Quote:
The religion of Islam condemns the killing or even the persecution of people merely because they embrace a different religion. The Quran mandates the absolute freedom of religion in a society. It does not allow Muslims to fight except for self defense and to enforce peace. It does not allow restrictions on those who disagree on religious matters. It urges the Muslims to treat such people kindly and equitably.
Quote:
2:193 Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme.
Now we are coming to this discussion. You need to learn about the history of the verse it self. That verse existed (if you don't like the term REVEALED) CONCERNING WAR in time of BADR WAR. Nothing about killing innocent Non-Muslims.
Let's talk about the history. I will show you all the reference, so we can see it together.
http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/seerah/24.htm
After this event, Quraish began to realize the real danger that Madinah could present with. They came to know that Madinah had always been on the alert, watching closely their commercial caravans. It was then common knowledge to them that the Muslims in their new abode could span and extend their military activities over an area of 300 miles. and bring it under full control. However, the new situation borne in mind, the Makkans could not be deterred and were too obstinate to come to terms with the new rising power of Islam. They were determined to bring their fall by their own hands and with this recklessness they precipitated the great battle of Badr.
The Muslims, on the other hand, and at the behest of their Lord, were ordered to go to war in Sha‘ban 2 A.H:
Quote:
“And fight, in the way of Allâh those who fight you; but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (polytheism or calamity) is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (the Sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of ) worship is for Allâh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimûn (polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” [2:190-193
So you better read those BOLD letters carefully ma friend.
surah 2:190,192,193 all in a tie and much related. You can't make them separate unless the meaning will be distorted.
Allâh likes not the transgressors
unless they (first) fight you there
Again. DO NOT FIGHT UNLESS they fight you.
if they attack you
ATTACK only IF THEY ATTACK YOU.
That verse is not legalize killing non Muslims, but URGES Muslims to be brave to FIGHT BACK they are ATTACKED. so this is merely DEFENCE.
Again these verses existed regarding BADR WAR.
Those verses are three of the BASIC RULES OF WAR. and these verses
Kai replies:
Ok what you are saying is that Sura 2: 190-193 is passage of glorious virtue in times of war if red in context:
“And fight, in the way of Allâh those who fight you; but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (polytheism or calamity) is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (the Sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of ) worship is for Allâh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimûn (polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” [2:190-193
I am not going to repeat your interpretation here fdjohan, but as you said lets look at this together, and so far we have had the insight from a Muslim.
If you ask me, I honestly, fail to see the virtue you are portraying.
What is this passage really saying?
The only virtue might be the order not to transgress the limits (if you could point out to me specifically what that means, of course with sources).
The rule not to fight unless they fight, sounds honourable, however that applied only because of the proximity of the Meccan sanctuary; hence holy ground.
Yet, fdjohan, the passage reveals the exact opposite of what your are asserting; first and most, the wording is clear, kill them, wherever you find them; FRANKLY, IT DOES NOT SOUND LIKE DEFENCE.
Another issue is about turning them out (the enemy) where they have turned you out; but this reveals no virtue only an attitude of revenge.
Furthermore, the passage reveals nothing about defence as the purpose specifically states that they are to fight until there is no more unbelief in the land.
Hence the motive is not defence, which is why it says ‘let there be not transgression except against those who are wrong-doers and the polytheists’. Hence we are looking at transgression.
But transgressing the limits in this passage seems only to refer to the fighting near the sanctuary, and to spare them if they surrender.
Even the sentence: ‘But if they attack you, then kill them’ is ambiguous, as the verse continues with: ‘such is the recompense of the disbelievers’.
It seems like the emphasis is on the killing which is the recompense, otherwise why should the Muslims fight unless there is not more disbelief and fight wherever they find them.
I think this debunks your entire interpretation.
Fdjohn wrote:
After this event, Quraish began to realize the real danger that Madinah could present with. They came to know that Madinah had always been on the alert, watching closely their commercial caravans. It was then common knowledge to them that the Muslims in their new abode could span and extend their military activities over an area of 300 miles. and bring it under full control. However, the new situation borne in mind, the Makkans could not be deterred and were too obstinate to come to terms with the new rising power of Islam. They were determined to bring their fall by their own hands and with this recklessness they precipitated the great battle of Badr.
Kai replies:
Obviously, if Muhammad had attacked caravans and threatened the city and if the growing number of Muslims began presenting a treat, there was the urgency to intervene. In one sense this presents no less treat than the Jews in the proximity of Medina, and they all got exterminated.
About this particular passage
you (fdjohan) stated:
Now we are coming to this discussion. You need to learn about the history of the verse it self. That verse existed (if you don't like the term REVEALED) CONCERNING WAR in time of BADR WAR. Nothing about killing innocent Non-Muslims.
