certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islam and Sectarianism (20 Feb 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)


Murderous Sectarianism in Islam: Salafi Ulema Should Not Only Condemn the Massacre at Lal Shahbaz Qalandar Shrine but Also the Ideology behind It



By Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam

21 February 2017

The massacre of over a hundred devotees at Sufi shrine of Jhule Lal Shahbaz Qalandar at Sehwan in Sindh, Pakistan is neither the first such incident nor is it going to be the last. There are condemnations galore from Muslims of all hues including Salafi-Wahhabis. The general secretary of Indian Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith, Maulana Asghar Ali Imam Mehdi Salafi, for instance, has condemned the incident in the strongest terms.

However, the problem is that contrary to all evidence Salafi-Wahhabis refuse to accept that it is their own theology that has created an environment in which such regular massacres have become possible. Indeed, the entire establishment and expansion of Wahhabism as a force to reckon with has been based on mass murders and destruction of shrines from early 19th century onwards.

Wahhabi vandalism started in 1802 when an army of 12,000 Najdi Salafi warriors called Ikhwan attacked Shia holy sites in the city of Karbala, slaying 4,000 of that city's inhabitants. In 1803 they attacked Makkah but the Makkans, having known the fate of Karbala, surrendered to Saudi Wahhabi rule. The Wahhabi Ikhwan then smashed Sufi shrines and the graves of even the closest companions of the Prophet. In Madina, they not only destroyed common grave-sites, but even attacked the tomb of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh).












Photo: Geo News

Since then the history of Islam has been a history of massacres of non-Wahhabi Muslims and destruction of holy sites. Presently the banner of forcible Wahhabi expansion is taken up by al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Jhangawi, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, etc. 

Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703–1792), the founder of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi-Salafi creed declared all rationalist and mystic Muslims as mushrik or polytheists and thus “wajibul qatl” (deserving death). In a long discourse in Kashaful Shubhat, he explained why all Muslims despite their claim to believe in one God are polytheists whose lives and property are halal (permitted) for Wahhabi Muslims. He concluded his discourse: “… You now understand that these people's (non-Wahhabi Muslims’) accepting tauheed (oneness of God) does not make them Muslim; the fact that they expect intercession from others than God (Sufi saints) makes them liable to be killed and their property to be looted." ----- Kashaful Shubhat, p.9, Maktaba al-salafia bil Madina Munawwara, 1969 CE)

Another Abdul Wahhab quote necessary to understand the current conflict is the following: “Even if the Muslims abstain from shirk (polytheism) and are muwahhid (believer in oneness of God), their faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their action and speech against non-Muslims (which for him includes all non-Wahhabi Muslims). (Majmua Al-Rasael Wal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291).

The problem with Indian Salafi ulema like Maulana Imam Mehdi Salafi is that while they condemn specific terrorist incidents, they do not denounce the Wahhabi-Salafi ideology that they actually follow. This is a self-contradictory stance. You denounce terrorism and follow the ideology from which it emanates. From the time of the Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab - Muhammad bin Saud pact in 1744, Salafi-Wahhabis have been following this murderous ideology which calls all non-Wahhabi Muslims mushrik (polytheist) and Wajibul Qatl (deserving death).

If Ahl-e-Hadith and other Salafi Muslims are sincere in condemning sectarian terrorism they need to also denounce and renounce the Wahhabi-Salafi ideology that calls for murder, destruction and looting of property. They only need to do what Abdul Wahhab’s father and brother did. In fact, his brother Shaykh Sulayman ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab wrote a book refuting his arguments. Abdul Wahhab was able to propagate his ideas freely only when his father, a Qazi of the region, passed away. 

Although Sufi-oriented Muslims, rationalists, Shias, etc have been a victim of Salafi-Wahhabi terrorism, it would be wrong to conclude that extremism is limited to Wahhabis. The recent murder of Pakistani Punjab’s Governor Salman Taseer and the deification of his Brailvi murderer by millions of Muslims shows that extremism is widespread across all sects of Islam. All Muslims who sincerely denounce terrorism need to introspect and brainstorm together how to weed out ideologies within Islam that lead to such massacres of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

We also need to expose the hypocrites within Islam. There are people who denounce terrorism in public and teach in their madrasas that early peaceful and pluralistic verses of Quran have been abrogated by the later war-time verses asking us to kill the kafir and mushrik. Of course, war-time verses had come in a certain context which no longer exists and so these instructions can no longer apply to us. The first task before us is to come out of denial, accept that our theology and jurisprudence have been corrupted and then start thinking of changing our mindset, so that we can live as peaceful citizens of this inter-connected twenty-first century world. 

