Al Jazeera examines what role the Bible and the Quran played in inciting violence through the ages. A good discussion.
Francis ›
Categories: Bible, Christianity, Islam
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Blogging Theology 
This was a very skewed and weak discussion, because:
1. The whole discussion left out Surah 9:29 – “. . . slay/fight the people of the book who do not believe in Allah, nor the last day . . . etc.” This proves the Sheikh was wrong when he said that no verse in the Qur’an says fight for religious reasons.
2. The discussion left out the principle of abrogation in Islam (Surah 2:106 and 16:101).
3. It left out the fact that Surah 9 was last, and the last revelations replace earlier peaceful ones.
4. Abu Bakr, right after Muhammad died, 632-634 AD, applied Surah 9:1-14 to making all of Arabia Islamic and making war on all pagans and apostates. (Wars against the apostates who turned away from Islam and would not pay the Zakat.)
5. Umar / Omar ibn Al Khattab (2nd Caliph, 634-644 AD), applied Surah 9:29 and aggressively attacked the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire. These wars and conquerings show that Islam immediately applied the violent and war-like verses in it’s earliest history after Muhammad’s death, and the first 4 Caliphs are called the “Rightly Guided Caliphs”, etc.
6. Philip Jenkins focused on OT texts, but those were for Theocratic Israel and only for the promised land. Jesus took the kingdom of God away from Israel (Matthew 21:43-46) and the church was never given authority to make war. (Matthew 26:52; John 18:36; Ephesians 6:12; 2 Cor. 10:3-5)
7. The discussion left out the different order of each religion.
Islam started persecuted and peaceful and progressed into all out war against pagans, Christians, and Jews. (Meccan Surahs to Median Surahs to Surah 9, which trumps previous verses).
In Christianity, from OT to NT, the progression is the opposite of Islam. From political and military Theocracy in Israel in OT to peaceful, persecuted NT church spreading out in all nations, with no commands to attack. The first 400-500 years of Christianity testifies to the fact that the NT was peaceful, persecuted and did not do aggressive war, as Islam did from the Median period onward.
LikeLike
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
1) 9: 29, talks of killing polytheists and idolaters, actually comes right after Ayah 28, which speaks specifically about preventing them from performing pagan religious rituals or pilgrimages in or around the newly purified sanctuary in Mecca. The context was specifically relating to the liberation of Mecca and its environs of all Arab polytheism and idolatry so that the sanctuary in particular, with the ka’aba at its centre, would never again be rendered unclean by the paganism of those locals and pilgrims who had long been worshipping idols. This is not an all time injunction to war against unbelievers.
Check http://www.joelhayward.org/Hayward-Islam-Warfare-RISSC.pdf
2) overwhelming majoriy of Muslim scholars reject the abrogation thesis regarding war.
Check Louay Fatoohi, Jihad in the Qur’an: http://www.louayfatoohi.com/books/jihad-in-the-quran/
3) Wrong, the mainstream islamic view by rejecting any abrogation thesis pertaining to conflict. War is not justified to impose islam as a religion on unbelievers or to support a particular social regime. The Prophet Muhammad fought only to REPULSE aggression.
4-5) The truth is from the history that the Muslims LIBERATED the masses of those region the oppressive Trinitarian Byzantine Church and Pagan Persian empire. Most of people not only welcomed the Muslims, they facilitated the conquest by joining the ranks of the conquerors. Also that the rule of the Islamic government was tolerant and high moral and monotheistic , unlike what the Byzantines and Persian had to offer so soon after the mass convert to Islam voluntarily.
6) Jesus (as) is an Israelite, he never said to abolish OT laws so he must adheres to OT law,, it is unimaginable that Jesus (as) seems to condone indiscriminate attack between combatants and non-combatants like in Deuteronomy 7: 1-3 and 20: 16-17. which God had set aside for their occupation, the israelites were to ensure that, “without mercy,” they did not leave alive “anything that breathed”.
7) Wrong, its the other way around. Islam early wars was liberation. While christians wars are colonialism and greed.
