Ayahs that Seem Conflicting

[Hijrah]

:sl:

First, a particular Ayah says this:

And fight them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimoon (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #193)

Then, another one says this:

There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghoot and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #256)

My question is how can there be a demand to fight until there is no more disbelief and worshipping of other along with Allah but at the same time, compelling others to Islam is forbidden.

[`Abd al-Azeez]

:sl:

Brother lets make this perfectly clear :

You cannot force someone to convert to Islam, here is Ibn Katheer's tafsir of سورة البقرة 193 , Surah Al-Baqarah Ayah 193:

The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah

Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said:


[حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ]

(...until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam.

Allah's statement:


[وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ للَّهِ]
(...and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.' It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari said: "The Prophet was asked, `O Allah's Messenger! A man fights out of bravery, and another fights to show off, which of them fights in the cause of Allah' The Prophet said:


«مَنْ قَاتَلَ لِتَكُونَ كَلِمَةُ اللهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيا فَهُوَ فِي سَبِيلِ الله»
(He who fights so that Allah's Word is superior, then he fights in Allah's cause.) In addition, it is reported in the Two Sahihs:


«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لَا إِلهَ إلَّا اللهُ، فَإِذَا قَالُوهَا عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُم وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إلَّا بِحَقِّهَا وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى الله»
(I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. Whoever said it, then he will save his life and property from me, except for cases of the law, and their account will be with Allah.)

Allah's statement:


[فَإِنِ انتَهَواْ فَلاَ عُدْوَنَ إِلاَّ عَلَى الظَّـلِمِينَ]
(But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against the wrongdoers.) indicates that, `If they stop their Shirk and fighting the believers, then cease warfare against them. Whoever fights them afterwards will be committing an injustice. Verily aggression can only be started against the unjust.' This is the meaning of Mujahid's statement that only combatants should be fought. Or, the meaning of the Ayah indicates that, `If they abandon their injustice, which is Shirk in this case, then do not start aggression against them afterwards.' The aggression here means retaliating and fighting them, just as Allah said:


[فَمَنِ اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُواْ عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ]
(Then whoever transgresses against you, you transgress likewise against him.) (2:194)

Similarly, Allah said:


[وَجَزَآءُ سَيِّئَةٍ سَيِّئَةٌ مِّثْلُهَا]
(The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof.) (42:40), and:


[وَإِنْ عَاقَبْتُمْ فَعَاقِبُواْ بِمِثْلِ مَا عُوقِبْتُمْ بِهِ]
(And if you punish them, then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. ) (16:126)

`Ikrimah and Qatadah stated, "The unjust person is he who refuses to proclaim, `There is no God worthy of worship except Allah'.''

Under Allah's statement:


[وَقَـتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ]
(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah) Al-Bukhari recorded that Nafi` said that two men came to Ibn `Umar during the conflict of Ibn Az-Zubayr and said to him, "The people have fallen into shortcomings and you are the son of `Umar and the Prophet's Companion. Hence, what prevents you from going out'' He said, "What prevents me is that Allah has for bidden shedding the blood of my (Muslim) brother.'' They said, "Did not Allah say:


[وَقَـتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ]
(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah))'' He said, "We did fight until there was no more Fitnah and the religion became for Allah Alone. You want to fight until there is Fitnah and the religion becomes for other than Allah!''

`Uthman bin Salih added that a man came to Ibn `Umar and asked him, "O Abu `Abdur-Rahman! What made you perform Hajj one year and `Umrah another year and abandon Jihad in the cause of Allah, although you know how much He has encouraged performing it'' He said, "O my nephew! Islam is built on five (pillars): believing in Allah and His Messenger, the five daily prayers, fasting Ramadan, paying the Zakah and performing Hajj (pilgrimage) to the House.'' They said, "O Abu `Abdur-Rahman! Did you not hear what Allah said in His Book:


