion, threatening the invaders with physical harm and possible loss of life and limb. As the war progressed the United States insisted upon the unconditional surrender of the Empire of Japan. The United States and its executive authority pursue the enemy whereever he took refuge eventually drolpping two atomic devices on Japan to compel its surrender. Was the President and the leadership of the United States guilty of murder?

In the middle of the 7th century in Saudi Arabia, a man claiming a revelation from God was houndced from His home, chased across the desert by men inent upon murdering Him and His followers. He took refuge in the Oasis settlement of Medina where the people recognized His revelation and gave over to Him the legal sovereignty of ruler of the Oasis community. He directed those people in the defense of their home, and pursued war against the self-declared enemy where he might take refuge, to compel them to surrender and stop fighting against Medina and the Prophet. Does this make Him guilty of murder?

In my estimation, no, it does not. He had a higher responsibility to the defense of His people and the burden of authority.

This is the substance, circumstance and context of the verse you find so highly objectionable. Defend your position if you can.

Regards,
Scott

 

[JerryL]

The United States and its executive authority pursue the enemy whereever he took refuge eventually drolpping two atomic devices on Japan to compel its surrender. Was the President and the leadership of the United States guilty of murder?

I don't see the parity, but I'll answer your question.

If the president either committed an unlawful killing or was a willing accomplice in an unlawful killing then he committed either murder or manslaughter. The guidelines for each vary by juristiction. To my knowledge: no

He directed those people in the defense of their home, and pursued war against the self-declared enemy where he might take refuge, to compel them to surrender and stop fighting against Medina and the Prophet. Does this make Him guilty of murder?

Not sure who'se law you'd choose to go by, as well as on many of the details left out. (was he directly involved, or just a conspiritor, were the direct targets all declared combatants, etc). On first blush I'd say "no".

This is the substance, circumstance and context of the verse you find so highly objectionable. Defend your position if you can.

No, it's really not. You are making several untrue assertions.

1. You are asking about and discussing whether something qualifies a "murder". This is not a topic broached by anyone. We have not been discussing whether the killing of non-Muslims was murder, just whether it was ordered on the basis of their non-Muslim status.

2. You have falsely asserted that Sura 9 only discusses a war against a self-declared enemy. It's pretty clear to me that "Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you." are not declared enemies. They are people who have honorably held an alliance with you and not aided your enemies.

3. You have, without support, inferred and asserted that simple "we give up" is sufficient that the conflict would stop. Obviously, people who kept their alliance and did not aid your enemies were already peaceful when the warring started.

You also ignore the complete lack of comment on combatants and non-combatants. The command is to kill idoloters. One need not be a combatant to worship idols.

Would you like to discuss the topic?

 

[Ryan2065]

I did not leave it out, it is in fact in my quote and discussed.

"Sedition" is a little more specific than "rebellion", though anyone is welcome to discuss the Arabic word in question. The command is to drive your opponents out of areas you once occupied (to recoccupy them). To allow your opponents to continue to occupy land which you believe you should rightfully control would be seditious.

So this is saying that, while it's bad to slaughter people; it's worse to let other people control land that is "rightfully yours", and so you kill them instead of allowing sedition.

So your plain reading of "drive them out from where they drive you out because rebellion is bad" translates to "retake land that they captured that is rightfully yours" ??? I did not realize the passage had used the past tense (as far as I can tell, drive is in present/future tense) though if you want to start a debate on grammer I would be happy to pull out my 4th grade english book and debate you on that...

"being killed is the recompense of those that misbelieve." What is a plain reading of that to you? To me it's "people who believe the wrong thing are to be killed". Feel free to offer a different understanding and support.

Offer a different understanding and support? Hrm... lets see... When the passage is...

but fight them not by the Sacred Mosque until they fight you there; then kill them, for such is the recompense of those that misbelieve.

And it says "then kill them" so when is "then" referring to? when they fight you by the Sacred Mosque... So are you actually killing them because they "misbelieve" or because they are trying to kill you?

Actually, the line as a whole seems to cover them stopping and converting (look at the rest of the passage).