Im asking you in modern era Which Islamic countries started a war or occupied non muslim land for the last 500-700 years? All occupations, colonialism in modern era involved Christian countries motivated by evangelisation agenda,. Gold, gospel, glory, ring any bells?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Sheikh said Jihad or war (harb) in Islam, was never done for religious reasons, but it clearly was. “until religion is all for Allah” and “until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped except for Allah”, etc. Surah 8:39 says “fight until there is no more fitna (confusion, turmoil, rebellion, disobedience) ( it does not mean “persecution”). He left out explaining that verse also, and he left out all the Hadith (some of them I provide below).
They all left out discussion of 9:29. (and even granting that they could try and explain it the way you and others may try to spin it); but at the least it was not a fair discussions of all the texts, because it left out so many that are relevant to the discussion/issue.
Philip Jenkins focused only on the OT and left out the NT emphasis and early Christian history that was against war and was persecuted for over 300 years. Christianity goes the opposite. OT to NT – war to peace. Islam goes peace (Meccan Surahs) to aggressive all out war (Median Surahs to the last, Surah 9, most believe is the last Surah revealed.)
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” Sahih Al Bukhari 25; Vol. 1, book 2, Hadith # 25
Book 001, Number 0033:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
Sahih Muslim, 1:33
Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children.
When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai’ except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers).
If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.
When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah’s Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah’s behest with regard to them.
So, you are wrong on all accounts.
Surah 9:28 does speak about pagans, but Surah 9:29 is about “the people of the book”. Surah 9:28 says “if you fear poverty” (because the pagans were conquered and they could not get revenues from the Kaaba pilgrimage from the pagans anymore); so they applied the verse to attacking Christians and Jews and getting the Jiziye tax from them. Surah 9:28 was applied after all the pagans were conquered. (After Abu Bakr’s wars and then the other Hadith kicked in – “I heard the prophet say no other religion will be allowed in the Arabian peninsula”, which Omar used to expel the last “Christian” groups out of the Arabian peninsula. )
Surah 9:29-30 is not about the pagans – that was earlier – Surah 9:1-14; and Abu Bakr applied those verses in his wars on apostates and Muslims did the same thing against Hindus and Buddhists as they spread out later.
Umar / Omar Ibn Al Khattab applied Surah 9:28-30 to Christians and Jews. I am glad you included verse 28, “if you fear poverty” – after the pagans were conquered and apostates brought back to Islam or killed in Abu Bakr’s apostate wars; they had no more revenue from the Kaaba, etc. – so they attacked the Christian lands and Persian Empire and instituted the Jiziyeh – a totally unjust and evil system; economic slavery, Dhimmitude, etc. – no freedom of speech or freedom to evangelize. Muslims were not free to choose Christianity.
All the early Islamic wars were evil and aggressive – they attacked first. They had no right to that. You may be able to quote modern scholars who say that the Jihads were only defensive, etc. and not for aggressive expansion of religion, but the Islamic texts and history and early and classical commentaries say the opposite.
The verse 9:29 says “fight the people of the book” (Christians and Jews) and it was because they “don’t believe in Allah or forbid what Allah forbids”, etc. – those are religious motivations. Verse 28 shows another motivation also was for booty and money.
Muhammad, Abu Bakr, and Omar did not say “fight in order to liberate pagans and Christians and Jews from oppression”; rather they said, “fight until religion is all for Allah”; and “until they pay the Jiziye and submit and are humiliated”.
LikeLike
Ibn Kahir on Surah 9:28 –
(The believer does not become impure.) Allah said,
(and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you, out of His bounty.) Muhammad bin Ishaq commented, “The people said, `Our markets will be closed, our commerce disrupted, and what we earned will vanish.’ So Allah revealed this verse,
(and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you, out of His bounty), from other resources,
(if He wills), until,
(. ..and feel themselves subdued.) This Ayah means, `this will be your compensation for the closed markets that you feared would result.’ Therefore, Allah compensated them for the losses they incurred because they severed ties with idolators, by the Jizyah they earned from the People of the Book.” Similar statements were reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak and others. Allah said,
(Surely, Allah is All-Knowing), in what benefits you,
(All-Wise), in His orders and prohibitions, for He is All-Perfect in His actions and statements, All-Just in His creations and decisions, Blessed and Hallowed be He. This is why Allah compensated Muslims for their losses by the amount of Jizyah that they took from the people of Dhimmah.
