Skillganon
Skillganon
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 206
- Gender
- Male
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
Yeah Let's kill the infedal's with truth!
Yeah Let's kill the infedal's with truth!
Kill The Infidels? (Surah 9:5)
- Thread starter Skillganon
- Start date
- Replies 37
- Views 11K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
- Status
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
I'll clear it up :rollseyes - Honestly people giv a reference!!
"Fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?"
(Qur'an, Surah 9, Verse 5).
There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself.
Source
I'll clear it up :rollseyes - Honestly people giv a reference!!
"Fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?"
(Qur'an, Surah 9, Verse 5).
There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself.
Source
Last edited:
moujahid
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 19
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
If you belong to the army who is attacking Muslims and killing them. I would definitely love to chop your head off. If you are innocent, im not allowed to harm you.
If you belong to the army who is attacking Muslims and killing them. I would definitely love to chop your head off. If you are innocent, im not allowed to harm you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
Then why don't you say something about killing people who are attacking Islam and not a generic term like kafir? Osama Bin Laden attacked America. You think it would be a sensible response to go out and behead some Muslims? You are blurring the line between "jihad" and "attacking Muslims" on the one hand, and "kafir" and "aggressors against Muslims" on the other. On top of which civilised people have ruled about prisoners of war. Even if people do attack you, you do not cut their heads off. You take them prisoner and treat them well.
As for the claim that if I am "innocent" you are not allowed to harm me - pardon me if I refuse to accept that. Your Brother used a generic term like "kafir", not a specific term relating to guilt. He did not express a desire to do it as a religious obligation but as a pleasure so it is reasonable to assume if he can find a way to enjoy his pleasure he will. That innocent is clearly being determined by you and not by me or by any standard we both could accept. And the entire history of Muslim aggression against the West shows that innocent people are murdered, kidnapped and sold into slavery. What has changed now?
Then why don't you say something about killing people who are attacking Islam and not a generic term like kafir? Osama Bin Laden attacked America. You think it would be a sensible response to go out and behead some Muslims? You are blurring the line between "jihad" and "attacking Muslims" on the one hand, and "kafir" and "aggressors against Muslims" on the other. On top of which civilised people have ruled about prisoners of war. Even if people do attack you, you do not cut their heads off. You take them prisoner and treat them well.
As for the claim that if I am "innocent" you are not allowed to harm me - pardon me if I refuse to accept that. Your Brother used a generic term like "kafir", not a specific term relating to guilt. He did not express a desire to do it as a religious obligation but as a pleasure so it is reasonable to assume if he can find a way to enjoy his pleasure he will. That innocent is clearly being determined by you and not by me or by any standard we both could accept. And the entire history of Muslim aggression against the West shows that innocent people are murdered, kidnapped and sold into slavery. What has changed now?
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
My mistake. Same guy. The one who said,
You merely said innocent people get their heads chopped off.
Brilliant.
My mistake. Same guy. The one who said,
You merely said innocent people get their heads chopped off.
Brilliant.
moujahid
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 19
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
"Civilized" may be according to your standards. I dont find the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as being civilized. You are definitely confusing with people who have surrendered in war with the people who are still fighting. These two are different. POW's are different from the ones who are still in the battle field. I said their heads need to be chopped off..not the POW's.
you sound like Muslim's have been in offensive struggle against the west since the beginning of time. What a lie. Muslims were the only benign force on this planet until the last century. What you see now on TV is resentment from the "Muslims" if it is really them. Im sorry but chopping off heads of innocent people is not sanctioned in Islamic Sharia'.
Either you belong to the army of Islam or you belong to the army of the kuffar. I was referring to the people whose real intention is to hurt Muslims in any way possible. Not to ignore the fact that usually the most harm caused is due to the "Muslims" themselves - "Muslims" who don't follow Shari'a.
Thats what they did. Except that they blew up innocent civilians instead of chopping their heads off. The people who suffered are innocent civilians.
Incase you have been misinformed...Jihad means struggle to defend or Self-defence. Offensive Jihad or attacking kuffar first is not sanctioned in the Shari'a. Kafir means someone who rejects the truth - not necessarily someone in the army of the kuffar attacking Muslims.
