| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
David Bukay in the Middle East Quarterly presents a comprehensive overview of the all-important concept of abrogation in Islam: the principle by which many Islamic exegetes hold that the violent passages of the Qur'an take precedence over the peaceful ones.
How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just.During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle.
Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations.
Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58]
Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth.
Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam.
According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61]
Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."[62]
Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."[63]
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at September 7, 2007 10:46 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Just change the word God to Satan and this all makes perfect sense.
Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish Satan's kingdom on earth.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 7, 2007 11:00 AM
Definition of cancer:
"They would not invade you, but you invade them."
at September 7, 2007 11:03 AM
What an awesome resource. I am currently working on a presentation for my 'religion and violence' class entitled Why islam is Violent. Abrogation is an essential element to studying this evil ideology.
Posted by: RecoveringHog at September 7, 2007 11:10 AM
Given the progression of violence in the Koran one wonders what horrors would have happened had Mo lived another ten years or so. One almost shudders at the prospect.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 7, 2007 11:14 AM
Errata Sheet:
Change "For many Islamists and radical Muslims" to read "For many Muslims"
Posted by: Hugh at September 7, 2007 11:14 AM
Errata Sheet:
Change "For many Islamists and radical Muslims" to read "For perfectly mainstream Muslims"
Posted by: Hugh at September 7, 2007 11:14 AM
Altogether now, on that revised form, so that it now reads:
"For many perfectly mainstream Muslims...."
Posted by: Hugh at September 7, 2007 11:16 AM
Who is David Bukay anyway, some kind of Islamophobe?
This is all well and good, but I perceive that this will not be read by anyone who can influence anything, nor will it even begin to sway any opinion held by the government's dunces. It will be ingored by Bush, Rice, and all their boot-lickers, a-- kissers, and hangers on, if they even read it. It has too many big words for Bush to read anyway.
Posted by: Pelayo
at September 7, 2007 11:25 AM
"For many perfectly mainstream Muslims...."
Right there, in a nutshell, is the biggest danger to the west. The majority are still buying the 'tiny minority' hogwash.
Educate yourselves then spread the word.
Posted by: RecoveringHog at September 7, 2007 11:27 AM
Hugh's correction notwithstanding, this article is an excellent resource to pass along given that it starts with the apologists arguments and only gets to the underlying theme by the end (e.g. this approach makes the reader less likely to dismiss it---it comes across as very neutral).
For people who believe that IslamoFascism is a threat but are not educated at all about the Koran (Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, virtually all of Republicant candidates for President) the article provides what I think should be a very persuasive document. A good tool for opening more minds.
I make a habit of forwarding one link each week to people I perceive as being persuadable. This week, I am making an exception to my one-link rule.
Posted by: JSobieski at September 7, 2007 11:33 AM
Is abrogation (or "naskh") discussed in the course on Islam that Carl Ernst is teaching? Will "naskh" or "taqiyya" (with its origins in Shi'a Islam explained) or "kitman" or, especially, the word and the full meaning of the word "dhimmi" -- with all of the disabilities u which non-Muslims were forced to endure, and the deliberate infliction of "humiliation" as a key part of the dhimmi status -- be discussed in his course? In that of Omid Safi? Michael Sells? William Bulliet? Or anyone else who ostensibly is supposed to make sense, for students, of the Middle East, but can not conceivably do so without discussing the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam, not least in what the khalidis and massads deal with, which is the Lesser Jihad -- carefully unrecognized as such, but transparent to those who know their Islam -- against Israel.
Or will they be just like George Bush, who also refuses to think about or understand or discuss Islam? Yes, just like Bush. Fancy that.
Posted by: Hugh at September 7, 2007 12:02 PM
This headline on abrogation is key in understanding the evil behind Islam and what we are up against. Thanks for supplying this information, Robert!
"It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war"....from headline.
They have so broadened the term "offensive holy war" that it even includes...."kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam". With rules of engagement like this, then is there ever a time/situation when a holy war is NOT illegal?
Posted by: champ at September 7, 2007 12:16 PM
Is abrogation (or "naskh") discussed in the course on Islam that Carl Ernst is teaching? Will "naskh" or "taqiyya" (with its origins in Shi'a Islam explained) or "kitman" or, especially, the word and the full meaning of the word "dhimmi" -- with all of the disabilities u which non-Muslims were forced to endure, and the deliberate infliction of "humiliation" as a key part of the dhimmi status -- be discussed in his course? In that of Omid Safi? Michael Sells? William Bulliet? Or anyone else who ostensibly is supposed to make sense, for students, of the Middle East, but can not conceivably do so without discussing the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam, not least in what the khalidis and massads deal with, which is the Lesser Jihad -- carefully unrecognized as such, but transparent to those who know their Islam -- against Israel.
Or will they be just like George Bush, who also refuses to think about or understand or discuss Islam? Yes, just like Bush. Fancy that.
Posted by: Hugh at September 7, 2007 12:29 PM
Any Greek scholars out there? If Gospel = Good News, What = bad news?
Posted by: RecoveringHog at September 7, 2007 12:36 PM
Any Greek scholars out there? If Gospel = Good News, What = bad news?
Koran = bad news.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 7, 2007 1:02 PM
"Given the progression of violence in the Koran one wonders what horrors would have happened had Mo lived another ten years or so. One almost shudders at the prospect."
Ain't that the truth! As it is, he lived long enough to unleash his cancer upon humanity, inspiring his followers to carry on his legacy of hate, war and intolerance after his death. It's really to bad he didn't die ten years before he did.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at September 7, 2007 1:05 PM
"During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages"
Yeah -- they witnessed the Evolution of Evil right before their very eyes.
