Verses 31-40 of Sura 8 discuss the perversity of the pagan Quraysh, whom the Muslims have just defeated in the Battle of Badr. They reject Muhammad’s preaching as “tales of the ancients” (v. 31) and keep the Muslims out of the Sacred Mosque in Mecca (v. 34). In verses 38-40, Allah tells Muhammad to call them to accept Islam, “and fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression [fitnah], and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do” (v. 39).
According to Ibn Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, As-Suddi, Muqatil bin Hayyan and Zayd bin Aslam, the statement that Muslims must fight until there is no more fitnah means that they must fight “so that there is no more Shirk.” Shirk is the association of partners with Allah – i.e., calling Jesus the Son of God. So this verse, although it was revealed in the aftermath of a seventh-century battle between Muslims and pagans, has a universal application: the Tafsir al-Jalalayn glosses it this way: “And fight them until sedition, idolatry, is, exists, no more and religion is all for God, alone, none other being worshipped…” Muhammad himself said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.”
Verses 41-44 concern the battle itself. After the Muslims’ victory, Allah directs the Muslims to give a fifth of the booty to Muhammad (v. 41). After one battle, Muhammad prayed “facing a camel from the war booty,” and then, holding some of the camel’s hair between his fingers, said to his men: “This is also a part of the war booty you earned. Verily, I have no share in it, except my own share, the fifth designated to me. Even that fifth will be given to you.” That indicated, according to the one telling this tale, the prophet’s generosity. Muhammad continued by exhorting the Muslims to turn over all the spoils of war to him for just distribution: “Therefore, surrender even the needle and the thread, and whatever is bigger or smaller than that (from the war spoils). Do not cheat with any of it, for stealing from the war booty before its distribution is Fire and a shame on its people in this life and the Hereafter. Perform Jihad against the people in Allah’s cause, whether they are near or far, and do not fear the blame of the blamers, as long as you are in Allah’s cause. Establish Allah’s rules while in your area and while traveling. Perform Jihad in Allah’s cause, for Jihad is a tremendous door leading to Paradise. Through it, Allah saves (one) from sadness and grief.”
Then Allah reminds Muhammad of various events before and during the battle, emphasizing how Allah controlled events and saved the Muslims (vv. 42-44).
Verses 45-63 address the believers, telling them not to imitate those who, like the “people of Pharaoh…rejected the Signs of Allah” (v. 52). (Here again, “signs” is ayat, the word used for the verses of the Qur’an.) For “the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: they will not believe” (v. 55) — another indication that unbelievers are worthy of no respect or consideration. If the Muslims “fear treachery” from unbelievers with whom they have a treaty, they should simply break the treaty (v. 58). Ibn Kathir says this means that Muslims should tell the unbelievers “that you are severing the treaty. This way, you will be on equal terms, in that, you and they will be aware that a state of war exists between you and that the bilateral peace treaty is null and void.” The Muslims should “make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies” (v. 60), while being ready to make peace if the enemy wishes to do so (v. 61). Some however, do not believe this truce should be indefinite in length. Qutb explains:
At the time when this surah was revealed, God instructed His Messenger to remain at peace with those groups who refrained from fighting him and the Muslims, whether they entered into a formal treaty with the Muslims or not. The Prophet continued to accept a peaceful relationship with unbelievers and people of earlier revelations until Surah 9 was revealed, when he could only accept one of two alternatives: either they embraced Islam or paid jizyah [a tax levied on non-Muslims, per Qur’an 9:29] which indicated a state of peace. Otherwise, the only alternative was war, whenever this was feasible for the Muslims to undertake, so that all people submit to God alone.
Verses 64-75 address Muhammad himself, giving him various instructions. Allah tells him that he will give pious Muslims more victories, even if they face odds even more prohibitive than those they had overcome at Badr, although this promise is almost immediately backtracked: originally a hundred would defeat a thousand unbelievers (v. 65), but this is almost immediately reduced to a hundred believers vanquishing two hundred unbelievers (v. 66). These became recurring themes of jihad literature throughout the centuries, up to the present day: piety will bring military victory, and the Muslims will conquer even against overwhelming odds.