"Civilized" may be according to your standards. I dont find the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as being civilized. You are definitely confusing with people who have surrendered in war with the people who are still fighting. These two are different. POW's are different from the ones who are still in the battle field. I said their heads need to be chopped off..not the POW's.
you sound like Muslim's have been in offensive struggle against the west since the beginning of time. What a lie. Muslims were the only benign force on this planet until the last century. What you see now on TV is resentment from the "Muslims" if it is really them. Im sorry but chopping off heads of innocent people is not sanctioned in Islamic Sharia'.
moujahid
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 19
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
Again out of context. Listen carefuly this time...I said if you were in the army of kuffar attacking Muslims or killing them. I have full right to defend my people. let that be by cutting your head off or by cutting your accomplices head off.
Again out of context. Listen carefuly this time...I said if you were in the army of kuffar attacking Muslims or killing them. I have full right to defend my people. let that be by cutting your head off or by cutting your accomplices head off.
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
And no one belongs anywhere in between? Like I said, if a Brother enjoys something he will usually find a way to do it.
As these people do not exist except in a fringes of the internet, this does not bring me much comfort.
Chopping someone's head off is a deliberate, pre-meditated act of murder. The US does not do that. Some innocent people have died by accident in the course of normal and acceptable military operations. Again if you cannot see that, if your moral values are so beyomd mine, I take no comfort from your promises of protecting the innocent.
What makes you think that jihad is only in self-defence? What is more important, how do you define that? Can we agree there has never ever been a single case where a Muslim country had attacked non-Muslims that Muslim scholars and the general Muslim population have not supported? That is, either no Muslim has ever waged an aggressive war or they all were able to find some pretext for the aggression.
And on what basis are you judging them? By the standards of the Arab countries perhaps? By the standards of any Muslim country in existence today? The Americans sent people to jail for that. It was a crime. When was the last time a Muslim government sent one of their own to jail for abuses of Muslim inmates?
And of course the inmates of AG are not prisoners of war.
Like Nick Berg? Was he still fighting? How do you cut someone's head off on the battlefield these days? Explain a logical and coherent series of events to me that would lead you to be in a position to cut off, say, a airforce pilot's head?
Really? What makes you think it is a lie? Can we agree that Muslim borders only expanded at the expense of the Christians until, Oh I don't know, some time in the 12th century in Spain, some time in the 18th century in Eastern Europe? So that's 600 years of expanding at the expense of Western Europe and 1200 years of expanding at the expense of Eastern Europe. And you claim this is all entirely defensive?
Find me any non-Muslim population who shares a border with a Muslim population and I'll find you a population that hates Muslims and does not think they are a benign force. The only people who think that are those that live far far away from Muslims and do not deal with them (England until about 40 years ago for instance). India? China? Greece? Southern Nigeria? Russia?
Again that interesting word "innocent". Can we agree that chopping off the heads of guilty people is part of Sharia and it is not up to the guilty people to determine if they are guilty or not, and in fact they do not share any common moral values that would mean that Muslims and non-Muslims could ever agree on who was guilty or not?
And no one belongs anywhere in between? Like I said, if a Brother enjoys something he will usually find a way to do it.
As these people do not exist except in a fringes of the internet, this does not bring me much comfort.
Chopping someone's head off is a deliberate, pre-meditated act of murder. The US does not do that. Some innocent people have died by accident in the course of normal and acceptable military operations. Again if you cannot see that, if your moral values are so beyomd mine, I take no comfort from your promises of protecting the innocent.
What makes you think that jihad is only in self-defence? What is more important, how do you define that? Can we agree there has never ever been a single case where a Muslim country had attacked non-Muslims that Muslim scholars and the general Muslim population have not supported? That is, either no Muslim has ever waged an aggressive war or they all were able to find some pretext for the aggression.
And on what basis are you judging them? By the standards of the Arab countries perhaps? By the standards of any Muslim country in existence today? The Americans sent people to jail for that. It was a crime. When was the last time a Muslim government sent one of their own to jail for abuses of Muslim inmates?
And of course the inmates of AG are not prisoners of war.
Like Nick Berg? Was he still fighting? How do you cut someone's head off on the battlefield these days? Explain a logical and coherent series of events to me that would lead you to be in a position to cut off, say, a airforce pilot's head?