----

Sultan Shahin is the founding editor of a Delhi-based progressive Islamic website NewAgeIslam.com.

This article appeared first in Mail Today on 21 February 2017.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-sectarianism/sultan-shahin,-founding-editor,-new-age-islam/murderous-sectarianism-in-islam--salafi-ulema-should-not-only-condemn-the-massacre-at-lal-shahbaz-qalandar-shrine-but-also-the-ideology-behind-it/d/110142

 

 

New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism

 




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   161


  • Quran 2:11 is applicable to Muslims as well as non-Muslims since it mentions that Muslims should not make mischief on earth.  As it does not restrict itself to only Muslims, it should include also non-Muslims as well.  Or in other wards, Muslims are told not to make mischief to Muslims as well as non-Muslims.
    By zuma - 4/27/2017 12:51:59 AM



  • Quran 2:220 demands Muslims to deal justly and instead of deceitfully. The following is the extract: (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #220)-Mohsin Khan translation: ‘In (to) this worldly life and in the Hereafter. And they ask you concerning orphans. Say: "THE BEST THING IS TO WORK HONESTLY IN THEIR PROPERTY, and if you mix your affairs with theirs, then they are your brothers. And Allah knows him who means mischief (e.g. to swallow their property) from him who means good (e.g. to save their property). And if Allah had wished, He could have put you into difficulties. Truly, Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise."’ The phrase, The best thing is to work honestly, in Quran 2:220 demands Muslims to be just and to work honestly instead of deceitfully. As Muslims are told to work honestly, could they tell lie or could they deceive non-Muslims for their benefit?
    By zuma - 4/26/2017 9:48:38 PM



  • Quran 2:204-205 support the same that Allah dislikes Muslims to make mischief on the earth. The following are the extracts: (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #204)-Mohsin Khan translation: ‘And of mankind there is he whose speech may please you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), in this worldly life, and he calls Allah to witness as to that which is in his heart, yet he is the most quarrelsome of the opponents.’

    The phrase, he whose speech may please you (O Muhammad, in Quran 2:204 is inevitably refers to a genuine Muslim. The subsequent phrase, he calls Allah to witness, in Quran 2:204 implies he should have faith in Allah, or else, he would not ask Allah to be his witness. What did this Muslim do in Quran 2:205? (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #205)-Mohsin Khan translation: ‘And when he turns away (from you "O Muhammad "صلى الله عليه وسلم"), his effort in the land is to make mischief therein and to destroy the crops and the cattle, and Allah likes not mischief.’ This Muslim has been told in Quran 2:205 to make mischief in destroying crops and cattle.

    The phrase, Allah likes not mischief, in Quran 2:205 implies Allah does not like Muslims to make mischief on the earth. Thus, Allah forbids Muslims to create havoc among non-Muslims by destroying their crops and cattle.


    By zuma - 4/26/2017 9:33:28 PM



  • Does Allah loves the just? Allah certainly loves the just. Or else, Allah would not mention the phrase, Make not mischief on the earth, in Quran 2:11. The phrase, Make not mischief on the earth, in Quran 2:11 forbids Muslims to do vandalism; to fight against Governments by making mischief against them; and etc.
    By zuma - 4/26/2017 9:07:03 PM



  • Dear Muhammd Yunus, You have mentioned in your comment about Allah does not forbid Muslims to be virtuous and just to those Muslims who did not fight with them over religion, nor drove them from their homelands.  The suitable quranic verse that would tie with this teaching is Quran 2:11.  The following is the extract for anlaysis:

    (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." 

     As the phrase, make not mischief on the earth, is mentioned in Quran 2:11, it forbids Muslims to make mischief on the earth so as to be rude or to be unkind to those Muslims who did not fight with them over religion.  This phrase also forbids Muslims to make mischief on the earth so as to be rude to drive Muslims out of their homelands.  As Quran 2:11 is the inspiration from Allah, it indirectly implies that Allah does not forbid Muslims to be virtuous and just to those Muslims who did not fight with them over religion, nor drove them from their homelands since by doing that, they simply create mischief on the earth and that is unacceptable from Quranic point of view as stated clearly in Quran 2:11.