According to the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, verse 67 – “It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land” — was revealed when the Muslims “ransomed those taken captive at Badr.” The Muslims had released some of the prisoners at Badr, but this was out of their base desire for material gain: the money they would receive in ransom. The tafsir continues: “You, O believers, desire the transient things of this world, its ephemeral gains, by ransoming, while God desires, for you, the Hereafter, that is, its reward, through your killing them.” In other words, they should have killed the captives rather than ransoming them. However, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn concludes by asserting that v. 67 was abrogated by 47:4, which allows for ransom. Ibn Kathir notes that “the majority of the scholars say that the matter of prisoners of war is up to the Imam. If he decides, he can have them killed, such as in the case of Bani Qurayzah. If he decides, he can accept a ransom for them, as in the case of the prisoners of Badr, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners.”
Next week: Sura 9, the only chapter of the Qur’an that does not begin with “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful” – and with very good reason.
(Here you can find links to all the earlier "Blogging the Qur'an" segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
Would Bush, Rice, Blair, Javier Solana, the entire staff of the E.U. and the U.N., care to comment? What about the entire membership of the Washington Press Corps and the Council on Foreign Relations? What about all those Bright Young Muslims who tell us they are "reforming" or "can reform" Islam, if only we give them still more foundation and government grant money? What woud Mustafa Akyol and Khaled Muhammad and Khaled Abou El Fadl have to say about this verse, or so many others that Robert has covered, and will continue to cover? Has he misstated something? If so, what, exactly? What has he misstated about the Qur'an and its meaning? Tell us.
"Perform Jihad against the people in Allah’s cause, whether they are near or far, and do not fear the blame of the blamers, as long as you are in Allah’s cause. Establish Allah’s rules while in your area and while traveling. Perform Jihad in Allah’s cause, for Jihad is a tremendous door leading to Paradise" . . .
but..but doesn't jihad mean interior struggle? I'm confused.
Ibn Kathir, commenting on verse 8:39:
"(it is) the order to eradicate Shirk & Kufr. Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (trial in religion) & the religion will be for Allah alone (so that there is no more "Kufr", disbelief).
"Rebellion against God's will is termed as 'fitna". Fitna refers us to misconduct on the part of a man who establishes his own norms & expects obedience from others, thereby usurping God's authority, who alone is sovereign."
Disbelief, kufr, itself then, is a crime against God. It is also the source of "corruption in the land" of "disorder" "waging war against Allah & his prophet" of the "persecution" and "oppression" of Muslims that will be spelled out in 5:32-33 (Islamic scholar Aga Mahdi Puya): "Waging war against Allah and his Prophet means hostility against his chosen representatives, or deviation from his laws by overstepping the boundaries laid down by Him...or attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims." That qualifies as "war" against Islam! Ibn Kathir on 5:33 says: "the punishment of those who wage war against Allah & His Apostle & strive to make mischief (fasadan)in the land is only this, they should be murdered or crucified or their hands & feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned" [* fasad meaning corruption, creating disorder by opposing God.]
I think Illah was pretty stingy in giving Mo only a fifth of the booty. Such a devoted follower and great warlord should have gotten at least a third
for all his trouble.
But seriously, it truly is amazing that apologists complain that the Koran is taken out of context and that they are believed so readily. Here are the words clear as day, in all their unsavoriness. What could possibly be taken out of context? It's quite easy to see why jihadists think and act as they do after reading these words.
So, let me get this straight. You have the right to jump from verse 31 to 34, and then 38-40 and that counts as "Quranic Blogging?"
Let's start with Arabic grammar:
Past tense means that something happened in the past. Like not today. Like when it says "Remember how they said" that's in the past. In Quranic Studies, there is a science called Quranic Grammar which does involve the eternal tense which doesn't exist in the modern Arabic, but it is not wildly brushed over the entire Quran.
Also, let's continue with some basic reading comprehension (I passed the class that you reccommended by the way, but I would suggest that you start with a Quranic studies class because the home unit isn't workin'):
I like how the meaning of these verses, which are never seen independently by Islamic scholars anywhere, are somehow in your explanation separated completely from one another. I'll illustrate:
31: Pagans in Mecca
32: Pagans in Mecca
33: Pagans in Mecca
34: Pagans in Mecca
35: Pagans in Mecca
36: Pagans in Mecca
37: Pagans in Mecca
38: Pagans in Mecca
39: CHRISTIANS!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!
Yes, your 9 sources (you kind of fudged on 2, I'll let you figure out who they were and let them pass today, although you do drop a lot of names, which I would love to hear you try to pronounce) said until their is no Shirk, in Mecca. Ah, here's the problem. End of Shirk in Mecca doesn't mean "ie- calling Jesus Christ the Son of God." I can never get enough of your selective readings, though. I could only hope that real scholarship one day will catch up with your "every other paragraph" method.