Really? What makes you think it is a lie? Can we agree that Muslim borders only expanded at the expense of the Christians until, Oh I don't know, some time in the 12th century in Spain, some time in the 18th century in Eastern Europe? So that's 600 years of expanding at the expense of Western Europe and 1200 years of expanding at the expense of Eastern Europe. And you claim this is all entirely defensive?
Find me any non-Muslim population who shares a border with a Muslim population and I'll find you a population that hates Muslims and does not think they are a benign force. The only people who think that are those that live far far away from Muslims and do not deal with them (England until about 40 years ago for instance). India? China? Greece? Southern Nigeria? Russia?
Again that interesting word "innocent". Can we agree that chopping off the heads of guilty people is part of Sharia and it is not up to the guilty people to determine if they are guilty or not, and in fact they do not share any common moral values that would mean that Muslims and non-Muslims could ever agree on who was guilty or not?
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
Here is the entire post,
Explain to me the context that I did not include.
Here is the entire post,
Explain to me the context that I did not include.
Ghazi
IB Expert
- Messages
- 2,497
- Reaction score
- 158
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
Salaam
I was refering to innocent people not being harmed such as civilians living in the uk and the us and anywhere for that matter, but any force which is oppressing our brothers and sisters will be delt with.
Salaam
I was refering to innocent people not being harmed such as civilians living in the uk and the us and anywhere for that matter, but any force which is oppressing our brothers and sisters will be delt with.
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
Sorry.
1. Can we agree Sharia includes the punishment of chopping people's heads off?
2. Can we agree it is not up to the victims, especially kafir victims, to decide if they are guilty or not of a crime?
3. That the moral basis for deciding whether a kafir is guilty enough to deserve having his head chopped off is an Islamic one - Muslims are judging by Islamic rules, not Christians judging by Jewish rules or any other possible standard?
4. When it comes to such things there is no way that Muslims and non-Muslims will ever agree on who deserves to get their heads cut off?
Sorry.
1. Can we agree Sharia includes the punishment of chopping people's heads off?
2. Can we agree it is not up to the victims, especially kafir victims, to decide if they are guilty or not of a crime?
3. That the moral basis for deciding whether a kafir is guilty enough to deserve having his head chopped off is an Islamic one - Muslims are judging by Islamic rules, not Christians judging by Jewish rules or any other possible standard?
4. When it comes to such things there is no way that Muslims and non-Muslims will ever agree on who deserves to get their heads cut off?
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
How did the claim that innocent people would be targeted possible mean that innocent people would not be targeted? You mean you missed out the small but vital word "not"?
How did the claim that innocent people would be targeted possible mean that innocent people would not be targeted? You mean you missed out the small but vital word "not"?
Ghazi
IB Expert
- Messages
- 2,497
- Reaction score
- 158
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
Salaam
true, forgive my spelling mistakes I think I type too fast for my own good.
Salaam
true, forgive my spelling mistakes I think I type too fast for my own good.
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
If you had added more context I might not be so annoyed. But what you said was,
Frankly I find lip-smacking joy at cutting my head off a little bit offensive.
Where in this did you mention the words "Army", "attacking", "killing [Muslims]"? Where did you mention anything about defending your people?
What you said was at the appropriate time you would enjoy cutting my head off. I am not to blame if you do not include proper context to your posts. I do not see how I can be expected to read your mind for context that is not there. You said something crass, don't blame me if I take you at your word.
If you had added more context I might not be so annoyed. But what you said was,
Frankly I find lip-smacking joy at cutting my head off a little bit offensive.
Where in this did you mention the words "Army", "attacking", "killing [Muslims]"? Where did you mention anything about defending your people?
What you said was at the appropriate time you would enjoy cutting my head off. I am not to blame if you do not include proper context to your posts. I do not see how I can be expected to read your mind for context that is not there. You said something crass, don't blame me if I take you at your word.
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
Not at all. My apologies. I should have asked first.
Not at all. My apologies. I should have asked first.
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
Kill the Infidels, Surah 9:5
This article is about the oft-quoted, or rather misquoted, Surah 9:5 verse of the Quran, which is claimed to call upon "all" Muslims to kill "all" non-Muslims or the so-called "Infidels".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims are often questioned, "Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?" The answer is absolutely not!