That said, I'm not trying to force them to jibe. That too would not be a "plain reading". I'm attempting to take what it says at face value. It is apparent that you are not.

That is exactly your problem... You are looking at a translation of a text and saying "If I just look at 5 words strung together here I can get a clear view of what is being stated" instead of being smart and saying "this is a translation so a better thing to do would be to look at the whole chapter to figure out what they are saying"

 

[Ryan2065]

Just a quick off topic comment...

Further, I would appriciate if you would lay-off the rhetoric and snide commentary. I've alreadyy reported your above post.

I myself would appreciate it if you would lay off the mistranslations and misquotations that you so readily accept as true.

Here are some good examples of misquotations... Note, I am only following the rules you yourself are using (ie, only quoting part of the sentence and only quoting part of the passage as well as believing one sentence of the passage shows what the whole passage means)

You don't have to follow the treaties you made with non-Muslims.

Well that isnt very nice! If you make a treaty you should follow it!

The Quran, while nowhere near as violent as the OT

Aw, thanks, I believe that the Quran is not violent also!

We can try to blame regional and cultural factors

I don't know if I can really comment on this without a direct knowledge of what "blame" is refering to.

Of course, having now heard the word of Allah, they know.

Oh, this passage of course means the author is a follower of Allah.

And I've quoted more than once that the Quran says you will burn in hell.

This is not a very nice belief to hold Jerry... You shouldn't suggest people will burn in hell!

they must hear the word of Allah and spread it

Ohh, you want people to convert to your religion?

Looking up the English word would not be useful

But you are typing in english!

The command was to kill idoloters wherever you find them.

Why do you want to kill idoloters?

Christians are idoloters because they make idols.

Oh, you even define what idoloters means!

My words are not all that important.

Aw, we need to get you some self esteem!

Give yourself a cookie.

Aw, this shows you are a fan of cookies!

Slay idoloters wherever you find them.

There you go again with that command!

People of the wrong beliefs should be killed

Thats not very nice either!

This seems a silly and unreasonable thing to do in a debate like this, but it is pretty relvant... You seem to be wanting to just read one sentence (or part of one) and dissect what that means, using todays standards. Here I have quoted either parts or whole sentences that you have stated and have tried my best to interpret exactly what you mean by just looking at that one sentence. As you can see, I have not exactly gotten what your message really is.

Now look at someone trying to do this with a religious text written in a different language over 1500 years ago. You are taking one sentence and trying to just derive what that one sentence means... I have done the same with your own words... have I come close to what you meant?

 

[Ryan2065]

Members of the opposition have already agreed with me. Specifically Ryan has already stated that I'm correct (from post 72): "I have already stated that it [Sura 009] is a Quranic command to hurt/kill non-Muslims awhile ago..."

I have agreed that it is a Quranic command to hurt/kill non-Muslims... I have not agreed that it is a Quranic command to hurt/kill non-Muslims BECAUSE they are non-Muslim.

 

[JerryL]

So your plain reading of "drive them out from where they drive you out because rebellion is bad" translates to "retake land that they captured that is rightfully yours" ??? I did not realize the passage had used the past tense (as far as I can tell, drive is in present/future tense) though if you want to start a debate on grammer I would be happy to pull out my 4th grade english book and debate you on that...

I've not asserted a tense. I don't have any idea what your point of contention is here.

And it says "then kill them" so when is "then" referring to? when they fight you by the Sacred Mosque... So are you actually killing them because they "misbelieve" or because they are trying to kill you?

When you are fighting "them" by the sacred mosque (under these rules) it's because they have met two criteria... being "them", and having attacked you by the mosque.

"Them" has been defined earlier as "idoloters".

That is exactly your problem... You are looking at a translation of a text and saying "If I just look at 5 words strung together here I can get a clear view of what is being stated" instead of being smart and saying "this is a translation so a better thing to do would be to look at the whole chapter to figure out what they are saying"

That's a misstatemet of "plain read" as well. I have indeed looked at and discussed the entire chapter. I have not attempted to reinterpreate plan-language to make it match a contrary comment elsewhere.

I myself would appreciate it if you would lay off the mistranslations and misquotations that you so readily accept as true.