Posted by: champ at September 7, 2007 1:17 PM
That is why the Koran shoud rightly be called "The Satanic Verses".
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 7, 2007 1:38 PM
Champ,
Islam also forbids killing "innocent civilians" but their definition of "civilian" and "innocent" are both infinitely malleable. If they want to kill you, they'll find a reason it's okay, such as: WTC office workers were not innocent because they were "supporting the American system".
at September 7, 2007 1:49 PM
Indeed, abrogation is accepted in mainstream Islamic scholarship. And in practice, most Muslims follow at least some rulings that are the product of abrogations within the Quran, such as the alcohol prohibitions.
Bukay has written an interesting article, but there should be some mention of the different kinds of abrogations.
He also recycles the cliche about the allegedly peaceful Meccan verses, which are contrasted by the allegedly harsher Medinan verses. This is an oversimplification, in my opinion. Several of the Meccan verses threaten genocide of disbelievers. Many of the so-called peaceful verses, in context, state that Muhammad (and/or the Muslims) should be patient, and that the disbelievers will get the punishment that is coming to them "in this world and the next." In other words, the verses are saying 'bide your time until you have the military means to deliver Allah's punishment.' That hardly contradicts the Medinan commands for Muslims to deliver Allah's punishment. The Meccan verses state that disbelievers who refuse to obey and believe the messengers of Allah will be punished in this world, will not find an escape on earth, etc. That policy is consistent with the Medinan verses that were revealed once Muhammad had the military means to carry out attacks.
One should also not overlook the social, political, propaganda jihad waged by Muhammad during the Meccan period, which brought him into conflict with the Meccan leaders in the first place. For a discussion of this issue, see Sam Shamoun's "Who Antagonized Whom?"
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/antagonizing.htm
--------------
Bukay also writes:
"In another case, a hadith abrogates the Qur'an. While the Qur'an talks only about scourging and exiling the adulterer;[44] Muhammad stoned some adulterers to death, establishing it as the penalty.[45] Here, though, Suyuti focuses not only on the abrogation itself but also on determining the wisdom behind it.[46]"
It is difficult to say what the Quran "only talks about" because the statements are often ambiguous. For example, regarding adultery, verses 33:60-62 threaten slaughter of "those in whose hearts is a disease," a phrase which is understood by such commentators as Ibn Kathir to mean those who have an "evil desire for adultery." In addition, at least one of the Quranic verses which forbids "unjust killing" specifically excludes adultery, i.e., it is not necessarily unjust to kill an adulterer. Also, verses 5:32-33 give the harsh penalties, up to and including death, for those who are guilty of mischief/corruption in the land. Mischief/corruption is a broad category that includes adultery.
As for the penalty of lashing given for illegal sexual intercourse in the Quran 24:2, here is how Hilali and Khan translate it (they add their comments in parentheses or brackets):
"The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's Law)."
The above may be seen as an attempt on the part of the pious Muslim scholars to explain away (or gloss over, deflect attention from) an apparent discrepancy between the Quran-- which does not explicitly state the death penalty for adultery--and the hadith--which does clearly give the death penalty for adultery. But it is also possible that the verse was intended to refer to unmarried people who commit illegal sexual intercourse.
A problem for apologists who reject abrogation is the fact that numerous ahadith specifically refer to Muhammad canceling, modifying, or updating verses. Here is one example, which is cited (not quoted in full) by Bukay:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 118:
Narrated Al-Bara:
When the Verse:--"Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home)," (4.95) was revealed, the Prophet said, "Call so-and-so." That person came to him with an ink-pot and a wooden board or a shoulder scapula bone. The Prophet said (to him), "Write: 'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah." Ibn Um Maktum who was sitting behind the Prophet then said, "O Allah's Apostle! I am a blind man." So there was revealed in the place of that Verse, the Verse:--"Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury, or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah." (4.95)
at September 7, 2007 1:51 PM
While I understand why the author might have formulated his statements the way he did in the second paragraph, I do wish he had written "God allegedly commanded" and "God allegedly permitted" and "Mohammed was supposedly given permission" instead. Or, perhaps, replaced the word "God" with "Allah."
It might just be me, but I dislike even the slightest intimation of agreement with Muslim truth-claims, including the assertion that the Judeo-Christian God and Allah are the same entity.
But I'm nitpicking. An outstanding article.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at September 7, 2007 2:49 PM
For additional sources supplementing and validating Bukay's article and conclusions, readers here are urged to procure and read, with patience, the tough but extremely compelling "Legacy of Jihad" by Andrew Bostom. Each chapter - each page - serves to drive home, with utmost clarity, the fact that Islam is utterly evil, utterly civilization-destroying. Request your local library to purchase at least one copy. In fact, ask your local libraries to purchase books by Bat Ye'or, Spencer, Oriana Fallaci (e.g. The Rage and the Pride), Bernard Lewis (e.g. Jews of Islam), and others recommended by Robert and Hugh. Let each public library be a source for books that tell the truth about Islam.
Posted by: commonsense at September 7, 2007 7:34 PM
The article ends thus:
...recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims.(my bolding)
Medina -- the last, and most violent, stage of Islamic doctrine
at September 8, 2007 4:40 AM
The line from the end of the article:
...recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims.might be read as abrogating, or at any rate supplementing, an earlier sentence in the same article:
For many Islamists and radical Muslims...Posted by: traeh
at September 8, 2007 4:59 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)