Yet Sura 2: 190-3 revealed the exact opposite:
“And fight, in the way of Allâh those who fight you; but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (polytheism or calamity) is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (the Sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of ) worship is for Allâh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimûn (polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” [2:190-193
Kill them wherever you find them
Where they have turned you out, turn them out
Al-Fitnah (polytheism…) is worse than killing
…such is the recompense of the disbelievers
Fight them until there is no more Fitnah
…let there be no transgression excep against Az-Zalimun (polytheists…)
You need to consider Sura 2: 190-193 again fdjohan
Furthermore I would rather follow the interpretation of the Hadiths, which you are supposed to do fdjohan:
Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2664:
Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children.
Furthermore Fdjohan wrote:
That verse is not legalize killing non Muslims, but URGES Muslims to be brave to FIGHT BACK they are ATTACKED. so this is merely DEFENCE.
Kai replies:
Well consider who is attacking here, is it the Quraish? No! Why, does Sura 2: 190-193 then prohibit fighting at the sanctuary in Mecca, obviously the Muslims were based in Medina, right?
These are Muslims attacking non-Muslims not Muslims defending their life or territory!
The war you are describing is a final action of over five years (or so) of combat between the Quraish and the Muslims in which both groups seem to terrorize each other, attack fields and caravans etc.
The most aggressive scene derives from 623 when the Quraish seek to unite with other groups to eliminate Muhammad and Islam. It does not happen, and the years of terror continue through five years (if I am wrong about the numbers of years do correct me please), both groups being equally involved,
Fdjohan posted this site:
http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/seerah/24.htm
Urwa b. al-Zubayr’s version of the battle (written in his letter to the caliph ‘Abd al-Malik and preserved in al-Tabari, I, 1284 ff.) begins with Muhammad receiving word that Abu Sufyan, chief of the clan of Umayya, was returning from Syria to Mecca with a rich caravan. A force of 300 men (80 Emigrants and the rest Ansar) is rounded and with Muhammad at the lead, heads towards Badr to apprehend the caravan. Upon hearing of Muhammad’s advance, Abu Sufyan sends to Mecca a request for protection. The Meccans respond by dispatching Abu Jahl of the tribe of Mahkzum with a force of 950 men from the clans of Quraysh. Though Abu Sufyan eludes the Muslims, Abu Jahl continues his advance in order to make a display of strength. Muhammad finds out about Abu Jahl’s oncoming expedition the evening before the battle through a Meccan water-carrier caught at the wells of Badr. In the morning, he fills all but one well with sand, where he stations his men. The Meccans, forced to fight for the water-supply, are defeated. Abu Jahl and a dozen leaders are killed with 70 taken prisoner. The Muslims suffer fifteen deaths.
Kai replies:
First of all, I fail however to see how Sura 2: 190-193 explicitly fits the battle of Badr, as the passage includes Mecca; furthermore the passage includes the removal of polytheism of the land; that was not the solemn purpose of Badr which basically concerned the robbery of a caravan (again not really a sign of virtue, peace or defence).
Fdjohan continues:
Quote:
9:123 O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you
That verse existed in time of TABUK war.
Reff:
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/ ... /mau9.html
Quote:
The third discourse (vv. 73-129) was revealed on his return from the Campaign of Tabuk. There are some pieces in this discourse that were sent down on different occasions during the same period and were afterwards consolidated by the Holy Prophet into the Surah in accordance with inspiration from Allah. But this caused no interruption in its continuity because they dealt with the same subject and formed part of the same series of events. This discourse warns the hypocrites of their evil deeds and rebukes those Believers who had stayed behind in the Campaign of Tabuk. Then after taking them to task, Allah pardons those true Believers who had not taken part in the Jihad in the Way of Allah for one reason or the other.
Again that verse existed in time of WAR. And about the TABUK war, this is the explanation:
Quote:
The Campaign to Tabuk was the result of conflict with the Roman Empire, that had started even before the conquest of Makkah. One of the missions sent after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah to different parts of Arabia visited the clans which lived in the northern areas adjacent to Syria. The majority of these people were Christians, who were under the influence of the Roman Empire. Contrary to all the principles of the commonly accepted international law, they killed fifteen members of the delegation near a place known as Zat-u-Talah (or Zat-i-Itlah). Only Ka'ab bin Umair Ghifari, the head of the delegation, succeeded in escaping and reporting the sad incident. Besides this, Shurahbll bin Amr, the Christian governor of Busra, who was directly under the Roman Caesar, had also put to death Haritli bin Umair, the ambassador of the Holy Prophet, who had been sent to him on a similar minion.