Then, we are asked another question: "Why then does the Quran say, "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" (9:5).
There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself.
HISTORY:
When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that "Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or "infidels" was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.
That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does not mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert.
Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people are Christians. Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.)
The list goes on. Investigating history clearly shows that most (saying "all" cannot sustain historical scrutiny) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as "Infidels". Of course, it would not be scholastic to say non-Muslims, at many times, enjoyed "full citizenship" (though this term is an anachronism in the context discussed here) but compared to other locations, minorities were significantly better off under Muslim ruling, when Muslims were in fact capable of inflicting severe harm on non-Muslims, especially if we were to acknowledge the absurd notion of Muslims ambition to "kill the infidels..."
I thought it was best to stop here for a few minutes to scrutinize this term "Infidel". We have heard, over and over again, the majority of commentators and "experts" on Islam using this term and attributing it to Islam's and Muslims sentimentality of non-Muslims.
I, as a Muslim, have never called a non-Muslim an "Infidel", so this word was actually foreign to my vocabulary, until I have heard it mentioned several time by Christian and Zionist so-called "experts" on Islam. As a matter of fact, I took the liberty of going through several widely used translations of the Quran to find this oft-spoken "infidel" term. The translations of the Quran of which I researched included: M. Khan, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, and Pickthal, only to find out that in all of these translations, I did not find this word "infidel" in any of them! The Arabic word "Kaafir, Kafir, Kufar" was translated as Disbelievers or Unbelievers.
What's more interesting, after digging deeper, we discovered this term was being used centuries before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The term infidel comes from the Latin word infidelis, which means "unbelieving" or "unfaithful." During the Middle Ages ( A.D.c. 450–c. 1500), the Catholic Church (Christians) used the term to describe Muslims (followers of Islam, the religion founded by the prophet Muhammad; c. A.D.570–632).
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary states the following on the term "infidel":
Main Entry: in·fi·del
Pronunciation: 'in-f&-d & l, -f&-"del
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful -- more at FIDELITY
1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2 a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief
3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood
- infidel adjective
Two remaining points:
(1) There is the claim that Muslims only refrained from killing the infidels because of the economic benefits of "enslaving" them. Most of those who claim this also claim that Muslims are inherently violent because of the "clear" Quranic injunctions against the "Infidels". This position is, at least, contradictory. Because on the one hand, Muslims' violence is rooted in the Quran, and, on the other hand, generations upon generations of Muslims simply discarded the Quran for their economic well-being. If Muslims persistently and universally prefer economic prosperity to the Quran and the commandments of the Prophet, then both the Quran and the Prophet are irrelevant to them. So why the attempt to ground Muslim behavior in the Quran and the Prophetic tradition if these are in fact not important at all to Muslims? If Muslims stick to the Quran, so why did not they exterminate the other, a policy allegedly supported unequivocally by the Quran? There is no way out of this fallacious reasoning except by saying that Muslims evoke whatever serves their interest. This statement of the entire Muslim nation being innately incoherent and immoral is espoused by many Islamophobes. This statement tells us much more about the Islamophobes themselves than about Muslims, however.
(2) In the modern era, some Muslim people participated in the genocide of non-Muslims, such as the Armenians by the Turks and the East Timorese by the Indonesians. However, these killings were undertaken by secular regimes for nationalistic reasons. I do not think anyone can claim, for instance, that Ataturk, the father of the secularized Turkey and the abolisher of the Islamic caliphate, oppressed the Armenians (and the Greeks), to rid Turkey of them, in the name of Islam.
(A relevant link to this discussion concerning the genocide in Rwanda and the attitude of Muslims.)
THE QURAN:
(1) The Quran is not classified subject-wise. Verses on various topics appear in dispersed places in the Quran and no order can be ascertained from the sequence of its text. The first verses revealed in the Quran was in chapter (surah) 96.
