I fully agree with your comments and your concluding statement that instruction to "fight, in Quran could not be applicable to modern days due to non-Muslims do not have hatred against Muslims and many of them like to live harmony with them."
The problem is, may people will quote the Sira to refute your claims.
All I did in my last comment was to quote the Qur’an to prove that fighting in the concluding phase of the Qur’an was enjoined to avoid the collapse of the Muslim community after the death of the Prophet that God knew was imminent.
“...all those verses that relate to defending against the pagans were specific to the era. Recorded in full light of history they also attest to the defensive character of the Prophetic mission, the agony and trauma that he and his followers lived in on a day to day, and at times moment to moment basis fearing annihilation at hands of their attackers, and under the ominous shadow of the conspiracies of the hypocrites of Medina and the native Jewish tribes who eagerly awaited their destruction.”
Challenging, and Shed of Its Literary Glory in Translation, the Qur'an Offers Clear Clues to Exploring Its Core Commandments - Now Obscured, Corrupted and Distorted By Secondary Theological Sources
The following are the extracted quranic verses to support non-Muslims were violence when Muhammad was on earth:
1. (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #190)-Mohshin Khan translation:
‘And fight in the Way of Allah THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU,…’
The phrase, those who fight you, in Quran 2:190 implies Muslims were under the attack of non-Muslims.
2. (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #191)- Mohsin Khan translation:
‘….And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Haram (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.’
The phrase, unless they (first) fight you there, in Quran 2:191 implies hostile Muslims fought with Muslims first even though they kept distance with them.
3. (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #217) – Mohsin Khan translation:
‘…THEY WILL NEVER CEASE FIGHTING YOU UNTIL THEY TURN YOU BACK FROM YOUR RELIGION (Islamic Monotheism) if they can. And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever."
The phrase, they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion, as mentioned in Quran 2:217 implies non-Muslims fought with Muslims and intended them to be non-Muslims.
4. (سورة آل عمران, Aal-i-Imraan, Chapter #3, Verse #111)-Mohsin Khan translation:
‘…IF THEY FIGHT AGAINST YOU, they will show you their backs,…’
The phrase, if they fight against you, as mentioned in Quran 3:111 implies hostile Muslims were against Muslims for aggressive fighting when Muhammad was on earth.
5. (سورة آل عمران, Aal-i-Imraan, Chapter #3, Verse #156) – Mohsin Khan translation:
‘O you who believe! BE NOT LIKE THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE (hypocrites) and who say to their brethren when they travel through the earth or GO TO FIGHT…’
As the phrase, be not like those who disbelieve, is mentioned in Quran 3:156 with the phrase, go to fight, it implies that non-Muslims in the past were fierce and liked to fight.
6. (سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #76)-Mohsin Khan translation:
‘Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE, FIGHT IN THE CAUSE OF Taghut (SATAN). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan). Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan).’
As the phrase, those who disbelieve, is mention in Quran 4:76 with the phrase, fight in the cause of Satan, it implies that non-Muslims in the past were directed by Satan to fight with Muslims.
From the above analyses, we could discover easily that non-Muslims in the past were violent and hostile and not easily to deal with. Non-Muslims even fought with Muslims in Makkah as mentioned in Quran 2:191. That caused Allah to have no choice but to give inspiration to Muhammad so as to fight defensively against non-Muslims. Or else, Muslims might be wiped out from history even Allah did call Muslims to fight in the cause of Allah.
History is history. It has no implication to this modern world due to non-Muslims in this contemporary world would like to live peacefully with them and they are not hostile as those in the past. That is the reason why the word, fight, in Quran has no implication in this modern world.
Dear Muhammd Yunus, You have quoted the past history on how Muslims were surrounded by hostile Muslims due to their hatred upon Muslims. This history should be considered as history and has no implication for the application to this contemporary world due to non-Muslims in this contemporary world would not attack Muslims intentionally. Or in other words, non-Muslims in this contemporary world do not show their hostility against Muslims. The absence of hostility among non-Muslims against Muslims causes fighting among them to reduce even to nought. The absence of fighting among non-Muslims and Muslims in this contemporary world implies defensive fighting is not necessary since modern non-Muslims do not fight with Muslims and most of them prefer to live harmony with them. Besides, the absence of hostility among non-Muslims and Muslims in this contemporary world implies the word, fight, as mentioned in the Book of Quran would not have any value at all in this contemporary world since modern non-Muslims do not fight with them in the first place. Muslims could live in harmony with non-Muslims since Quran 2:11 mentions that Muslims are peace-makers instead of trouble-makers on this earth.