Tabuk CAMPAIGN happened after Muslims delegation were killed by Christians from Roman Empire. Read the history on that web above.
That verse is NOT a teaching to kill Non Muslims but merely DEFENCE.
Kai replies:
Fdjohan posted me this website and claims that Sura 9: 123 concerns the battle of the Tabuk-war:
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/ ... /mau9.html
Interestingly however, the website states that verse 123 was revealed on the return from the campaign and hence has nothing to do with that war in the first place:
The third discourse (vv. 73-129) was revealed on his return from the Campaign of Tabuk.
The website which Fdjohn posted from states:
These events convinced the Holy Prophet that a strong action should be taken in order to make the territory adjacent to the Roman Empire safe and secure for the Muslims. Accordingly, in the month of Jamadi-ul-Ula A. H. 8, he sent an army of three thousand towards the Syrian border. When this army reached near Ma'an, the Muslims learnt that Shurahbil was marching with an army of one hundred thousand to fight-with them and that the Caesar, who himself was at Hims, had sent another army consisting of one hundred thousand soldiers under his brother Theodore. But in spite of such fearful news, the brave small band of the Muslims marched on fearlessly and encountered the big army of Shurahbil at M'utah. And the result of the encounter in which the Muslims were fighting against fearful odds (the ratio of the two armies was 1:33), as very favorable, for the enemy utterly failed to defeat them. This proved very helpful for the propagation of Islam. As a result, those Arabs who were living in a state of semi. independence in Syria and near Syria and the clans of Najd near Iraq, who were under the influence of the Iranian Empire, turned towards Islam and embraced it in thousands. For example, the people of Bani Sulaim (whose chief was Abbas bin Mirdas Sulaimi), Ashja'a, Ghatafan, Zubyan, Fazarah, etc., came into the fold of Islam at the same time. Above all, Farvah bin 'Amral Juzami, who was the commander of the Arab armies of the Roman Empire, embraced Islam during that time, and underwent the trial of his Faith in a way that filled the whole territory with wonder. When the Caesar came to know that Farvah had embraced Islam, he ordered that he should be arrested and brought to his court. Then the Caesar said to him, "You will have to choose one of the two things. Either give up your Islam and win your liberty and your former rank, or remain a Muslim and face death." He calmly chose Islam and sacrificed his life in the way of the Truth.
Kai replies:
FIRST AND MOST NOTHINGN IN THIS PASSAGE EVEN INDICATES ANY ELEMENTS OF DEFENCE; IT IS ABOUT ATTACKING AND SUBJUGATING NON-MUSLIMS!
History is often written by winners; hence I am not too certain about even the accuracy of this account; IT IS A FALLACY TO RELY FULLY ONLY ON ONE PEACE OF INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY IF THE INFORMATION IS BIASED.
Furthermore if you read history, you will notice that there was much interaction between various factions at the Syrian and Persian border; these were times of war.
Let me also ask you, now you bring up the case with Farvah and Caesar (not that I approve of Caesars action); but what do you Muslims do when fellow Muslims particularly those famous in the society, turn from Islam? DO YOU BEHAVE ANY BETTER THAN CAESAR? DID MUHAMMAD OR HIS FOLLOWERS BEHAVE ANY BETTER THAN CAESAR?
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " (Sahih Bukhari 4.260)
My first question concerning Tabuk is, why were Muslims travelling in that direction in the first place?
How do we now that these Muslims were not caught and killed do to some breaking of the law, or for the suspicion of spying?
The killing is deplorable, but then again the entire Muslim force marches toward Syria, and alien country, for what?
How about the suppression of non-Muslim cities to enforce to submit to Islam:
When the Holy Prophet found that the Caesar had withdrawn his forces from the frontier, he considered thee question whether it would be worthwhile to march into the Syrian territory or to halt at Tabuk and turn his moral victory to political and strategical advantage. He decided on the latter course and made a halt for twenty days at Tabuk. DURING THIS TIME, HE BROUGHT PRESSURE ON THE SMALL STATES THAT LAY BETWEEN THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE ISLAMIC STATE AND WERE AT THAT TIME UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE ROMANS, AND SUBDUED AND MADE THE TRIBUTARIES OF THE ISLAMIC STATE. FOR INSTANCE, SOME CHRISTIANS CHIEFS Ukaidir bin Abdul Malik Kindi of Dumatul Jaiidal, Yuhanna bin D'obah of Allah, and the chiefs of Maqna, Jarba' and Azruh ALSO SUBMITTED AND AGREED TO PAY Jizyah to the Islamic State of Al- Madinah. As a result of this, the boundaries of the Islamic State were extended right up to the Roman Empire, and the majority of the Arab clans, who were being used by the Caesar against Arabia, became the allies of the Muslims against the Romans.