(2) The structure of the Quran makes it necessary to approach it using the dialectic "both and" methodology of reasoning. This means that to investigate a certain issue, the verses pertaining to the issue should be gathered together. The verses are then analyzed comprehensively while paying attention to the historical context (in Islamic terminology called the "occasion of revelation") of each verse. The truth is considered to be found in all the relevant verses, because if the Quran is divine as the vast majority of Muslims believe, it should be free from real contradictions and inconsistencies. Apparent contradictions are not only reconciled and transcended but are thoroughly investigated because they actually reflect deep meanings and paradigms. (This is akin, for example, to the process of understanding the Chinese idiom, "a man is stronger than iron and weaker than a fly." Although the wise saying is superficially self-contradictory, it reveals a deep fact about humans who, in some situations, are very strong. Yet, in other contexts, these same people are very weak.) If the reductionist approach to the Quran is valid, then all ideas, from violence to absolute pacifism, can be justified and rationalized using the Quran. For the Quran does not only contain verses about war, it is also replete with verses about forgiveness and countering evil with good.
(3) The same Quran that reads, "Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you" (2:194), also reads, "Goodness and evil are not the same. So repel evil with goodness, then the one who had enmity between you becomes a trusted and dear friend" (41:34). When it comes to dealing with a transgressor, the Quran is basically delineating four different strategies, the validity of which is contingent on the situational and contextual factors. The first is retaliation which is permissible on the condition that it does not exceed the limits. Verse (2:194) is clear on this, "whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you." Verse (16:126) gives the same meaning, "and if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted." Verse (3:134) gives the other three strategies, "and those who restrain their anger and pardon men; and God loves the doers of good to others." The three methods given here are, (a) to restrain one's anger and not respond, (b) to pardon the wrongdoer, and (c) to do good to the transgressor. According to verse, method (c) is the most beloved by God. Here the Quran teaches the superiority, in the sight of God, of responding to evil with goodness. Now what should the Muslim do when wronged? It depends on the context, on the situational factors. Under some circumstances, the wrongdoer must be punished. Under others, one should refrain from retaliation, or go a step further to wholehearted forgiveness, or even repel the transgressor's evil with goodness. The above is important for explaining how to deal with the Quranic text.
(4) The Quranic principle for dealing with the 'other' non-Muslim is clear from verses (60:8-9), "God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice. God only forbids you respecting and loving those who made war upon you on account of your religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up others in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust." The Quran does not present Islam as a religion of unquestionable pacifism or relentless aggression. Those who do not transgress should be treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect. Those who transgress should be fought, "And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors," (2:190). In other words, Islam is a religion of peace, not in the sense that it is pacifist, but in the sense that Muslims can and should co-exist peacefully with others who respect them. Neither transgression is permitted nor forcing others to espouse Islam as the Quran says, "there is no compulsion in religion," (2:256).
(5) Based on the above, we can now investigate verse (9:5), "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); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." One of the main concerns of Chapter (Surah) 9 of the Quran (a Surah is a collection of verses) was to delineate the strategies for dealing with the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula after the Muslims, under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad, peacefully captured Mecca (In January, 630, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his followeres were joined by tribe after tribe along their way to Mecca. They entered Mecca without bloodshed and the Meccans, seeing the tide had turned, joined them.) the city that since the beginning of Islam lead the oppression and persecution of the Muslim converts.
(6) Since the polytheists differed in their relationship with the new religion after its victory, there was a need to differentiate between the malevolent enemies of Islam bent on destroying the Muslims and who did not observe their treaties with the Muslims, those who hated Islam but were willing to honor their treaties with Muslims, those who rejected Islam but peacefully co-existed with the Muslim community, etc. The aforementioned verse (9:5) was concerned with the most vehement opponents of the Islamic faith not by virtue of their refusal to be Muslims but by continually breaching their treaties with the Muslims and fighting them. Given that, their treatment is not equal, the complete verse says, "So when the sacred months have passed away, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and keep them under observation, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely God is Forgiving, Merciful." Meaning: so when the grace period (4 months) is past, and if the other party insists on fighting Islam, then a state of war is inevitable. The struggle may take the form of killing, or capture and imprisonment, or just keeping an eye on these enemies to fend off their evil if they decide to launch an offensive against Muslims. The punishment should be fair and just and, thus, must be proportional to the crimes actually committed. Not only this, but the pagans can repent and accept Islam, as evident from the last part of (9:5), or desist from attacking Muslims and ask for protection, as evident from the next verse (9:6), "If one 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 where he can be secure."