Feel free to offer a preferred translaion. I've been using one offered here by a Muslim. You have not suggested a different translation to use.

Here are some good examples of misquotations... Note, I am only following the rules you yourself are using (ie, only quoting part of the sentence and only quoting part of the passage as well as believing one sentence of the passage shows what the whole passage means)

(skipping quoting your example) Actually, you repeatedly fail to accurately represent the bit you quote. The problem on them is not a lack of context, but a simple error (by you) in the reading.

Further, although you keep making vague "it's out of context" claims, I've addressed context repeatedly; including your arguments for it. It is, in point of fact, you who keeps pulling pieces out of context (ignoring the clear "people who have kept their alliance and not aided your enemies" part, for example).

This seems a silly and unreasonable thing to do in a debate like this, but it is pretty relvant... You seem to be wanting to just read one sentence (or part of one) and dissect what that means, using todays standards. Here I have quoted either parts or whole sentences that you have stated and have tried my best to interpret exactly what you mean by just looking at that one sentence. As you can see, I have not exactly gotten what your message really is.

Really you have not... nor have you shown that I've done this... nor have you addressed your own pattern of ignoring the parts you don't like.

Most of your counter-arguments have been either contrary to or entirely unrepresented in the passages in question. You assertion that every single idoloter was murdering babies, and that this was the reason they were attacked, for example. Your assertion that they were attacking the Muslims, despite the statement to the direct contrary regarding some. etc.

Now look at someone trying to do this with a religious text written in a different language over 1500 years ago. You are taking one sentence and trying to just derive what that one sentence means... I have done the same with your own words... have I come close to what you meant?

I have not "looked at one sentance". I've taken a far more comprehensive view that you have. You are the one who pulls individual sentances and ignores the parts around them. Every time you've offered a specific complaint, I've addressed it direactly.

I have agreed that it is a Quranic command to hurt/kill non-Muslims... I have not agreed that it is a Quranic command to hurt/kill non-Muslims BECAUSE they are non-Muslim.

That's the topic. You've agreed to it. Your positive assertion regarding reason is pretty silly, and entirely unsupported by the passage.

 

[Popeyesays]

Jerryl: "1. You are asking about and discussing whether something qualifies a "murder". This is not a topic broached by anyone. We have not been discussing whether the killing of non-Muslims was murder, just whether it was ordered on the basis of their non-Muslim status.

2. You have falsely asserted that Sura 9 only discusses a war against a self-declared enemy. It's pretty clear to me that "Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you." are not declared enemies. They are people who have honorably held an alliance with you and not aided your enemies.

3. You have, without support, inferred and asserted that simple "we give up" is sufficient that the conflict would stop. Obviously, people who kept their alliance and did not aid your enemies were already peaceful when the warring started.

You also ignore the complete lack of comment on combatants and non-combatants. The command is to kill idoloters. One need not be a combatant to worship idols.

Would you like to discuss the topic?

Both Roosevelt in the conduct of his presidency and Muhammed in the conduct of his rule of Medina were chief executives, and functioned as such. Your quibble is immaterial as to the particular points above:

1. It was ordered because they were conducting war and pillage against Medina.

2. The Mecca idolators were not non-combatant, and only THEY are picked out by the relevant verse in Surah 9.

3. Those already peaceful were never involved in the issue.

4. To be killed under the fiat of Muhammed REQUIRES them to be combatants against Islam, otherwise they are to be left to themselves.

POOOOF!!!! There goes your argument again. QED

Regards,
Scott

 

[michel]

Jerryl: "1. You are asking about and discussing whether something qualifies a "murder". This is not a topic broached by anyone. We have not been discussing whether the killing of non-Muslims was murder, just whether it was ordered on the basis of their non-Muslim status.

2. You have falsely asserted that Sura 9 only discusses a war against a self-declared enemy. It's pretty clear to me that "Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you." are not declared enemies. They are people who have honorably held an alliance with you and not aided your enemies.

3. You have, without support, inferred and asserted that simple "we give up" is sufficient that the conflict would stop. Obviously, people who kept their alliance and did not aid your enemies were already peaceful when the warring started.