Ibn Kathir on Surah 9:29
Allah said,
(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,
(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,
(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,
(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, “I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors ﴿of our houses of worship﴾ for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit ﴿or betrayal﴾ against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur’an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices ﴿with prayer﴾ at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.’ When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”’
(30. And the Jews say: “Uzayr (Ezra) is the son of Allah,” and the Christians say: “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. May Allah fight them, how they are deluded away from the truth!) (31. They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah, and (they also took as their Lord) the Messiah, son of Maryam, while they were commanded to worship none but One God, none has the right to be worshipped but He. Praise and hallowed be He above what they associate (with Him).”)
LikeLike
With the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
My advice to Temple, you must study what Islamic scholarship had to say about this before ranting Islamophobic rubbish.
Those hadiths can not be taken in isolation.We must that we analyze the text in it’s context, rather than simply isolating it all on it’s own, and then deriving a skewed conclusion.
How can that be used against the Allah Words which clearly teaches for religious freedom:
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (2:256)
And an entire chapter devoted to religious freedom:
Say, “O disbelievers,
I do not worship what you worship.
Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.”. (Surah 109)
So it is quite clear that Islam teaches religious tolerance, nobody is compelled to follow Islam, they can keep their way and religion, and the same for the Muslims.
So muslim scholars develop the methodology how to apply the Hadiths to this context, one cannot simply ignore all these verses and then go on to conclude that Islam teaches to kill every unbelievers.
Those verses related to Quranic verses
And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease – then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.
(8:39)
So Muslims are commanded to fight only when they are attacked until there is NO more OPPRESSION, till JUSTICE prevails.
I can understand if you are ignorant on شرح عقىدة ( explanation on the aqeedah) of Islam . This is a vast subject. But if you really interested to understand Hadith, Aqidah, Fiqih please refer to collection like فتح الباري) or “Victory of the Creator” by Ibn Hajr Asqalani (773 A.H)
Most if not All Islamic scholars agree that the ruling on fighting the unbeliever is
only permissible when the muslims are attacked first.
done in strict moral code (just and compassionate)
in pursuit of good cause
I guess you are too lazy to check Louay Fatoohi, Jihad in the Qur’an: http://www.louayfatoohi.com/books/jihad-in-the-quran/ is it?
He is muslim scholar who were christian arab from Iraq before himself so he can access what Islamic scholarships (in Arabic) have to say about fighting the unbelievers
I have with me ” the guide of the true explanation to the law of jihad” (in Arabic) : رسالة الإرشاد إلى بيان الحق في حكم الجهاد by sheikh Ahmad bin Yahya AL Najmi أحمد بن يحيى النجمي, you will all the explanation on the subject of fighting the unbleiver in there
Other major scholar,like Imam Nawawi,and Ibn Taymiyyah explained the Hadith as referring to the Pagan Arabs, these were the same Pagan Arabs who initiated the conflict with the Muslims.
You can not go straight into the content (matn) of those hadiths in isolation and interpret your own like islamophobe shameoun does. So one must study what Islamic scholarship had to say about this before ranting Islamophobic rubbish.
Even so still those hadiths all set the limits how to conduct the fighting. You will find conditions like:
– do not embezzle the spoils;
– do not break your pledge; and
– do not mutilate (the dead) bodies;
– do not kill the children.
– INVITE THEM to three courses of action
– If they agree to pay, ACCEPT IT FROM THEM AND HOLD OFF YOUR HANDS
– and if they do it, their blood and property are GUARANTEED PROTECTION on my behalf ..
Unlike in the bible, this is a high moral code unprecedented in the history of just wars..