Understanding the verses' historical context is crucial, not to confine them to their context, but for a proper comprehension of their implications. Moreover, as shown previously, the verse must be interpreted along with all the other verses explicating how a Muslim should deal with others, Muslim or non-Muslim, including verse (8:61), "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing."
The worst thing to do with the Quran is to approach it seeking confirmation for what one already believes in and turning a blind eye to any evidence that is inconsistent with his/her pre-conceived attitudes and biases. Anyone can find in the Quran whatever he/she wants to prove. Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible. The challenge, however, is to make a judgment only after a thorough and exhaustive investigation of all available Quranic evidence.
A Muslim may become selective and simply ignore some indispensable principles while working out what she or he should do in a given situation. Apart from self-indulgence, the socio-political context plays an important role in inducing this selectivity. A Muslim living where she or he finds Islam constantly reviled, the Prophet perpetually vituperated, and the Quran persistently misquoted may respond apologetically by declaring Islam as an "obviously" pacifist religion, ignoring anything in the Quran and the Prophetic traditions testifying to the contrary. A Muslim witnessing his wife being raped and his children slaughtered will very likely discard the well-established Islamic rules of engagement. The prevalent conditions are not a valid justification, but Muslims are humans after all, and humans — all humans — succumb to their overwhelming context. (Interestingly, the context was correctly and convincingly evoked in the U.S. media to understand the Abu Gharib prison abuses. When it comes to why some Muslims go to extremes, there is no context, only a culture of evil and fanaticism.)
Other interesting articles: Analysis of Chapter 9: 1-28
Kill the Infidels, Surah 9:5
This article is about the oft-quoted, or rather misquoted, Surah 9:5 verse of the Quran, which is claimed to call upon "all" Muslims to kill "all" non-Muslims or the so-called "Infidels".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims are often questioned, "Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?" The answer is absolutely not!
Then, we are asked another question: "Why then does the Quran say, "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" (9:5).
There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself.
HISTORY:
When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that "Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or "infidels" was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.
That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does not mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert.
Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people are Christians. Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.)
The list goes on. Investigating history clearly shows that most (saying "all" cannot sustain historical scrutiny) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as "Infidels". Of course, it would not be scholastic to say non-Muslims, at many times, enjoyed "full citizenship" (though this term is an anachronism in the context discussed here) but compared to other locations, minorities were significantly better off under Muslim ruling, when Muslims were in fact capable of inflicting severe harm on non-Muslims, especially if we were to acknowledge the absurd notion of Muslims ambition to "kill the infidels..."
I thought it was best to stop here for a few minutes to scrutinize this term "Infidel". We have heard, over and over again, the majority of commentators and "experts" on Islam using this term and attributing it to Islam's and Muslims sentimentality of non-Muslims.
I, as a Muslim, have never called a non-Muslim an "Infidel", so this word was actually foreign to my vocabulary, until I have heard it mentioned several time by Christian and Zionist so-called "experts" on Islam. As a matter of fact, I took the liberty of going through several widely used translations of the Quran to find this oft-spoken "infidel" term. The translations of the Quran of which I researched included: M. Khan, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, and Pickthal, only to find out that in all of these translations, I did not find this word "infidel" in any of them! The Arabic word "Kaafir, Kafir, Kufar" was translated as Disbelievers or Unbelievers.
What's more interesting, after digging deeper, we discovered this term was being used centuries before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The term infidel comes from the Latin word infidelis, which means "unbelieving" or "unfaithful." During the Middle Ages ( A.D.c. 450–c. 1500), the Catholic Church (Christians) used the term to describe Muslims (followers of Islam, the religion founded by the prophet Muhammad; c. A.D.570–632).
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary states the following on the term "infidel":
Main Entry: in·fi·del
Pronunciation: 'in-f&-d & l, -f&-"del
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful -- more at FIDELITY
1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2 a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief
3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood
- infidel adjective
Two remaining points:
(1) There is the claim that Muslims only refrained from killing the infidels because of the economic benefits of "enslaving" them. Most of those who claim this also claim that Muslims are inherently violent because of the "clear" Quranic injunctions against the "Infidels". This position is, at least, contradictory. Because on the one hand, Muslims' violence is rooted in the Quran, and, on the other hand, generations upon generations of Muslims simply discarded the Quran for their economic well-being. If Muslims persistently and universally prefer economic prosperity to the Quran and the commandments of the Prophet, then both the Quran and the Prophet are irrelevant to them. So why the attempt to ground Muslim behavior in the Quran and the Prophetic tradition if these are in fact not important at all to Muslims? If Muslims stick to the Quran, so why did not they exterminate the other, a policy allegedly supported unequivocally by the Quran? There is no way out of this fallacious reasoning except by saying that Muslims evoke whatever serves their interest. This statement of the entire Muslim nation being innately incoherent and immoral is espoused by many Islamophobes. This statement tells us much more about the Islamophobes themselves than about Muslims, however.