You also ignore the complete lack of comment on combatants and non-combatants. The command is to kill idoloters. One need not be a combatant to worship idols.

Would you like to discuss the topic?

Both Roosevelt in the conduct of his presidency and Muhammed in the conduct of his rule of Medina were chief executives, and functioned as such. Your quibble is immaterial as to the particular points above:

1. It was ordered because they were conducting war and pillage against Medina.

2. The Mecca idolators were not non-combatant, and only THEY are picked out by the relevant verse in Surah 9.

3. Those already peaceful were never involved in the issue.

4. To be killed under the fiat of Muhammed REQUIRES them to be combatants against Islam, otherwise they are to be left to themselves.

POOOOF!!!! There goes your argument again. QED

Regards,
Scott

Nice one Scott; fruballs!

 

[JerryL]

Both Roosevelt in the conduct of his presidency and Muhammed in the conduct of his rule of Medina were chief executives, and functioned as such. Your quibble is immaterial as to the particular points above:

My quibble has nothing to do with comparing Roosevelt and Mohammed. I have no problem with that comparison. My issue is that you are not discussing the topic at hand (does the Quran have instructions to hurt/kill non-muslims).

1. It was ordered because they were conducting war and pillage against Medina.

So Allah ordered Muslims to hurt/kill non-Muslims because the Muslims were pilaging Medina? OK.

Or are you asserting that the idoloters in question were? It's plainly stated that some were not (Sura 9:4)
"Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. "

2. The Mecca idolators were not non-combatant, and only THEY are picked out by the relevant verse in Surah 9.

Thta's simply not true. Ignoring the impossability of every member of a religion being combatant, 9:4(above) identifies non-hostile idoloters and 9:5 says to slay them once the proscribed months have passed:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); "

3. Those already peaceful were never involved in the issue.

In addition to not being logically possible that all idoloters were unpeaceable (and all idoloters are to be slain per 9:5 (above)), your statement is in direct contradiction to 9:4 which discusses idoloters who have not failed in their alliance to the Muslims and have not aided the enemies of the Muslims.

4. To be killed under the fiat of Muhammed REQUIRES them to be combatants against Islam, otherwise they are to be left to themselves.

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them"

Show me the caviat that excludes peacable pagans. You have a claim but no support... in fact (as I've just repointed out), your claim is in direct contradiction to 9:4 which clearly includes those who have entered into alliacne with Mohammed, have kept to their alliance and who have not aided Mohammed's enemies.

POOOOF!!!! There goes your argument again. QED

Your statements are demonstrably false.

 

[Popeyesays]

My quibble has nothing to do with comparing Roosevelt and Mohammed. I have no problem with that comparison. My issue is that you are not discussing the topic at hand (does the Quran have instructions to hurt/kill non-muslims).

So Allah ordered Muslims to hurt/kill non-Muslims because the Muslims were pilaging Medina? OK.

Or are you asserting that the idoloters in question were? It's plainly stated that some were not (Sura 9:4)
"Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. ".

The whole thing is context, and you ain't gonna understand until you seek some info on the historical context of the verse. Yes, the directive is aimed at those pagans who were attacking the muslims in general and Medina in particuloar. Those pagans who were not at war with Medina, or were under treaty with Medina and upholding that treaty were not to be touched. There was no state of war with them and their persons and goos were inviolate.

I really recommend the Medina chapters of Muhammed and the Course of Islam, by H. M. Balyuzi (He's not an Arab, he's Persian. He's not a muslim he was a Baha`i) Reading that section of the book would clear up a lot, but there are other sources, that will do the same.
Its CONTEXT that matters, and the CONTEXT of the QUranic injunction which irritates you is that the war was to be waged against those particular idolators - the Meccans, and other idolators whether under treaty or not were not part of the war or the injunction.

Regards,
Scott

Thta's simply not true. Ignoring the impossability of every member of a religion being combatant, 9:4(above) identifies non-hostile idoloters and 9:5 says to slay them once the proscribed months have passed:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); "

In addition to not being logically possible that all idoloters were unpeaceable (and all idoloters are to be slain per 9:5 (above)), your statement is in direct contradiction to 9:4 which discusses idoloters who have not failed in their alliance to the Muslims and have not aided the enemies of the Muslims.