[وَإِن طَآئِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُواْ فَأَصْلِحُواْ بَيْنَهُمَا فَإِن بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الأُخْرَى فَقَـتِلُواْ الَّتِى تَبْغِى حَتَّى تَفِىءَ إِلَى أَمْرِ اللَّهِ]
(And if two parties (or groups) among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both. But if one of them outrages against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which outrages till it complies with the command of Allah.) (49:9) and:


[وَقَـتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ]
(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief))

He said, "That we did during the time of Allah's Messenger when Islam was still weak and (the Muslim) man used to face trials in his religion, such as killing or torture. When Islam became stronger (and apparent), there was no more Fitnah.'' He asked, "What do you say about `Ali and `Uthman'' He said, "As for `Uthman, Allah has forgiven him. However, you hated the fact that Allah had forgiven him! As for `Ali, he is the cousin of Allah's Messenger and his son-in-law.'' He then pointed with his hand, saying, "This is where his house is located (meaning, `so close to the Prophet's house just as `Ali was so close to the Prophet himself').''

IMO this means fight untill the disbelievers untill there is no more fitnah, Shirk in this case but you can't force them to become Muslims, only untill there is no more fitnah and oppression. There is more than one type of Jihad, its not just fighting with the sword:

__________________________________________________ ________
(سورة الفرقان 52 | Surah Al-Furqan Ayah 52 [25:52])
{ فَلَا تُطِعِ الْكَافِرِينَ وَجَاهِدْهُم بِهِ جِهَاداً كَبِيراً }

------------

So obey not the disbelievers and strive against [Jihad] them by means of the Qur'an with a mighty striving.

This Jihad is Dahwah, don't stop fighting Jihad [with the Quran ] untill there is no more fitnah.

:w:

[Hijrah]

:sl:

Brother lets make this perfectly clear :

You cannot force someone to convert to Islam, here is Ibn Katheer's tafsir of سورة البقرة 193 , Surah Al-Baqarah Ayah 193:



IMO this means fight untill the disbelievers untill there is no more fitnah, Shirk in this case but you can't force them to become Muslims, only untill there is no more fitnah and oppression. There is more than one type of Jihad, its not just fighting with the sword:

__________________________________________________ ________
(سورة الفرقان 52 | Surah Al-Furqan Ayah 52 [25:52])
{ فَلَا تُطِعِ الْكَافِرِينَ وَجَاهِدْهُم بِهِ جِهَاداً كَبِيراً }

------------

So obey not the disbelievers and strive against [Jihad] them by means of the Qur'an with a mighty striving.

This Jihad is Dahwah, don't stop fighting Jihad [with the Quran ] untill there is no more fitnah.

:w:

The tafsir of Ibn Kathir is EXACTLY what had me confused, first he goes on saying fight until there is no more SHIRK, and then...

[وَقَـتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ]
(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief))

He said, "That we did during the time of Allah's Messenger when Islam was still weak and (the Muslim) man used to face trials in his religion, such as killing or torture. When Islam became stronger (and apparent), there was no more Fitnah.''

which would indicate fighting until there is no more OPPRESSION like you said.

That is my Question Brother...

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
The use of fitnah in the above verse has been interpreted in two ways by the scholars, as either 'shirk or kufr' or 'tyranny' 'persecution' and 'oppression'. Shaykh Sâmî Al-Mâjid speaks in terms of the latter view:

As for the spread of Islam, this is supposed to take place peacefully by disseminating the Message with the written and spoken word. There is no place for the use of weapons to compel people to accept Islam. Weapons can only be drawn against those who persecute and oppress others and prevent them from following their own consciences in matters of belief. The Muslims cannot just stand by while people are being denied the right to believe in Islam and their voices are being crushed. This is the meaning of Allah’s words: “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 193]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said in his letter to the Roman governor Heracles: “I invite you to accept Islam. If you accept Islam, you will find safety. If you accept Islam, Allah will give you a double reward. However, if you turn away, upon you will be the sin of your subjects.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