(Here again, “signs” is ayat, the word used for the verses of the Qur’an.)
--What does this mean? You are trying to make a connection that doesn't exist in Islam. Yes. Spencer genious. Spencer know one word is the same as another word. Please provide the documentation on the issue that you're hitting at. Or, don't put it in your Quranic blog.
These became recurring themes of jihad literature throughout the centuries, up to the present day: piety will bring military victory, and the Muslims will conquer even against overwhelming odds.
--I don't know if you have ever read non-Muslim military literature. Those who are pious win, regardless of the odds. Have you ever seen a Hollywood movie, that bastion of the West that has "lost its will." The underdog wins against large odds. What is the Quran supposed to say, "you gonna loose?" Your logic is very lopsided against Islam, but we already knew that.
Just doing some thinking...
PS. Tafsir al Jalalayn "glosses over" the subject because you don't know anything about Quranic studies, another hallmark of the home unit. That tafsir is a of balagha, and it is very famous for doing so. Unfortunately, you don't understand that, you just say it to drop the name.
Also, you don't seem to understand what Qotb wrote, either. He was talking about what happened then. Where's the part that says "that applies to right now?" He wrote this in the early 20th Century, and he even didn't make that stretch, even though his Quranic explanation is well known for trying to tie things from back then to today. Weird.
Next week: Sura 9, the only chapter of the Qur’an that does not begin with “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful” – and with very good reason.
----Actually, it is because the Othman printing didn't put it. It is still said when you start reading it. But you wouldn't know about that one either, would you?
Nick. All I have to say is wow. My head is still spinning from the wild connect-the-dots match. Stick to sudoku.
Hmmm...so...
they must first slaughter people BEFORE they take hostages?
gee...I feel so much better now.
(/sarc)
An American:
Nice of you to keep dropping by! Before I get to your latest, let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we, for those who may be just joining us.
Since you are the Arabic expert, and I the ignoramus, it was interesting that you didn't seem to notice that Qur'an 9:29 speaks of الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَاب, and accused me of misrepresentation for saying that it did. That exchange is in the comments field here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017476.php
But of course, I'm not supposed to know what that Arabic that I just quoted means! Whoops! I forget I was an ignoramus there for a second! So let's see how some Islamic translators have rendered that phrase from Qur'an 9:29:
ALI: "People of the Book"
PICKTHALL: "those who have been given the Scripture"
SHAKIR: "those who have been given the Book"
DARYABADI: "those who have been given the Book"
HILALI-KHAN: "People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)"
FAKHRY: "People of the Book"
And yet you said: "Nowhere, and I repeat, nowhere in that entire chapter is the phrase Ahl al-Kitaab mentioned." (That "Ahl al-Kitaab" is "People of the Book," folks.) So I guess Ali, Pickthall, Shakir, Daryabadi, Hilali, Khan, and Fakhry are all dopes like me, eh?
Anyway, now that we have established your superior knowledge of Arabic and Islam, and my bad faith and idiocy, let's turn to your latest:
Are there rules for "Quranic Blogging" that I have overlooked?
Wow. Thanks for the info! A "past tense," eh? What a concept!
Thanks! I'll keep it in mind!
Yes, silly me. Funny how you think I am overlooking that this is about pagans in Mecca, since I say: "So this verse, although it was revealed in the aftermath of a seventh-century battle between Muslims and pagans, has a universal application." Anyway, pardon me for thinking that since many Muslims believe Christians are guilty of shirk, as you can see here:
http://www.al-sunnah.com/call_to_islam/articles/shirk_the_ultimate_crime.html
...that some might think that a verse calling upon Muslims to fight until there is no more shirk might have an application beyond its historical context. Why, all you have to do is look around the world today and you'd see that no Muslims anywhere think that Christians are guilty of shirk and should be fought! I mean, where would they have gotten the idea?
Actually, they didn't say "in Mecca."
As for pronunciation, would you like a tape? Send me an address and I'll get one right out to you!
Indeed not. Please produce some Islamic authorities who specify that 8:39 refers only to fighting against polytheists in Mecca, and must not be applied to any others who commit Shirk. Produce exact quotes, please. Arabic is fine. But considering that I'm still waiting for those Arabic texts you claimed to have that disprove that Aisha was nine, pardon me if I don't hold my breath here.
I hope so!
I thought this was clear. The point I'm trying to make is that when the Qur'an speaks about people rejecting Allah's "signs," it is doing so in language that gives the impresssion that it is referring to rejection of the Qur'an. Here again, please provide some quotes from Islamic scholars rejecting this view (I have plenty who favor it).