********************
Jenkins is right , your holy book contains FAR more violence than in the holy Quran with no restriction to cruelty , things like:
– The Israelites, with God’s help, kill all the men, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN of every city.
– God instructs the Israelites TO KILL, WITHOUT MERCY, all the inhabitants (strangers) of the land that they conquer.
– In the cities that god “delivers into thine hands” YOU MUST KILL ALL THE MALES (INCLUDING OLD MEN, BOYS, AND BABIES)
– “But of the cities … which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.” KILL THE OLD MEN AND WOMEN, THE SICK AND THE DYING, THE BLIND AND THE LAME, PREGNANT MOTHERS, NURSING MOTHERS, INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND BABIES. 20:16
It does not compare with the Quranic code
Also Jesus also encourage living by the sword since in Luke 22 Jesus told his disciples to buy a SWORD in the first place., why would anyone buy a sword in those days unless for battle ?…. even at the cost of their own clothing…nothing metaphorical about this, just very urgent call to fight!
LikeLike
Ok, I finally found time to read the book by Joel Hayward that you linked to. I looked at the other one also, but the whole book is not available to read, rather to buy.
I am glad for that more peaceful interpretation of Islam by modern Muslims. I hope more and more will adopt that view. I think most of the world’s Muslims today probably hold to that. Most Muslims only fight in self-defense of their country, etc. That is understandable. I am happy and pleased that you also follow that view and interpretation.
Hayward did not go into the Sunna / Hadith/ Sira/ Tarikh/ Tafsirs that give more historical context for the Qur’anic verses. Nothing from Sahih Al Bukhari or Sahih Muslim; only that weak Hadith about the “Jihad against the Nafs”.
However, a big problem is that there are still a lot of the Al Qaeda / ISIS-ISIL / Boko Haram / Al Shabab etc. types who take those verses in the Qur’an and Sunna in Hadith and Sira and Tarikh and Tafsirs and apply them in a violent aggressive all out warfare way.
Another problem is that Abu Bakr and Omar Ibn Al Khattab did not take those verses in a peaceful way and applied them to all out aggressive warfare. (Abu Bakr against those that turned away from Islam in Arabia, and under Omar / Umar – they did all out war against the Byzantine Empire and Persian Empire and this practice continued for all of Islamic history until the Ottoman Turks lost WW I in 1918 when they sided with unjust Germany. Islamic history seems to side with taking Surah 9 as last and abrogating earlier texts; except for after the Khalifate was abolished. (1924 by Mustapha Kemal Ataturk)
The attack on the Christian Byzantine Empire was unjust and wrong; and the Jiziye and Dhimmi system was wrong. They (Umar and all after him for centuries) applied Surah 9:29-30 all out; even though the modern interpreters like Hayward and Looay Fatoohi see it differently. It destroyed most of Christianity in N. Africa and left a weak and introverted, small churches in some areas – since they have never been allowed to do evangelism or outreach to Muslims, it is unjust. The Jiziye tax was an economic pressure that made many of the original Christians convert to Islam slowly over the centuries after the initial conquering by Omar and other Khaliphs after him. The largest of those churches is the Coptic Church in Egypt. But Muslims are constantly attacking them in Egypt and many have fled over the centuries. The attacks by Omar were not to “liberate” them, they were to conquer and spread Islam. Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Surah 9:28-29 is clear. The Dhimmih contracts are unjust against Christians and Jews – the one that goes back to Omar 2 (Khalif Omar Ibn Abdul Azziz, 715 AD) – a later Khalif that based it on the first Omar, Omar Ibn Al Kattab.
It is interesting to me that the famous Hadith on “striving against the internal desires of self” (jihad alehe nafs) جهاد علیه نفس (Persian equivalent of the Arabic) or “struggle against internal lust” هوا is not in any of the six canonical collections of Sahih Hadiths.