The word, fight, in Quran was necessary in the past due to non-Muslims were the first to trigger off their battle with Muslims. If Allah did not inspire Muhammad to trigger off defensive battle against hostile non-Muslims, the entire Muslims might have been wiped out from history. The reason is simply that Muslims might have been killed one by one if they did not respond in fighting defensively when they were under the attack from non-Muslims. If Muslims did not fight defensively when non-Muslims fought with them, all Muslims might be killed under the hands of non-Muslims in the past. With that very reason, Allah had no choice in the past to give inspiration to Muhammad to direct all the Muslims’ attention to fight so as there will be Muslim survivors in the future. Thus, the word, fight, in Quran could not be applicable to modern days due to non-Muslims do not have hatred against Muslims and many of them like to live harmony with them.
one reads the opening verses of Sura Tauba in thematic order as attempted below]:
"Whenever they (the hostile Arabs)
came upon the Muslims, they defied the peace treaty (of Hudaybiyah) and
disregarded even blood ties (9:10). They pleased the Muslims with their mouths,
but there was hatred in their hearts (9:8). The revelation authorizes the
Muslims to kill such archetypes of defiance (kufr) who broke their oaths
(treaty obligations) after pledging them, and defamed their religion (9:12) and
who had done all they could to drive the Messenger away (from Mecca) and were
the first to attack (9:13). It assures them that God will help them against
their enemies, bring disgrace upon them and soothe the bosoms of those who
believe (9:14).Finally, on the day of the Great hajj (631), the revelation gives
an ultimatum of four months to the hostile pagans who were repeatedly breaking
their treaty obligations (9:1-3). It commands the Muslims to kill them wherever
they come upon them, capture them,besiege them, and lie in wait for them at
every conceivable place (take all possible measures as advisable in warfare)
after the expiry of the treaty period (9:5) unless they repented, kept up
prayer and gave the Zakat (9:5, 9:11). However, the pagans who were honoring
their treaty of peace and not helping anyone against the Muslims were to be
given time until the treaty term expired (9:4). At the same time, those pagans
who sought protection were to be given protection, until they heard the word of
God and then to be delivered to a place of security (i.e. their tribal
homelands) (so that they were not harmed by any other victimized Muslim) (9:6).
ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE AND
The benevolent impact of Jizyah
on the vanquished in early Islam – a review of observations by some of the
greatest scholars of Enlightenment and this era.
Muslims must be wise enough to handle the interpretation of the word, fight, in Quran. No doubt Quran was the inspiration from Allah, one has to analyse the critical situation that Muslims would have confronted with when Allah deliver the message to them.
Muslims at that time might have good intention to want many non-Muslims to become Muslims. The persistent preaching of Quran from Muslims might hurt the feeling of non-Muslims and that caused many Muslims to be under the attack by non-Muslims.
With that great emotional move among non-Muslims and their hatred against Muslims, these caused Allah to have no choice to deliver message to call Muslims to fight. However, the fight was just defensive fighting instead of aggressive fighting.
Allah did not intend to have aggressive fighting between Muslims and non-Muslims. Or else, Allah would not inspire Prophet Mohammad to write Quran 4:90. As the word, fight, in Quran throughout is meant purely for defensive fighting, it should not be used to be interpreted aggressive fighting for terrorism. Allah does not have any intention to promote Muslims to fight against non-Muslims. Or else, Allah would not inspire Muhammad to deliver the verse, Quran 5:32.
The same is supported in Quran 2:11 as follows: (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #11)-Mohsin Khan translation: ‘And when it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peace-makers." If one would interpret the fight that has been found anywhere in Quran to be aggressive fighting, i.e. Muslims fight those non-Muslims who do not fight, it would certainly have contradiction with Quran 2:11 since Muslims would turn up to be destroyers of the earth instead of peace-makers. If one would interpret the fight that has been found anywhere in Quran to be defensive fighting, i.e. Muslims should cease in fighting to those non-Muslims who do not fight with them or seek peace treaty with them, it would have no contradiction with Quran 2:11 since Muslims are peace-makers and do not make mischief on the earth. Just that Muslims in the past had no choice to fight since non-Muslims first fought with them and that caused Allah to call them to fight in Quran. Instead, Allah did not desire Muslims to fight but to have peace as mentioned in Quran 2:11.
From the above analyses, it would come to the conclusion that Allah did not intend Muslims to fight with non-Muslims. Some part of the Quran mentions the word, fight, or, slain, or, slaughter, or etc. due to Muslims were attacked by non-Muslims and that caused Allah had no choice to give inspiration to Muhammad to fight for defence. Indeed, Allah was good and merciful and did not intend this to happen. It was non-Muslims to trigger off the battle first to cause Allah to have no choice to deliver the cruel word, fight. Instead, Allah preferred, peace, as spelt out in Quran 2:11. History was history and it would have no implication for any terrorism in nowadays.