    By zuma - 4/26/2017 9:02:50 PM



  • The word, fight, in the books of Hadith would have no implication in this present days due to contemporary non-Muslims are not hostile as those in the past.  Many of the non-Muslims would like to live harmony with Muslims.  Even if there would be peace treaty between Muslims and non-Muslims, non-Muslims do not behave as those pagans in the past to break peace treaty to the extent to kill all seventy Muslims as shown in the history.  With that, we could round up with the conclusion that the word, fight, in the books of Haidth does not have any value in this contemporary world.


    By zuma - 4/26/2017 1:33:36 AM



  • From all my previous comments, it would conclude that the word, fight, in the books of Hadith should not be interpreted as aggressive fighting but defensive fighting. The books of Hadith as mentioned earlier that some of the non-Muslims were violent in the past. They fought even with the existence of peace treaty by killing seventy Muslims. As some non-Muslims were violent against Muslims, Allah would turn up to have no choice to direct the attention of Muhammad for the battle against non-Muslims. And that was the reason why we could see battle here and there as mentioned in the books of Hadith.
    By zuma - 4/25/2017 10:49:41 PM



  • If the word, fight, in the books of Hadith were meant for aggressive fighting instead of defensive fighting, there should not be any reason why Muhammad should send seventy Muslims to pagans for peace treaty.

    The reason is simply that Muslims should fight whenever they met Muslims instead of meeting them for peace treaty if the word, fight, in the Books of Hadith should be interpreted as aggressive fighting. (Book #16, Hadith #116)-Sahin Bukhari: '..."The Prophet sent about seventy men (who knew the Quran by heart) towards the pagans (of Najd) who were less than they in number and there was a peace treaty between them and Allah's Apostles (but the Pagans broke the treaty and killed the seventy men). So Allah's Apostle recited Qunut for a period of one month asking Allah to punish them."

    For instance, if the word, fight, in the books of Hadith is meant for aggressive fighting, there is no reason why seventy men were killed by pagans. Instead, pagans should be killed by seventy men. As seventy Muslims were killed by pagans during their peace treaty as mentioned in book #16, Hadith 116, Sahin Bukhari, it implies the word, fight, in the books of Hadith should not be interpreted as aggressive fighting. (Book #63, Hadith #210)-Sahin Bukhari: 'Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The pagans were of two kinds as regards their relationship to the Prophet and the Believers.

    Some of them were those with whom the Prophet was at war and used to fight against, and they used to fight him; the others were those with whom the Prophet made a treaty, and neither did the Prophet fight them, nor did they fight him...' As the phrase, the others were those with whom the Prophet made a treaty, is mentioned in book #63, Hadith #210, Sahin Bukhari, with the phrase, neither did the Prophet fight them, it implies that the word, fight in the book of hadith could not be interpreted as aggressive fighting. Or else, the Prophet would still continue to kill wherever they had found pagans whether they were in peace treaty on the condition if the word, fight in the book of hadith should be interpreted as aggressive fighting.

    Thus, the word, fight, in the book of Hadith should no way be interpreted as aggressive fighting. But defensive fighting, i.e. Muslims should not fight if non-Muslims cease in fighting or have peace treaty with them. (Book #2, Hadith #17)-Sahin Bukhari: 'Narrated 'Ubada bin As-Samit: who took part in the battle of Badr and was a Naqib (a person heading a group of six persons), on the night of Al-'Aqaba pledge: Allah's Apostle said while a group of his companions were around him, "Swear allegiance to me for: 1. Not to join anything in worship along with Allah. 2. Not to steal. 3. Not to commit illegal sexual intercourse. 4. Not to kill your children. 5. Not to accuse an innocent person (to spread such an accusation among people)...'

    The phrase, not to steal, as mentioned in book 2, Hadith 17, Sahin Bukhari, forbids Muslims to steal. If the word, fight, in the Books of Hadith should be interpreted as aggressive fighting, they should steal pagans’ money or assets. As the books of Hadith forbids Muslims to steal, stealing from pagans is not permissible. Besides, not to accuse an innocent person, is mentioned in book 2, Hadith 17, Sahin Bukhari, implies accusing innocent non-Muslims is not permissible. As accusing innocent non-Muslims is not permissible, how could the word, fight, in the books of Hadith be meant for evil too? (Book #60, Hadith #251)-Sahin Bukhari: '...'Have you killed an innocent soul who has killed nobody?