It seems to be a very weak Hadith; and many Islamic scholars have pointed out that it not “saheeh” صحیح
“Most accurate is the verdict of Ibn Hajar: “its chain contains weak narrators” in his Takhrij Ahadith al-Kashshaf (p. 114) while al-Ahdab in his Zawa’id Tarikh Baghdad (9:309-311 §2077) says “isnad talif” (a worthless chain).” (from the article below by an Islamic scholar.)
http://www.livingislam.org/n/dgjh_e.html
LikeLike
The Pact of Omar / Umar was developed from the 2nd Khaliph (Omar Ibn Al Khattab – 634-644 AD – Khalifate) to another Khalif with the same first name, Omar Ibn Abdul Azziz. (715 AD) It has some reasonable points, but most are unjust and cruel. No freedom for Christians – no building of new churches, no evangelism allowed, no crosses, no public freedom to discuss Christianity or debate or pray or sing. Muslims were not allowed to convert to Christianity. Totally opposite of the freedom that the west allows for people to think and make up their own minds and believe and convert to whatever religion they want to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar
LikeLike
Ken you are an admitted Calvinist – so do you agree with the way Calvin ruled Geneva – according to biblical principles? He executed Christians he did not approve of. It goes without saying that no Muslim would have survived 5 minutes in his society.
Capital punishments in Calvin’s Geneva:
2 women for witchcraft
3 for homicide
3 men for raping children
2 for sodomy
3 for theft (either for several thefts or large sums)
1 goldsmith for counterfeiting (beheading)
The freedom in the West came about as a result of the anti-Christian Enlightenment, not because of hate preachers like Calvin and luther, the latter was a notorious anti-semite whose views led to the holocaust.
Now, I don’t mind if you follow a syncretistic religion that picks and chooses what to believe. You can justify just about any model of behaviour from the pages of the Bible – even the genocide of children (see 1 Samuel 15).
Thankfully evangelical christianity has largely been defanged these days and follows a more liberal path – as you do Ken.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess you don’t know much about Reformed Baptists or Calvinistic Baptists. The original Baptists accepted the theology of God’s sovereignty and grace in drawing the sinner, but rejected:
1. infant baptism
2. church-state government and with it the harsh penalties.
I have Never agreed with what the government of Geneva did. I would have punished also for being a baptist and having myself rebaptized (the first Anabaptists were Reformed in Zurich, who learned the principles of the Reformation from Ulrich Zwingli) as an adult, after repentance and faith in Christ, rejecting my infant baptism. Which is what the Zurich government under Zwingli did to Feliz Manz in 1527.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Manz
Except I do agree with the death penalty for first degree pre-mediated murder, so –
(I guess they had trials; and if the 3 for homicide and 3 for rape of children were truly guilty, then they deserved the death penalty.
The non-Calvinistic baptist movement also objected to state churches.
But for the first 380 years, original Christianity did not do that.
But, you changed the subject with an accusation of the Tu quoque logical fallacy.
Are you admitting that what Omar did in attacking the Byzantine Empire and Persian Empire was wrong and unjust and aggressive warfare?
Do you have any evidence that they did it with the motivation of liberation from oppression?
Some of the Monophysites and Nestorians may have thought that at the beginning, but that is not what Surah 9:28-29 says as the reason for fighting.
The Dhimmi communities of Monophysites (Copts, Syrians, Armenians) and Nestorians realized later they were deceived and it was too late. They were enslaved in an unjust system.
LikeLike
The baptist movements (mid to late 1600s) were taking place before the Enlightenment (1700s), but many historical scholars argue that the Enlightenment was one of the natural results of the Protestant Reformation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Baptists
LikeLike
correction:
I would have BEEN punished
I would have BEEN punished also for being a baptist and having myself re-baptized (the first Anabaptists were Reformed in Zurich, who learned the principles of the Reformation from Ulrich Zwingli) as an adult, after repentance and faith in Christ, rejecting my infant baptism. Which is what the Zurich government under Zwingli did to Feliz Manz in 1527.
LikeLike
With the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful.