(2) In the modern era, some Muslim people participated in the genocide of non-Muslims, such as the Armenians by the Turks and the East Timorese by the Indonesians. However, these killings were undertaken by secular regimes for nationalistic reasons. I do not think anyone can claim, for instance, that Ataturk, the father of the secularized Turkey and the abolisher of the Islamic caliphate, oppressed the Armenians (and the Greeks), to rid Turkey of them, in the name of Islam.
(A relevant link to this discussion concerning the genocide in Rwanda and the attitude of Muslims.)
THE QURAN:
(1) The Quran is not classified subject-wise. Verses on various topics appear in dispersed places in the Quran and no order can be ascertained from the sequence of its text. The first verses revealed in the Quran was in chapter (surah) 96.
(2) The structure of the Quran makes it necessary to approach it using the dialectic "both and" methodology of reasoning. This means that to investigate a certain issue, the verses pertaining to the issue should be gathered together. The verses are then analyzed comprehensively while paying attention to the historical context (in Islamic terminology called the "occasion of revelation") of each verse. The truth is considered to be found in all the relevant verses, because if the Quran is divine as the vast majority of Muslims believe, it should be free from real contradictions and inconsistencies. Apparent contradictions are not only reconciled and transcended but are thoroughly investigated because they actually reflect deep meanings and paradigms. (This is akin, for example, to the process of understanding the Chinese idiom, "a man is stronger than iron and weaker than a fly." Although the wise saying is superficially self-contradictory, it reveals a deep fact about humans who, in some situations, are very strong. Yet, in other contexts, these same people are very weak.) If the reductionist approach to the Quran is valid, then all ideas, from violence to absolute pacifism, can be justified and rationalized using the Quran. For the Quran does not only contain verses about war, it is also replete with verses about forgiveness and countering evil with good.
(3) The same Quran that reads, "Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you" (2:194), also reads, "Goodness and evil are not the same. So repel evil with goodness, then the one who had enmity between you becomes a trusted and dear friend" (41:34). When it comes to dealing with a transgressor, the Quran is basically delineating four different strategies, the validity of which is contingent on the situational and contextual factors. The first is retaliation which is permissible on the condition that it does not exceed the limits. Verse (2:194) is clear on this, "whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you." Verse (16:126) gives the same meaning, "and if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted." Verse (3:134) gives the other three strategies, "and those who restrain their anger and pardon men; and God loves the doers of good to others." The three methods given here are, (a) to restrain one's anger and not respond, (b) to pardon the wrongdoer, and (c) to do good to the transgressor. According to verse, method (c) is the most beloved by God. Here the Quran teaches the superiority, in the sight of God, of responding to evil with goodness. Now what should the Muslim do when wronged? It depends on the context, on the situational factors. Under some circumstances, the wrongdoer must be punished. Under others, one should refrain from retaliation, or go a step further to wholehearted forgiveness, or even repel the transgressor's evil with goodness. The above is important for explaining how to deal with the Quranic text.
(4) The Quranic principle for dealing with the 'other' non-Muslim is clear from verses (60:8-9), "God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice. God only forbids you respecting and loving those who made war upon you on account of your religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up others in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust." The Quran does not present Islam as a religion of unquestionable pacifism or relentless aggression. Those who do not transgress should be treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect. Those who transgress should be fought, "And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors," (2:190). In other words, Islam is a religion of peace, not in the sense that it is pacifist, but in the sense that Muslims can and should co-exist peacefully with others who respect them. Neither transgression is permitted nor forcing others to espouse Islam as the Quran says, "there is no compulsion in religion," (2:256).