Vishnu Prasad, let’s me explain why Quran 9:5 as well as Quran 9:29 should not be misinterpreted as aggressive violence against non-Muslims. Before explaining it, we have to look into the background of Muslims in the past. In history, there were conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims due to the preaching of quran to them.
The intention of Muslims to preach to Muslims was good. However, non-Muslims were not happy with their preaching and that caused conflict among them. The existence of conflict caused Muslims to play defensive role against Muslims and that was why Quran 9:5 and Quran 9:29 appeared. Quran 9:5 and Quran 9:29 do not intend to promote aggressive fighting. Instead, it demanded Muslims to fight only if non-Muslims were too much against them. If you would interpret Quran 9:5 and Quran 9:29 to be as Quran promotes Muslims to fight with non-Muslims, it would certainly contradict Quran 4:90 that mentions that Muslims had to withdraw their fight against non-Mulims if they ceased their fighting against them.
The reason is Muslims should continue in fighting when non-Muslims ceased in fighting on the condition if Quran 9:5 and Quran 9:29 should be interpreted as Muslims should fight whenever they met non-Muslims. (سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #90)-Mohsin Khan translation: ‘…So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them.’ However, if you would interpret Quran 9:5 and Quran 9:29 in such a way that Allah had no choice in the past to demand Muslims to fight because non-Muslims were first to trigger off their battle with them.
The fight in Quran 9:5 and Quran 9:29 should refer to defensive fighting instead of aggressive. Muslims were in the history confronted with aggressive fighters, i.e. non-Muslims, and caused Allah to have no choice to deliver such verses to Muslims. This interpretation would turn up not to have contradiction with Quran 4:90. Besides, if you insist to interpret Quran 9:5 and Quran 9:29 to be aggressive fighting against non-Muslims even if they do not fight with them, the interpretation would turn up to have contradiction with Quran 4:90 and Quran 9:1 with Muslims should not fight with non-Muslims if there is peace treaty.
The following is the extract: (سورة التوبة, At-Tawba, Chapter #9, Verse #1)-Mohsin Khan translation: ‘Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.’ (سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #90)-Mohsin Khan translation: ‘Except those who join a group, between you and whom there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with their breasts restraining from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. Had Allah willed, indeed He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them.’
If you would interpret Quran 9:5 and Quran 9:29 to be as defensive fighting in which at the time when Allah inspired Muhammad to write this verse that time Muslims were under-attacked by non-Muslims and that caused Allah to have no choice to quote this verse to direct Muslims’ attention to defend their religion, the interpretation would turn up not to have contradiction with Quran 4:90 and Quran 9:1 in the sense that Allah did not desire Muslims to fight aggressively against non-Muslims since Allah demanded peace treaty between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Besides, if you would interpret Quran 9:5 and Quran 9:29 to be as encouraging Muslims to fight against non-Muslim, it would turn up to have contradiction with Quran 5:32 due to Quran 5:32 forbids Muslims to kill any mankind.
However, if you would interpret Quran 9:5 and Quran 9:29 to be as defensive fighting, there is no contradiction among Quran 9:5, Quran 9:29 and Quran 5:32 since Allah did not demand Muslims to kill non-Muslims unless non-Muslims fought against Muslims. The phrase, not in retaliation of murder, in Quran 5:32 refers to innocent people. Or in other words, Quran 5:32 forbids Muslims to kill innocent non-Muslims too. (سورة المائدة, Al-Maaida, Chapter #5, Verse #32)-Mohsin Khan translation: ‘Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidence, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!’
From the above analyses, these would come to the conclusion that the word, fight, in Quran should be interpreted as defensive fighting instead of aggressive fighting. Muslims only fight if non-Muslims fight with them. If non-Muslims do not fight with them, they should withdraw their fighting (Quran 4:90). If non-Muslims would like to have peace treaty with them, Muslims should cease their fighting with them.
Vishnu Prasad, You have quoted Quran 9:5 as well as Quran
9:29 to draw attention on Islamic teaching to direct Muslims to fight against
those who believe not in Allah. At a
glance, your interpretation seems to sound logically. At a closer look and thorough examination of
all other quranic verses, you would like the interpretation is rather absurd
The Wahhabi theology barely allows its followers to
survive without resorting to violence. Its
enclosure movement that considers only those agreeably currying favour with the
Wahhabi theology as Muslims, and the rest as “Mushrik” or “Kaafir” or “Bidati”
while simultaneously justifying the killing of these “Mushrik” is what can be
seen as a primary source of terrorism.