Actually, the point here is that the Qur'an doesn't contain the idea that someone may be righteous and still be defeated, which is an idea one finds in abundance in the Old Testament, cf. Isaiah 53, the Book of Habakkuk, many Psalms, etc.
Not enough, my good man!
I didn't say the Tafsir al-Jalalayn "glosses over" anything. Maybe you'd better re-enroll in that reading comp course!
Meanwhile, "that tafsir is a of balagha, and it is very famous for doing so"? How's that again? You say, "unfortunately, you don't understand that," and you're quite right! Even Englishing your terms doesn't help: "That commentary is a of eloquence, and it is very famous for doing so"? Please, aid us lesser mortals!
Where's the part that says "that applies to right now"? You'll find that in Milestones. Surely a great scholar like you has read Milestones, haven't you? Ma'alim fil Tariq? Check it out, my friend!
Apparently you are unaware of how some of the leading mufassirun have explained this omission. Well, stay tuned! You might find next week's entry enlightening!
Just doing some thinking, old pal!
Cordially
Robert Spencer
An American:
Ibn Kathir: 8:39
"(until there is no more Fitnah) the Fitnah mentioned here means, until no Muslim is persecuted so that he abandons his religion. Ad-Dahhak reported that Ibn `Abbas said about Allah's statement,
(and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone.) "So that Tawhid is practiced in sincerity with Allah.'' Al-Hasan, Qatadah and Ibn Jurayj said,
(and the religion will all be for Allah alone) "So that La ilaha illa-llah is proclaimed.'' Muhammad bin Ishaq also commented on this Ayah, "So that Tawhid is practiced in sincerity towards Allah, without Shirk, all the while shunning all rivals who (are being worshipped) besides Him.''
`Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said about,
(and the religion will all be for Allah alone) "So that there is no more Kufr (disbelief) with your religion remains.'' There is a Hadith collected in the Two Sahihs that testifies to this explanation. The Messenger of Allah said,
(I was commanded to fight against the people until they proclaim, `There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah.' If and when they say it, they will preserve their blood and wealth from me, except for its right (Islamic penal code), and their reckoning is with Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored"
Here is Ibn Kathir connecting dots!
Explicate this for us, if you please, specifically
in terms of what it means for disbelieving non-Muslims today. When your head stops spinning, that is.
Is the Defender of Islam ("An American") really going to come back for more? It's painful to watch him keep attempting to stagger up from the mat, and then be down for the count. Painful to watch, all right, whether am Rein, or anywhere else, but I suppose we should be grateful for the pedagogic usefulness of your replies to his absurdities.
I don't think it painful to watch at all...I enjoy every minute of Robert swatting the mosquito...ooops, I meant fly.
My apologies to all mosquitoes everywhere-at least mosquitoes have the sense to stop being an irritant when ya swat 'em.
(I know, I know..."bad guest!" *slap my hand with a ruler like we did in school*)
Haha Hugh...I was just thinking the same thing. I guess some people really are gluttons for punishment. Reminds me of the wild west where many young guns, derby hats, a bad front tooth, and a steely eye, would seek out the famous fast draw artist, only to be proved not quite fast enough.
Most of them did not return a second time.
Only an intellectual sadomasochist would keep coming back here for further trouncing. Possibly some kind of a self abusive complex with sexual undertones...
Just doing some thinking...
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the knight scene in a monty python movie, and Robert says:
"What are you going to do...bleed on me?"
Who knows...maybe it IS possible to "bite your kneecaps off"?...LOL
"What is the Quran supposed to say,"you gonna lose?"
How about something like: love other human beings UNCONDITIONALLY,and don't force them to take to the perpetual warpath everywhere historically from India to Spain just because they refuse to "revert."
Such is the power trip which lies at the heart of it all. Self proclaimed Worshipers of death,yet still desire to dominate and control others in life.
"If my kingdom were of this world my disciples would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews."
As Robert has aptly pointed out in the P.I.G. to Islam and the Crusades....The Qur'an IS the book of war.
“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land”
..................................
I find this one of the most disturbing passages in the Qu'ran--a book rife with disturbing phrases.
It basically admonishes Mohammed not to let his carnality (desire for those "captives of his right hand"), his greed (desire for captives' ransoms), and his laziness (desire for worker slaves), to get in the way of his bloodlust (the desire for slaughter).
Such a description for *any* historical figure would be pretty damning, but that this is the figure we are to regard as the "seal of the Prophets" makes it particularly appalling.