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them"

Show me the caviat that excludes peacable pagans. You have a claim but no support... in fact (as I've just repointed out), your claim is in direct contradiction to 9:4 which clearly includes those who have entered into alliacne with Mohammed, have kept to their alliance and who have not aided Mohammed's enemies.

Your statements are demonstrably false.

Its the very surah you keep chanting:
"SHAKIR: Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty). "

Regards,
Scott

 

[Ryan2065]

I've not asserted a tense. I don't have any idea what your point of contention is here.

You have asserted...

So this is saying that, while it's bad to slaughter people; it's worse to let other people control land that is "rightfully yours", and so you kill them instead of allowing sedition.

Yet the passage says nothing of others controlling your own land... It only states that you are to drive out those who are trying to drive you out.

When you are fighting "them" by the sacred mosque (under these rules) it's because they have met two criteria... being "them", and having attacked you by the mosque.

"Them" has been defined earlier as "idoloters".

"then kill them, for such is the recompense of those that misbelieve."
People of the wrong beliefs should be killed

Just pointing out you did not state this earlier...

That's a misstatemet of "plain read" as well. I have indeed looked at and discussed the entire chapter. I have not attempted to reinterpreate plan-language to make it match a contrary comment elsewhere.

You have looked at and discussed the entire chapter? You do realize there are 129 verses in the chapter right?

Feel free to offer a preferred translaion. I've been using one offered here by a Muslim. You have not suggested a different translation to use.

I was speaking of your translations of the english.

(skipping quoting your example) Actually, you repeatedly fail to accurately represent the bit you quote

Oh oh, he might be getting it...

The problem on them is not a lack of context, but a simple error (by you) in the reading.

Darn, he doesn't get it... Ok, new example.. Please tell me exactly what this statement means (not looking at the context, but just the ONE statement)

My words are not all that important.

Further, although you keep making vague "it's out of context" claims, I've addressed context repeatedly; including your arguments for it. It is, in point of fact, you who keeps pulling pieces out of context (ignoring the clear "people who have kept their alliance and not aided your enemies" part, for example).

I have not ignored it, I have addressed it. You seem to believe that before the pagans entered into a treaty with the Muslims there was no way they had attacked them earlier... Also, you seem to believe there is no way these pagan people could want to attack the Muslim people after the treaty is over. Further you believe there is no way that the pagans threatened the Muslims at all. You simply read the passage even though you are ignorant of both the political and social climate of that time.

You assertion that every single idoloter was murdering babies

I have already addressed this stating that not every idoloter was murdering babies, but the idolters as a people were. I have offered views of historians who agree with me but you throw out the historian view saying only "it is not evidence" and offer no evidence of your own that there was some pagan group that did not murder their children.

and that this was the reason they were attacked, for example.

Again, you mis-represent my view... I have stated that murdering babies could have been a reason these pagans were attacked seeing as we know that the Muslims knew about this and did not agree with the practice. You asserted that a talking dog could have told them to attack the pagans, but have offered no evidence that they had dogs or that the dogs could talk.

Your assertion that they were attacking the Muslims, despite the statement to the direct contrary regarding some. etc.

I asserted that they could have attacked them before the treaty, and further offered evidence of the history of the Muslim people that showed that they were indeed attacked by the pagan groups of that time and run out of their homes. If you would like to offer evidence to the contrary then by all means go ahead.

I have not "looked at one sentance". I've taken a far more comprehensive view that you have. You are the one who pulls individual sentances and ignores the parts around them. Every time you've offered a specific complaint, I've addressed it direactly.

Yet your whole argument rests on the statement of one sentence...

That's the topic. You've agreed to it. Your positive assertion regarding reason is pretty silly, and entirely unsupported by the passage.

Again, you are only looking at the one sentence... Yet above you say you have taken a comprehensive view and ignore the parts that say to let those go who surrender... Which goes against the view that they are killing the pagans for the simple rease that they are pagans. Also, historically, the Muslims did attack the pagan tribes... Also, historically, the Muslims did not kill all the pagans unless if they converted to being a Muslim... Are you saying they disobeyed a direct order in the Qur'an or could there be a more plausable explanation, maybe they had the origional version, in Arabic, and were able to get a better understanding of what the passage stated?