Given the condemnatory words outspoken by the general
secretary of JAH, Maulana Asghar Ali Imam Mehdi, it is not unfit to say that
the Wahhabi theology is implicitly engaged in manufacturing terrorists and then the Wahhabi leaders
condemning and blaming them for being terrorists.
Janab Sultan Shahin Sb has been doing his level best for
the reformation of the wrongdoings in Islamic practices within his limited
resources even risking his life and honor. There is hardly any appreciation and
recognition from the elite group of different sects testing the patience in
good work to the fullest.
In India, especially, the Muslims have greater problems of
bread and butter, education and employment, equality in government establishment
and job opportunities than triple talaq, halala or polygamy etc. No religious
leader or political minority group pays attention to these genuine problems
except lip service. That is why the leaders of various sects are busy in garnering
riches for them forming their parties or by supporting others.
Some scholars are trying to raise the issues related to
the wrong ways of Islamic practices that also goes in vain, as no takers are
there in field of the Muslim society; we are unable to solve our problems-social,
economical, educational, political, nor religious.
Why Salafi-Wahhabis refuse to accept that their own
theology causes so much of turmoil in the Middle East and other parts of the
What do they think of Islamic Justice and
Why their common sense failed to see the truth even
after witnessing the horrendous death and destruction by al-Qaeda, ISIS,
Taliban, Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram?
Is there any statistician in this Salafi-Wahhabi
group? At this rate how many millions of Shias, Sufis Ahmadis etc will be
massacred in the future? How many billions of non-Muslims will be massacred
until the end of the world? How many cities in the world will be destroyed like
In the circumstances how can we blame the Americans
for choosing Donald Trump as President? Or blaming Britons for Brexit?
“We cannot to
claim to love Allah and pray five times while we hate and abuse His beautiful creatures”
Mohd. Yunus/ Mohammed Arif
First premises the Qur’an expounded for all
humanity is the use of reason. From both of your comments you do not seem to be
using reason. You say, “those who were killed were actually committing most heinous
crime and in the same breadth you say, Islam does not allow any kinds of
mascara or violence against any one Islam is for peace”
” If your second premise holds the first
premise is contradicted. That is, how a religion that does not allow any kinds
of violence can at the same time allow some of its followers to carry out a
massacre in the Mazar.
Obviously you are advocating ‘takfirm’ – an
ideology that allows a Muslim to declare other Muslims who commit shirk as
kafir and kill them simply on account of their religious orientation. An internationally
reputed scholar of Islam has denounced Takfirism through his following article
the caption of which speaks for itself:
Takfiris Are Friends Of Satan, The
Enemies Of Allah And His Messenger, Foremost In Shirk, Hypocrisy,
And Apostasy And No Muslim Must Support Them In Any Form Or Fashion
Based on the above fatwa, those who
support the massacre at the Mazar stand as Friends of Satan, the enemies of
Allah and His Messenger, foremost in shirk, hypocrisy, and apostasy and no
Muslim must support them in any form or fashion.
In one word, the Qur’an does not allow any
Muslim to kill a Mushrik or people of any other faith on the ground of
their religious beliefs.
The ugliness in Islam’s religious thoughts
in this era is expounded in my following article the caption of which speaks
Under The Banner Of Islam Is Mutation Of Islam Into A Cult Of Satan – So
Muslims Must Create An Anti-Radicalization Narrative To Defeat And Disown It –
An excellent and well researched piece - it fills the gap in my simultaneously posted
article re German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s call to delimitate Islam from
terror. My article questions whether Islamic clergy and authorities really
believe that Islam is a religion of peace. The article answers it upfront. If
Abdul Wahab advocated the killing of mystic Muslims and mushriks on account of their
religious beliefs and practices – then he certainly does not believe that Islam
is a religion of peace. Posthumously, he appears to be an ideological ally of al-Baghdadi
– chief of ISIS who claims that Islam is a religion of violence, and the same
may be the case with those Ulama and religious authorities of this era who
follow his doctrine – assuming it is reported correctly.
The problem in Islam’s theological assumptions and
determinations is that people take their ‘masters’ of the past virtually like
prophets (who must be obeyed and followed) and their writings virtually like
the word of God. al-Baghdadi goes on his killing rampage as in his subconscious
mind he takes Abdul Wahab as his prophet and his discourses as God’s words. And
this tendency can be traced back to the Prophet’s era.
As long as Islamic religious thought are dominated by the
examples of their predecessors, the Muslims can commit the most heinous crime in
the name of Islam depending upon their choice of mentor. This deification of
mortals has stripped Islam of its divine heritage and is at the root of all kinds
of violence in the name of Islam including sectarianism, violent extremism.