(August 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Napoleon Wrote: I was never under any illusion that jihad meant anything other than what you said. Please demonstrate where I said otherwise. I'm not sure why you think I meant that jihad means exclusively holy war.
Sorry, that was a misunderstanding then. I should have asked for a clarification.
I thought you meant it as a war only since you said that a moderate Muslim is someone who keeps quiet about wanting to "kill you" (in post # 15) and that it is a duty for every Muslim to "wage Jihad" (in post # 51) which made it sound like starting or conducting a war because of the word "wage." So, putting those two comments together, it seemed that you were talking about Jihad exclusively as a war or at least having a violent context to it. But now I know that your understanding of Jihad is not incorrect.
(August 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
This would basically be saying that if you don't submit then you must be fought. Seems like conversion tactics to me. What is your interpretation?
This is a reply to both you and Min because this is the same verse that he quoted in his post:
1. Again, fighting can be done in ways other than a physical fight. It doesn't have to be a type of fight which results in bloodshed.
2. As I said earlier, an Islamic state is not allowed to fight non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion in whichever way they think is the method to end the conflict and bitterness. These are the circumstances in which 'fighting' is a permissible thing.
3. The essence of the verse is not "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day" because that is not the complete verse, but rather, you will find it at the end of the sentence which says, "until they pay the Jizya [tax] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." The key word is "until" - wa-qalati - and one cannot get the correct interpretation by only reading the beginning few words of the verse without making a connection to this word and the rest of the sentence.
What it means is that, like any nation, the Islamic government requires its citizens to pay taxes in return for its services, but if any of them willingly refuse to pay this tax and rebel against the state then it is the obligation of the state to confront them until they pay it as mentioned in this particular verse. If they do that, and do not oppress Muslims, then we are not allowed to harm them or fight against them even if they do not convert to Islam (for the reasons that I posted in # 2). In fact, according to what I learned, Muhammad granted the citizens of the Islamic state the freedom to practice their own religion as long as they sign a pact of non-aggression and pay taxes as demanded by the state. There were many Christian and Jewish communities which flourished under an Islamic rule without being forced to become Muslims. You can find more information about this in a book entitled "The Jews of Islam" by Bernard Lewis.
(August 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Qur'an (9:5) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..."
Fight anyone who doesn't do what we want them to do. Hmmm, more of the same? Your thoughts?
1. The words in the beginning of this verse - "But when the forbidden months are past" - indicates that there is something that comes before the verse which needs to be looked at to understand the context of the sentence. What are the "forbidden months"? Obviously, you can't know this from reading the verse itself and not looking at the verses before it (which brings me to the next point).
2. In the first two verses of the same chapter, it says that there was a treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriks (or pagans) of Mecca during Muhammad's time: "There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah and that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him" (Surah al-Tawbah, 1-2). From this, we know that the Muslims were prohibited from committing any acts of violence against the pagans as long as they do not break the peace treaty. This is supported by another verse in the Quran which says, "And if they incline towards peace, then incline to it (also), and trust in Allah" (8:61).
3. So when the Quran states "kill the pagans wherever you find them," in the verse that you quoted, it is talking about a specific group of pagans who initiated violence against Muhammad and his followers. It is not talking about Christians and Jews in Arabia nor anyone else for that matter. It is only referring to the pagans who broke the treaty by waging a war against Muslims and who are plotting to crush the new Islamic state. In such cases, fighting was allowed for Muslims to defend their religion and these particular verses are only serving the purpose of illustrating examples of such a thing happening in the past.
4. The last part of the verse says, "But if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then they are your brethren in Faith." And just like you, Napoleon, there are many people who interpret it as simply meaning "convert to Islam or prepare to die." But that is not true. Why? Because in the next verse, it says, "If any amongst the Pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God, and then escort him to a place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know" (9:06). This means that if there are any amongst the pagans who ask for protection, then it should be given to them, and the Muslims are not allowed to hurt them whether or not they convert to Islam because they are not the ones who are fighting, but only requesting to be saved or protected from the enemies.
This is in agreement with the verse which says, "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, Allah does not allow you to harm them" (4:90). If any of the pagans did convert to Islam, as stated in Surah 9:05, then there was no need to escort them to a place of safety because they became Muslims and they refrained from aggression anyways.
(August 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Napoleon Wrote: You contend my use of the word jihad but haven't said why it was wrong. You gave me a definition for jihad, but I don't see how my original comment differs from what you have said. You said yourself that jihad has certain military connotations, and that it CAN be used in the context of 'fighting'.
Fine, you weren't wrong then. See my first comment in this post.
(August 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Napoleon Wrote: The quotes above say to fight those who do not submit. A fight in your own words can be called a jihad. So how was my original statement incorrect?
I finished explaining the verses, and if I'm correct, none of it is telling us to fight those who do not submit to Allah.
Two important things that I made clear in this post are that:
(1) Fighting is only permissible with those who fight against us (for self-defense); and (2) We cannot force anyone to convert and that is not even the purpose of Jihad.
(August 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Napoleon Wrote: You may have other verses which say something different but then that highlights the clear contradictions in your own holy book, and how interpretations can differ.
It's not that they contradict each other by saying different things. Rather, they are different but complementary, as I have shown, because there are certain verses in the Quran which which need to be interpreted in relation to other verses in the Quran. When interpreting a specific verse, we have to be aware that there may be other verses in the Quran which can add something to it's meaning.
Yes, interpretations differ even amongst the Muslims, but Islam's fundamental principles are more or less universally agreed upon, and the difference of opinion on several matters are not essentially a part of the core of Islam. Strictly speaking, even these differences are unjustified according to the majority of the billions of Muslims in the world including myself. However, there are Muslims who do form extremist views on certain issues in the Quran and that would be called their own interpretation. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are correct.
Having said that, I know that all the interpretations that I gave is a trivial issue to atheists (even if I'm right) because they do not believe in any such thing as 'revealed' information in the first place.
