| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Sura 9, “Repentance,” is the only one of the Qur’an’s 114 chapters that does not begin with Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim – “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful.” Explanations for this vary. The caliph ‘Uthman (and others, including Zamakhshari) explains that it was because some believed that sura 8 and sura 9 were actually one sura, and that “the holy prophet passed away without informing us whether Surah Bara’ah [sura 9] was part of Surah Anfal [sura 8] or not.” Ibn Kathir says that the omission is simply “because the Companions did not write it in the complete copy of the Qur’an (Mushaf) they collected.” Maududi asserts that the correct explanation was given by Imam Razi, who says that the Bismillah was left off because Muhammad himself didn’t recite it at the beginning of this sura. Al-Hakim says that Muhammad not only didn’t recite the Bismillah himself, but commanded that it not be recited at the beginning of this sura.
Why not? The Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains Muhammad’s command by saying that the Bismillah “is security, and [sura 9] was sent down when security was removed by the sword. ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib agrees, saying that the Bismillah “conveys security while this sura was sent down with the sword. That is why it does not begin with security.” The Tafsir al-Jalalayn adds that “Hudhayfa reports that they called it the Sura of Repentance, while it is, in fact, the Sura of Punishment.”
The prohibition, in any case, remains. Scholars such as Jazari and Shatbi say that the Bismillah should not be recited at the beginning of this sura, although Bulandshahri says that if someone recites sura 9 starting from anywhere other than its beginning, he may recite the Bismillah if he chooses to do so.
According to a hadith recorded by Bukhari, sura 9 was the last to be revealed as a whole, although part of another sura came later. Another hadith says that sura 110 was actually the last, but in any case sura 9 is very late, among the last revelations Muhammad received. It came around the time of an inconclusive expedition Muhammad undertook against a Byzantine garrison at Tabuk in northern Arabia in 631, and much of its contents revolve around the events of that attempt to engage the army of the great Christian empire in battle.
It begins, however, by addressing the pagans of Mecca. Verses 1-12 free the unbelievers from all obligations they may have incurred in treaties they concluded with the Muslims, and all existing treaties are restricted to a period of four months (vv. 1-3).
This restriction comes with the warning that “Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him” (v. 2), which the Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains as “humiliating them in this world by having them killed, and in the Hereafter, by [sending them to] the Fire.” The announcement is made during the Hajj that “Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans” and call them to repent and accept Islam (v. 3). This refers only to those pagans who have violated the terms of their treaties with the Muslims; the other treaties will be honored to the end of their term (v. 4). As-Sawi says that this is an exception to the four-month limit, giving to the Damra tribe, “who still had nine months of their treaty remaining.”
Then comes the notorious Verse of the Sword, containing the injunction to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them (v. 5). This is, understandably, a verse much beloved by present-day jihadists. In a 2003 sermon, Osama bin Laden rejoiced over this verse: “Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood.”
Ibn Juzayy notes that v. 5 abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates 47:4’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers. According to As-Suyuti, “This is an Ayat of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” – that is, perhaps the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam.”
Ibn Kathir echoes this, directing that Muslims should “not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” He also doesn’t seem to subscribe to the view commonly put forward by Muslim spokesmen in the West today — that this verse applies only to the pagans of Arabia in Muhammad’s time, and has no further application. He asserts, on the contrary, that “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means just that: the unbelievers must be killed “on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area” – that is, the sacred mosque in Mecca, in accord with 2:191.
If the unbelievers convert to Islam, the Muslims must stop killing them. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them.” Ibn Kathir: “These Ayat [verses] allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.” Qutb says that the termination of the treaties with a four-month grace period, combined with the call to kill the unbelievers, “was not meant as a campaign of vengeance or extermination, but rather as a warning which provided a motive for them to accept Islam.”
Asad, however, says that v. 5 “certainly does not imply an alternative of ‘conversion or death,’ as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume.” He says that “war is permissible only in self-defence,” in accord with 2:190, and that “the enemy’s conversion to Islam…is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their ‘desisting from hostility.’ He points the reader to verses 4 and 6 for further elucidation; we will pick up with v. 6 next week.