I AM SURPRISED HOW YOU CAN CATEGORIZE ALL THIS AS DEFENCE, PEACE AND GOOD DEEDS.
As to the particular issue of showing harshness, this has nothing to do with war but the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule; NOW SUDDENLY, EVEN MUHAMMAD AND HIS FOLLOWERS ARE NO BETTER THAN THE BARBARIAN QUARISH TRIBE IN MECCA!!!
HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE ARAB-CHRISTIAN STATES WHICH SURRENDERED TO ISLAM RULE:
A Muslim cannot be punished (executed) for the murder on a Christian; as the blood of a Muslim contains more value
(Ibn Hazm, vol 8, page 39).
Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked Ali, ‘Have you got any book (which has been revealed to the Prophet apart from the Qur'an)?’ ‘Ali replied, ‘No, except Allah’s Book or the power of understanding which has been bestowed (by Allah) upon a Muslim or what is (written) in this sheet of paper (with me).’" Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked, ‘What is (written) in this sheet of paper?’ Ali replied, it deals with the Diya (compensation (blood money) paid by the killer to the relatives of the victim), the ransom for the releasing of the captives from the hands of the enemies, and the law that NO Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 111)
Christian were not permitted to build church nor repear them (Ibn Hazm, Vol. 4 part 7, page 28) (Abu al-ala al-Mawdudu, page 28); the punishment is death (Ibn Timiyya Vol. 28-652).
Christians have virtually no right when it comes to the court (Malik Ibn Ons Vol. 5 Section 13, page 156) (Imam Al-Shafii, Ahk Al-Quran, page 142) (Bukhari, partur 3, page 237).
Christians ought not to be employed (Ibn Timiyya. Vol. 28. page 646).
Christians have no political rights (Mawdudi, page 268).
A list of rules include:
Always give a Muslim your seat
Wear clothes that exclude you and distinguish you as a non-Muslim
You are permitted to use a saddle when riding a horse or donkey
Cut of the front of your hair
Do not exhibit Christ books
Do not read aloud from the Bible
You must not be buried next to a Muslim
You are not permitted to cry
You must not have Muslim slaves
You must not possess a superior position
The punishment to break any of these is death
(Ibn Timiyya Vol. 28 og Ibn Hazm Vol. 4)
Muhammad introduced three rules concerning Christians to humiliate and pressurize the Christians in Arabia:
1. They had to pay extra tax, depending upon the need of the land; tax had to be paid for all grown-ups, at times for property, animals and trees.
2. The tax had to be paid personally and included the privilege to permit Muslim to mock and beat up these victims
3. The Christians had to admit and proclaim themselves to be of lower value, having no dignity, value or future.
(Tabari, X, 109ff.; Ibn Kathir II, 346ff.).
TO TURN BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC OF THE THREAD, THE CHRISTIANS IN TURKEY:
This was the very reason why Christians were joyfully willing to gain the freedom from the suppression of the Ottoman Empire; unfortunately the cry for freedom and equal rights and human dignity was short-lived. WHATEVER YOU SAY, THIS IS ISLAM, AND I HAVE PROVEN IT!
Fdjohan continues:
Quote:
48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.
The word that translated as "severe (or ruthless, vehement)" derived from the word Ashiddå’ is plural of shadid, which means firm, strong, powerful, as well as brave Can be translated as firm of heart.
Shiddat, the root word, also signifies firmness of heart.
Nothing about harmness. Back to the Prophet's history of life. Too much pressure to him and Muslims. Without "ASHIDDA", Islam will no be exist until now.
The Muslims stood firm against the disbelievers but they will never fierce or hard in their treatment towards them. The rules had been made by ALLAH.
Kai replies:
Why then does it read: …
but merciful among themselves
; does the passage exclude mercy toward and amongst disbelievers and whatever you interpret it into among them instead?
Are you then saying that Muslims ought not to be brave, firm of heart and strong among themselves.
You see, your interpretation does not hold!!!!!
Fdjohan continues:
Quote:
9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Quote:
We can simply let the Hadith’s interpret the Koranic passages:
I delay the hadiths later KAI, to bring more focus to the teaching of Al-Qur'an.
Kai replies:
But we are looking at the Koran here; and my question is: are you to fight the unbelievers or not?
fdjohan wrote
So far I refute your claims by the history of the verses themselves. Nothing of the intention of the verses to do any harm to the Non Believers.