Also, I have stated that it was a Qur'an command to hurt/kill non-Muslims, later I did clarify that I did not agree with you that they were only hurting/killing the non-Muslims because they were non-Muslim.

So Allah ordered Muslims to hurt/kill non-Muslims because the Muslims were pilaging Medina? OK.

The Muslims lived in Medina at that time... :banghead3

Thta's simply not true. Ignoring the impossability of every member of a religion being combatant, 9:4(above) identifies non-hostile idoloters and 9:5 says to slay them once the proscribed months have passed:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); "

You state that the command was to hurt/kill all non-Muslims, even the non-combatants, even though a verse or two later says that if they do not fight do not kill them... Again you show you are only focused on one sentence in the chapter...

 

[Popeyesays]

I suspect we have reached an impasse in this discussion, and would call for a resolution to the argument. To do so I have started a thread in this heading called: The current debate on the Qur'an and Surah 9 in particular

Comments are welcome

Regards,
Scott

 

[JerryL]

The whole thing is context, and you ain't gonna understand until you seek some info on the historical context of the verse. Yes, the directive is aimed at those pagans who were attacking the muslims in general and Medina in particuloar. Those pagans who were not at war with Medina, or were under treaty with Medina and upholding that treaty were not to be touched. There was no state of war with them and their persons and goos were inviolate.

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); "

You are directly and explicitly contradicted by the Quran.

Its CONTEXT that matters, and the CONTEXT of the QUranic injunction which irritates you is that the war was to be waged against those particular idolators - the Meccans, and other idolators whether under treaty or not were not part of the war or the injunction.

The question asked in the topic was about what the Quran says. The quran is clear on what it says in several regards, including it's command to slay the idoloters who had made alliance, honored it, and not helped Mohammed's enemies.

Its the very surah you keep chanting:
"SHAKIR: Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty). "

and the next line is:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); "

All your quote says is "don't attack them while you are under agreement not to", the next line says "as soon as that agreement expires, attack them".

 

[JerryL]

Yet the passage says nothing of others controlling your own land... It only states that you are to drive out those who are trying to drive you out

It's gonna depend on what all the "but"s go to.

"But if they desist, then, verily, God is forgiving and merciful. But fight them that there be no sedition and that the religion may be God's; but, if they desist, then let there be no hostility save against the unjust."

Fight them, but if they desist don't fight them, but if there's sedition do fight them, but if they desist don't fight them.

To be honest, I've lost track of some of the "buts". I'm pretty sure there's not an allowance to cede territory here (certainly, that's not what actually happened), but we are gonna need a better translation or to learn Arabic to be conclusive.

Just pointing out you did not state this earlier...

Didn't state what?

You have looked at and discussed the entire chapter? You do realize there are 129 verses in the chapter right?

I think you are being to literal. I have read the entire chapter, yes. I have not been discussing the entire chapter here; but neither have I been ignoring the context.

In point of fact, I keep running into people quoting 9:4 in ignorance of 9:5

I was speaking of your translations of the english.

Then be specific and support.

Darn, he doesn't get it... Ok, new example.. Please tell me exactly what this statement means (not looking at the context, but just the ONE statement)

That the words of mine are not all that important.

I have not ignored it, I have addressed it. You seem to believe that before the pagans entered into a treaty with the Muslims there was no way they had attacked them earlier...

Let's imagine that they had attacked earlier.

Your stated position is that people who desist attacking are to be let go. Obviously, someone who is honoring a treaty with you and who is not aiding your enemies is not attacking.

Also, you seem to believe there is no way these pagan people could want to attack the Muslim people after the treaty is over.

I believe no such thing. There is, however, no such caviat in the Quran. It says to attack them all when the alliance ends. There's no "if they attack you" bit.

Further you believe there is no way that the pagans threatened the Muslims at all. You simply read the passage even though you are ignorant of both the political and social climate of that time.

You seem not better at determining what I believe than you are at reading what Sura 9 says.