Finally, it is noteworthy that, according to As-Suyuti, the jurist “Ash-Shafi’i took this as a proof for killing anyone who abandons the prayer and fighting anyone who refuses to pay zakat [alms]. Some use it as a proof that they are kafirun [unbelievers].” Likewise Ibn Kathir: “Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah.” Thus even Muslims who do not fulfill Islamic obligations fall into the category of those who must be fought. This is a principle that latter-day Salafist movements apply broadly and use frequently in branding governments that do not rule according to strict Islamic law as unbelievers who must be fought by those who regard themselves as true Muslims. This is playing out now in the Salafist revolt against Musharraf’s Pakistan, and to a lesser degree in Egypt against Mubarak and even in Saudi Arabia against the House of Saud.
Next week: “Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands!”
(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.)
Posted by Robert at November 12, 2007 8:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
According to a hadith recorded by Bukhari, sura 9 was the last to be revealed as a whole, although part of another sura came later. Another hadith says that sura 110 was actually the last, but in any case sura 9 is very late, among the last revelations Muhammad received.
One of the most important things to understand about the Quran is the principle of abrogation. The Quran is set-up longest to shortest verse, but what matters is chronological order. Thus an early permission to wine drinking is abrogated by a later (chronological) ban on alcohol. The "peaceful verses" of the Quran have been abrogated. The "peaceful verses" are platitudes farted at Kuffirs and part of the "war is deception" recommended by the inventor of the engine of Arab imperialism. It is what it is.
Posted by: Frank![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 12, 2007 8:28 AM
"According to a hadith recorded by Bukhari, sura 9 was the last to be revealed as a whole, although part of another sura came later. Another hadith says that sura 110 was actually the last, but in any case sura 9 is very late, among the last revelations Muhammad received".-Robert
Posted by: Frank at November 12, 2007 8:30 AM
“because the Companions did not write it in the complete copy of the Qur’an (Mushaf) they collected.”
But the koran wasn't written down for two hundred years? Weren't the all illiterate, including the companions?
Posted by: Borg at November 12, 2007 8:50 AM
Memo to: "Pure Islam" and Michael van der Galiën
Because of the principle of abrogation all discussions re the number of peaceful verses and the number of violent verses in the Quran vs. the Bible are totally meaningless. In fact, such discussions are a deceptive diversion from the reality that the later verses of the Quran are the God's final orders and those orders are to convert, kill or reduce the unbeliever to Dhimmi status. The Quran's "peaceful verses" are meaningless because they are abrogated by the final solution order.
Posted by: Frank at November 12, 2007 9:07 AM
From the HotAir site:
Western White Boy:
(aka HeIsSailing):
Even if you don’t understand it, try listening to it in Arabic. Listen to the rhythm of it, the music of it. There is no doubt whatsoever that it is beguiling, and that much of its appeal lies in this.
Robert Spencer on November 11, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Don't you wonder if there is an element of hypnosis involved?
Some people are suseptible to hypnosis and others are not. I have to wonder if that is the difference between those who convert and those who do not. The difference between those who succumb to militancy and the moderates.
at November 12, 2007 9:20 AM
Further Memo to: Michael van der Galiën
Maybe you might now appreciate why Spencer and JW are so vital, so important. This guy and the other outdoor cat (Fitzgerald) are telling the truth. As the song goes in the movie The Color Purple: "Maybe God is trying to tell you something". It's a great song in the movie.
Posted by: Frank at November 12, 2007 9:36 AM
Any who do violence in the name of Christianity are diametrically opposed with Christian scripture and philosophy where the greatest commandment given by Christ to be:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" [Matt. 22:37-40].
following excerpted from islamundressed.com which puts it very well:
So the basic tenet of the Christian faith is that people are the children of God, created in His image, and are all of value to Him. The basic tenet of Islam is that some people are chosen by God to be Muslim, but the rest are -not- the people of God, and that a Muslims duty is to expedite Allah’s plan for non-believers to be converted …or dispatched to hell! There are three major differences and distinctions that can be drawn between Christian crimes and the acts committed in Islam’s name.