    Surely you have done an illegal thing!...' As the phrase, Have killed an innocent soul, is mentioned in the Book 60, Hadith 251, Sahih Bukhari, it implies that killing innocent non-Muslims is not permissible. If the word, fight, in the books of Hadith is meant for aggressive fighting, killing innocent non-Muslims should not be meant for illegal act since Muslims should locate wherever innocent non-Muslims are and kill them. As killing innocent non-Muslims is to be treated as illegal act in the book 60, Hadith 251, Sahin Bukhari, the word, fight, in the books of Hadith should not be interpreted as aggressive fighting but defensive fighting. The reason is simply that Muslims should not fight with innocent non-Muslims or non-Muslims who do no evil.


    By zuma - 4/25/2017 10:41:12 PM



  • Dear Muhammd Yunus,
    You have mentioned Muslims might use Sira to refute the claim.  However, the books of Hadith do expose the violence of non-Muslims in the past:
    (Book #16, Hadith #116)-Sahin Bukhari:
    '..."The Prophet sent about seventy men (who knew the Quran by heart) towards the pagans (of Najd) who were less than they in number and there was a peace treaty between them and Allah's Apostles (BUT THE PAGANS BROKE THE TREATY AND KILLED SEVENTY MEN). So Allah's Apostle recited Qunut for a period of one month asking Allah to punish them."
    As the phrase, the Pagans...killed the seventy men, is mentioned in book #16, Hadith 116 with the phrase, the Prophet sent about seventy men, it implies that non-Muslims were violent to the extent that they refused to accept peace treaty to the extent that they killed those Muslims who were sent by Mohammad.
    The same is mentioned in (Book #58, Hadith #194)-Sahin Bukhari:
    '...the PAGANS OF MECCA SAID, "But WE HAVE SLAIN SUCH LIFE AS ALLAH HAS MADE SACRED, and we have invoked other gods along with Allah, and we have also committed fornication.'...'
    As the phrase, pagans of mecca said, is mentioned in the book #58, Hadith #194, with the phrase, we have slain such life as Allah has made sacred, it implies that non-Muslims in the past were violent and did not want to respect those Muslims who were made sacred by Allah.
    By zuma - 4/25/2017 9:36:24 PM



  • Dear Zuma, You can add the following verses to those quoted in your last comment to demonstrate the defensive character of the Prophet's mission: "God does not forbid you to be virtuous and just to those who did not fight you over religion, nor drove you from your homelands. Indeed, God loves the just (8)God only forbids you to befriend those who fought against you over religion, and expelled you from your homelands, and backed (others) in your expulsion; and whoever befriends them – it is they who are unjust” (60:9). “O People! We have created you as male and female, and made you into races and communities (lit., ‘tribes) for you to get to know each other. The noblest among you near God are those of you who are the most heedful (morally upright). Indeed, God is All-Knowing and Informed” (49:13). "As the Muslims began to enter Mecca), the most fanatic among the Meccans harbored intense animosity – the fiery passion of the days of Ignorance, when God sent divine peace upon His Messenger and on the believers, and imposed on them the Word of restraint (taqwa), as they were entitled to it and worthy of it (48:26). I appreciate your efforts and invite you to read the article referenced in my initial comment to you.
    By muhammd yunus - 4/25/2017 4:02:49 AM



  •  Dear Zuma!

     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.


    Your views only echo the following commentary appearing in concluding part [under Fighting] of my article referenced below - supported by indisputable Qur’anic allusions:

    “...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.”

    Ref:

    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

    http://www.newageislam.com/ijtihad,-rethinking-islam/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/d/9039


    By muhammd yunus - 4/25/2017 3:44:18 AM



  • 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.


    By zuma - 4/24/2017 10:49:04 PM



  • 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.


    By zuma - 4/24/2017 10:01:45 PM



  • Dear Zuma!
    I appreciate your explanation of verses 9:5 and 9:29 by cross referencing other verses of the Qur'an. The existential character of 9:5 as an directive against those Arab tribes who repeatedly broke peace treaty becomes clear if

    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).

    Extracted from:

    ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE AND PLURALISM

    :http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-and-pluralism/d/108249


    As for the fuller explanation of 9:29, please read this article:

    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.

    : http://newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/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/d/104248
    By muhammd yunus - 4/24/2017 8:38:38 AM



  • 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.


    By zuma - 4/24/2017 12:36:46 AM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content