//Hayward did not go into the Sunna / Hadith/ Sira/ Tarikh/ Tafsirs that give more historical context for the Qur’anic verses. Nothing from Sahih Al Bukhari or Sahih Muslim; only that weak Hadith about the “Jihad against the Nafs”.//
If you can get the book the historical context is clear those Qur’anic verses contains more explanation for the Muslims as to why they would now need to fight, and fiercely, anyone who broke their oaths or violated the sanctity of holy places, despite earlier hopes for peace according to the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybîyah. This view is based from classical tarsir, as well as hadiths and sirah.
KT//Another problem is that Abu Bakr and Omar Ibn Al Khattab did not take those verses in a peaceful way and applied them to all out aggressive warfare.//
“all out aggressive war” !. this is pure speculation. Perhaps you should get the fact right. The muslim army was seen as liberators, historian Thomas Arnold conclude:
‘Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing. Indeed, it was probably in a great measure their tolerant attitude towards the Christian religion that facilitated their rapid acquisition of the country. [*]
Check:
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Preaching_of_Islam_1000005744/129
[*]T. W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, London, 1913, p. 114(129).
He also wrote
“In view of the toleration thus extended to their Christian subjects in the early period of the Muslim rule, the common hypothesis of the sword as the factor of conversion seems hardly satisfactory, and we are compelled to seek for other motives than that of persecution”
Source:
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Preaching_of_Islam_1000005744/75
So objective historian agree that aggression is not a factor for Islam early expansion, as many islamophobes happy to point out.
For example In Syria, the Muslims were in fact seen as liberators from the Roman/Byzantine tyranny. As far as the Syrian Christians were concerned, the Muslims were carrying out a just war to fight oppression no aggression. The population it conquer preferred the muslims over the oppressive Byzantine.
Wrote Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, a Jacobite (or a Syrian Orthodox Christian) patriarch from 818 to 845 CE:
According to him there are reasons why Syrians preferred the Muslims over Romans . He stated in his chronicle, which covers the period from 582 to 842 CE, that Heraclius mustered 300,000 troops from Armenia, Syria and the Roman heartlands to expel the Muslims out of Syria. Muslims decided to withdraw to reform their war strategy. However, whilst withdrawing, the Muslims decided, out of fairness, to refund the money, which they had taken as tribute from the Syrian Christians to protect them from any form of oppression:
‘Abu Ubaydah, whom Umar had put in command of the Arabs, ordered Habib b. Maslama to return to the Emesenes the tribute which he had exacted from them with this message: “We are both bound by our mutual oaths. Now we are going to do battle with the Romans. If we return, this tribute is ours; but if we are defeated and do not return, we are absolved of our oaths.” So they left Emessa for Damascus; and the emir Abu Ubaydah ordered Saeed b. Kulthum to return the tribute to the Damascenes likewise…To them he said: “ If we return victorious we shall take it back. But if we are defeated and prove powerless to save you from the Romans, here is your tribute, keep it. We for our part shall be absolved of the oaths which we have sworn to you.”’(**)
[**] Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, tr by Palmer, Liverpool, 1993, p. 156-7.
Source:
https://books.google.co.id/books?id=VdXMK4CYRToC&lpg=PP4&dq=Dionysius%20of%20Tel-Mahre%2C%20The%20Seventh%20Century%20in%20the%20West-Syrian%20Chronicles%2C%20tr%20by%20Palmer%2C%20Liverpool%2C%201993&pg=PA157#v=onepage&q&f=false
There are many examples recorded in history why Islam early wars were conducted not for aggression but for good cause.
We have numerous instances recorded, both by Christian and Muslim historians, of the building of new churches during Muslim rule, this is unimaginable in christian rule.
Source:
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Preaching_of_Islam_1000005744/73
************
The Jizya and dhmmi is a just and right , theseare a sign of Islamic tolerance , it is a fee for protection provided by the Muslim state for the non muslim who were being an exemption from military service,
Historian Thomas Arnold gives the example of the tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe in the neighborhood of Antioch who “made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizyah and should receive their proper share of the booty.
“As stated above, the jizyah was levied on the able-bodied males, in lieu of the military service they would have been called upon to perform had they been Musalmans ; and it is very noticeable that when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax”
Source:
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Preaching_of_Islam_1000005744/71
So Jizyah works exactly the same way modern state function, there is nothing humiliating about it.