The first difference is that the unfortunate events were limited in both time and scope …they had an end. The second distinction is that terrorists acting from Christian cultures always did their vile deeds in violation its scriptural teaching (the words and example of Christ), not in fulfillment of it, as in Muhammad’s Islam. The third dissimilarity is that people from Christian cultures who perform terrorist acts against others are recognized as criminals, not worshiped as heroes. (end of excertpt)
Posted by: j_not_a at November 12, 2007 9:36 AM
“They will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam”
Sorry. Wrong again. We have all kinds of other choices. Boy, Allah seems to be limited to a weird seventh century amalgam of world views and idiosyncracies is worse than a woman about consistency in is/its positions on life issues as well as who gets to do what and when they get to do it... Allah is also worse than me in math and geography. That's saying something... Math was always my weakest subject and I can do fractions better than a god?
Allah is confused as hell -- actually he/it is less consistent than I've been over the last 23 years. Not many people do what I say or believe I'm right all the time - not my wife, kids nor my family dog.
Why the @#$% would anyone follow something worse than me and call it a god?
Well, if the penalty for not doing so is death... okay, I can see that. I think I could get a few people to worship me if I became their only source of information and I threatened to kill them. Allah sounds like a cult master or hostage taker to me... funny how the True Believers are hostage takers... not a coincidence.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at November 12, 2007 10:09 AM
Interesting how the peaceful parts of the Koran are abrogated by the violent ones while the reverse does not seem to be true. One wonders what the Koran would have been like had Mo lasted another 20 years or more-would more abrogation have followed? It's hard to believe that the Koran would have gotten worse had Mo added to it but somehow he probably would have found a way to overcome it-perhaps cannibalism would have been added since every other horrible quality of humanity was covered by the time of Mo's death.
at November 12, 2007 11:30 AM
Actually, I think the problem ol' Mo faced was very simple. This narcissistic psychopath wanted to start his own cult, but after 10 years he had only found 130 people who were gullible and stupid enough to swallow his HorseS@#$. That works out to 13 new dupes a year. At that rate, in 1000 years he would have gathered 13,000 followers. Too slow. That is when he figured out that THUGGERY could be popular as well as lucrative. Now he has >1,300,000,000 followers who are eager to rob, rape, and murder. This is how the ultra-violent Mahometan thug cultists define "success."
Posted by: One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left at November 12, 2007 12:53 PM
Robert wrote:
"Even if you don’t understand it, try listening to it in Arabic. Listen to the rhythm of it, the music of it. There is no doubt whatsoever that it is beguiling, and that much of its appeal lies in this."
The doyen of Australian TV interviewers, Jana Wendt, in her recent book "A Matter of Principle", quotes from an interview she did with Wafa Sultan that bears on this:(from my rough notes)
[Wafa Sultan said after hearing Michael Jackson say] " 'I am the slave of the rhythm - I can not control myself' [...] I believe when we used to recite our book we were the slaves of the rhythm. You didn't know what you were reading - you feel it's beautiful, like music in your ears... [...] I went back. This time I read the Koran - I didn't recite it. Do you understand? So I said, there must be something wrong, not with them but their belief system."
Passengers on Emirates, as well as enjoying the on-flight all-halal meals, can select the audio for any Surah recital, in Arabic.
Some may prefer Michael Jackson. Or Britney Spears. Or DVT.
at November 12, 2007 4:14 PM
"Interesting how the peaceful parts of the Koran are abrogated by the violent ones while the reverse does not seem to be true." - Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS
Islam is what it is. It is a warped upside down world of spiteful retribution against all of life’s beautiful belief systems, so what remains is violence and monstrously heinous crimes against humanity. We get the message from their evil Allah everyday in all their actions, all hateful actions, like dressing up little girls in their party colors to blow them up. How vile can you get? The Islamic world is living proof of how evil their god is, and the more their prophet spoke the more this evil surfaced like a cesspool out of the ground. No redemption for Islam, no hope, only a loveless cult of death. Sick!
at November 12, 2007 4:41 PM
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.)