(5) Based on the above, we can now investigate verse (9:5), "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); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." One of the main concerns of Chapter (Surah) 9 of the Quran (a Surah is a collection of verses) was to delineate the strategies for dealing with the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula after the Muslims, under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad, peacefully captured Mecca (In January, 630, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his followeres were joined by tribe after tribe along their way to Mecca. They entered Mecca without bloodshed and the Meccans, seeing the tide had turned, joined them.) the city that since the beginning of Islam lead the oppression and persecution of the Muslim converts.
(6) Since the polytheists differed in their relationship with the new religion after its victory, there was a need to differentiate between the malevolent enemies of Islam bent on destroying the Muslims and who did not observe their treaties with the Muslims, those who hated Islam but were willing to honor their treaties with Muslims, those who rejected Islam but peacefully co-existed with the Muslim community, etc. The aforementioned verse (9:5) was concerned with the most vehement opponents of the Islamic faith not by virtue of their refusal to be Muslims but by continually breaching their treaties with the Muslims and fighting them. Given that, their treatment is not equal, the complete verse says, "So when the sacred months have passed away, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and keep them under observation, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely God is Forgiving, Merciful." Meaning: so when the grace period (4 months) is past, and if the other party insists on fighting Islam, then a state of war is inevitable. The struggle may take the form of killing, or capture and imprisonment, or just keeping an eye on these enemies to fend off their evil if they decide to launch an offensive against Muslims. The punishment should be fair and just and, thus, must be proportional to the crimes actually committed. Not only this, but the pagans can repent and accept Islam, as evident from the last part of (9:5), or desist from attacking Muslims and ask for protection, as evident from the next verse (9:6), "If one 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 where he can be secure."
Understanding the verses' historical context is crucial, not to confine them to their context, but for a proper comprehension of their implications. Moreover, as shown previously, the verse must be interpreted along with all the other verses explicating how a Muslim should deal with others, Muslim or non-Muslim, including verse (8:61), "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing."
The worst thing to do with the Quran is to approach it seeking confirmation for what one already believes in and turning a blind eye to any evidence that is inconsistent with his/her pre-conceived attitudes and biases. Anyone can find in the Quran whatever he/she wants to prove. Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible. The challenge, however, is to make a judgment only after a thorough and exhaustive investigation of all available Quranic evidence.
A Muslim may become selective and simply ignore some indispensable principles while working out what she or he should do in a given situation. Apart from self-indulgence, the socio-political context plays an important role in inducing this selectivity. A Muslim living where she or he finds Islam constantly reviled, the Prophet perpetually vituperated, and the Quran persistently misquoted may respond apologetically by declaring Islam as an "obviously" pacifist religion, ignoring anything in the Quran and the Prophetic traditions testifying to the contrary. A Muslim witnessing his wife being raped and his children slaughtered will very likely discard the well-established Islamic rules of engagement. The prevalent conditions are not a valid justification, but Muslims are humans after all, and humans — all humans — succumb to their overwhelming context. (Interestingly, the context was correctly and convincingly evoked in the U.S. media to understand the Abu Gharib prison abuses. When it comes to why some Muslims go to extremes, there is no context, only a culture of evil and fanaticism.)
Other interesting articles: Analysis of Chapter 9: 1-28
Re: kill the infidels sura 9:5
Really? Don't you think it is a little odd that Muslims tend to chop people's heads off? I mean it is clearly a cultural thing because other people do not, or at least not as much. If it is not a distortion of Sharia, what is it?
Besides I think I have quoted law books on striking people's heads off before. I could probably find a hadith or Quranic text.
So basically, if it comes down to it, Muslims would cut my head off on the basis of something I did which may well have been perfectly acceptable in my culture but which, unbeknownst to me, was a crime in Islam deserving head chopping, and my intentions would be irrelevant?
Really? Don't you think it is a little odd that Muslims tend to chop people's heads off? I mean it is clearly a cultural thing because other people do not, or at least not as much. If it is not a distortion of Sharia, what is it?
Besides I think I have quoted law books on striking people's heads off before. I could probably find a hadith or Quranic text.
So basically, if it comes down to it, Muslims would cut my head off on the basis of something I did which may well have been perfectly acceptable in my culture but which, unbeknownst to me, was a crime in Islam deserving head chopping, and my intentions would be irrelevant?
- Status