******************
Regarding Jihad An-Nafs, from the very livingIslam page you give:
===
“There are many more verses on striving (JAHADA) in the Holy Quran, here are three:
وَمَن جَاهَدَ فَإِنَّمَا يُجَاهِدُ لِنَفْسِهِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَغَنِيٌّ عَنِ الْعَالَمِينَ
And whoever strives only strives for [the benefit of] himself. Indeed, Allah is free from need of the worlds.
{ And whosoever STRIVES (JAHADA), STRIVES (YUJAHIDU) only for himself, for lo! Allah is altogether independent of the universe.} Quran 29-6
وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ ۚ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ
And STRIVE (JAHIDU) for Allah
{ And STRIVE (JAHIDU) for Allah with the endeavor (JIHADIHI) which is His right. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you in the DEEN (religion) any hardship…} Quran 22-78
but strive against them by the Quran
{ So obey not the rejecters of faith, but strive (Jahidhum) against them by it (the Quran) with a great endeavor.} Quran 25-52
وَالَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا ۚ وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَمَعَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ
And those who strive for Us
{And those who strive (JAAHADUU) for Us – We will surely guide them to Our ways. And indeed, Allah is with the doers of good.} Quran 29-69
This clearly refer to Jihad anNafs. There is no military jihad.
In conclusion, jihad in Islam is STRIVING IN THE WAY OF ALLAH by pen, tongue, hand, media and, if inevitable, with arms. However, jihad in Islam does not include striving for individual or national power, dominance, glory, wealth, prestige or pride.
===
So “striving against the internal desires of self” it self is in the Qur’an …
It can be found in Sahih hadith for example:
وَسَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ” الْمُجَاهِدُ مَنْ جَاهَدَ نَفْسَهُ
Fadalah ibn Ubaid reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, saying, “The one who strives in the way of Allah the Exalted is he who strives against his soul.”
Source: Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1621
Grade: Sahih
http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/22/3
*****************
KT://No freedom for Christians – no building of new churches, no evangelism allowed, no crosses, no public freedom to discuss Christianity or debate or pray or sing//
Again this is ahistorical.
T.W. Arnold: The preaching of Islam: The Christians under arab rule.
“THE NON-MUSLIM COMMUNITIES ENJOYED AN ALMOST COMPLETE AUTONOMY, for the government placed in their hands the independent management of their internal affairs, and their religious leaders exercised judicial functions in cases that concerned their co-religionists only.4 Their churches and monasteries were in no way interfered with, except in the large cities, where some of them were turned into mosques, ” a measure that could hardly be objected to in view of the enormous increase in the Muslim and corresponding decrease in the Christian population. THEY WERE EVEN ALLOWED TO ERECT NEW CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES. “
“…how little the prohibition of the building of new churches was put into force.5 WE HAVE NUMEROUS INSTANCES RECORDED, BOTH BY CHRISTIAN AND MUHAMMADAN HISTORIANS, OF THE BUILDING OF NEW CHURCHES: e.g. in the reign of ‘Abdu-1 Malik (685-705) a church was erected in Edessa and two others at Fustat in Egypt,6 and one, dedicated to St. George, at Halwan, a village not far from Fustat.7 In 711 a.d. a Jacobite church was built at Antiochby 1 Von Kremer (1), vol. i. p. 167-8. 2 Renaudot, pp. 430, 540. 3 Von Kremer (1), vol. ii. p. 180-1. vol. i. p. 183.”
Source:
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Preaching_of_Islam_1000005744/73
***********
Now I am asking you, when Jesus (he is God according to you) in your bible tell you, “HAPPY IS HE WHO SMASHES LITTLE BABIES BRAINS OUT ON ROCKS” (Psalm 137) do you feel outrage with this chilling unmerciful acts??
I try to understand it with context, clearly this is about God revenge. God shows no mercy and repay those Babylonians including the babies.
LikeLike