Further you believe there is no way that the pagans threatened the Muslims at all. You simply read the passage even though you are ignorant of both the political and social climate of that time.

You said that those who were not actively doing it were supporting it. You've never proven this assertion nor proven your claimed tie into the mandate to slay them all.

Again, you mis-represent my view... I have stated that murdering babies could have been a reason these pagans were attacked seeing as we know that the Muslims knew about this and did not agree with the practice. You asserted that a talking dog could have told them to attack the pagans, but have offered no evidence that they had dogs or that the dogs could talk.

You dispute that they had dogs? You dispute that they could have had dogs?

I asserted that they could have attacked them before the treaty, and further offered evidence of the history of the Muslim people that showed that they were indeed attacked by the pagan groups of that time and run out of their homes. If you would like to offer evidence to the contrary then by all means go ahead.

Muhammed could have written it on a bender... space aliens could have created the entire Earth last week and placed false memories in our heads. I'm less interested in what "could have" happened and more interested in what can be supported.

Yet your whole argument rests on the statement of one sentence...

Since my argument is about what one sentance says; I would have to say "yes".

Since your refutation must also be over that one sentance, your argumet too rests on what one sentance says.

Again, you are only looking at the one sentence... Yet above you say you have taken a comprehensive view and ignore the parts that say to let those go who surrender... Which goes against the view that they are killing the pagans for the simple rease that they are pagans.

A sentance saying that, and another saying that they were not going to be attacked later, would indeed. Unfortunately for you neither sentance clearly exists.

, historically, the Muslims did attack the pagan tribes... Also, historically, the Muslims did not kill all the pagans unless if they converted to being a Muslim... Are you saying they disobeyed a direct order in the Qur'an or could there be a more plausable explanation, maybe they had the origional version, in Arabic, and were able to get a better understanding of what the passage stated?

It's an interesting side-topic. Were there pagans living under mohammed after this?

The Muslims lived in Medina at that time...

After the Muslims conquered the Arabian pennensulia there were still pagans living under their rule? I really have no idea, you shoudl support that.

You state that the command was to hurt/kill all non-Muslims, even the non-combatants, even though a verse or two later says that if they do not fight do not kill them... Again you show you are only focused on one sentence in the chapter...

I disagree that there is a statement later which says to not kill idoloters.

There is one which says to wait to kill idoloters with whom you have an alliance in good standing until the alliance ends. And there's a statement that says not to kill an idoloter who give up, and "prayes regularly and gives alms" creating a situation where "all religion is of God" (which sounds to me like "converts to Judeo-Christian-Islam").

 

[Popeyesays]

Sctually, it does not say 'attack them when the alliance ends". You are getting mixed up with English Common and US Law concepts. In the legal parlance of the US and Commonwealth legal systems, treaties are contracts and contracts must have a term of time or a term of time is assigned to it by a court (such as the US where a contract without a specific term is assigned a term of ONE year.

The treaties amongst the tribes of Arabia in the seventh century, common era did not have such caveats attached. A treaty ran until one part broke it. The muslims did not ever break such a treaty during that century. All treaty abrogations were instigated by the non-muslim parties to the agreement.

Even in the next century it was rare for an Arab army to actually conquer a city, almost always the city was entered by treaty agreement - and a very good example of this is the muslim entry into Jerusalem.

Regards,
Scott

 

[JerryL]

The treaties amongst the tribes of Arabia in the seventh century, common era did not have such caveats attached. A treaty ran until one part broke it. The muslims did not ever break such a treaty during that century. All treaty abrogations were instigated by the non-muslim parties to the agreement.

Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
​

What do you think a "term" is? The nest part:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); "
​

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"?

There really seems to be no way to rationalize your claim with the actual Quran. Can you offer a viable explanation for these two passages, particualrly the bold parts, and how they interrelate with your claim that Muslim alliances had no term... no limit of time for which they were active?

 

[mr.guy]

hi jerry,

I'll leave some of the translator's notes on the verse in question from the qur'an i gots here.

For what it's worth:

"But when the forbidden months...

-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

...Are past, then fight and slay

-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.

translation and commentary: A.Yusuf Ali