Once people have heard the Message without obstruction or hindrance and the proof has been established upon them, then the duty of the Muslims is done. Those who wish to believe are free to do so and those who prefer to disbelieve are likewise free to do so. (SOURCE)

The above understanding of the verse is based on what has been reported from Abdullah b. 'Umar in his discussion of this ayat. As for the other view, it is elucidated by the late Grand Mufti of Pakistan, Mufti Muhammad Shafy in his monumental exegeis Ma'âriful-Qur'ân:

At this place, two meanings have been reported from authorities of Tafsîr from among the Sahâbah and Tâbi'în: (1) That Fitnah is taken to mean Kufr and Shirk and Dîn is taken to mean the Dîn of Islâm. This very Tafsîr has been reported from Sayyidnâ Abdullâh ibn 'Abbâs [r]. Given this exegetic view, the verse would mean that Muslims must continue fighting disbelievers until disbelief disintegrates yielding its place to Islâm and there remains no religion and faith other than Islâm. Given this situation, this injunction will be specific only to the people of Makkah and the people of Arabia - because the Arabian Peninsula is the home of Islâm. The presence of any other religion, other than Islâm in it, shall be dangerous for Islâm. As for the rest of the world, other religions and faiths could be kept existing as confirmed by other verses of the Holy Qur'ân and reports from Hadîth. (Shafy, Ma'âriful-Qur'ân, vol 4. p. 216)

The topic relating to the Arabian peninsula has been further clarified here. The implication here is to eliminate the hold of any hostile powers on the arabian peninsula; this does not contradict the verse on no compulsion in religion because when it says "fight them until there is no more fitnah", the 'them' is referring to those hostile forces. This is why the subsequent verses speak about if they 'desist', which could occur by means of a peace agreement (Ma'âriful-Qur'ân, vol. 4, p.218).

:w:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Hijrah]

:sl:

jazakulah khairan, once again u have answered my questions perfectly

[Hijrah]

:sl:

This is a subject, which I find to have so many opinions. Some say that this is a matter which only becomes a necessity to repel aggression as is the answer I receive on this site. However, there is views that are used by very well respected scholars that Jihad is ordained to spread Islam's borders until the kuffar accept Islam or pay Jizyah and yet, I have seen another view that Jihad is ordained until there is no more kufr and this is based on the opinions of very well respected scholars like Qurtubi who in his tafsir of 2:193 asserted that "fight until....submission is to Allah alone" means until there is no more idolatry at all, hence people hold to a view that fighting is ordained until there is no more kufr period.

I ask that this thread not be deleted, posts not be deleted or this thread not be closed, I know I've asked this several times but I have never gotten a very clear answer, it's usually quotes from the homepage of the site with quotes from such people as Jamal Badawi. But who is Badawi compared to such people as Qurtubi who say that the fighting is done until there is no more kufr? I am looking for views from different people and insha'allah I will get it. Let this begin.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
Threads merged.

I ask that this thread not be deleted, posts not be deleted or this thread not be closed, I know I've asked this several times but I have never gotten a very clear answer

Actually, I have provided an answer again and again on this issue, even on this exact ayah 2:193 in this thread, to which you responded, "once again u have answered my questions perfectly". Now if it turns out that you are still confused, then don't add another thread to the dozens you've already made on this topic. Instead, go back to the same thread and ask about the specific issue in the response given that was unclear. That way we don't have to start from zero everytime you bring up this discussion.

However, there is views that are used by very well respected scholars that Jihad is ordained to spread Islam's borders until the kuffar accept Islam or pay Jizyah and yet, I have seen another view that Jihad is ordained until there is no more kufr

Actually there is no difference between these two views; the payment of Jizya is unanimously acknowledged by the scholars of Islam. The view here is that force is utilised with the aim of dismantling all disbelieving political authorities so that the message of Islam may be carried to all people and the rule of God established. If the non-muslim country is open to the spread of Islam in their lands then the rationale behind fighting would be negated. Bear in mind that the west is already at war on every level to spread its values of secularism and materialism in the Muslim world. Their leaders have already betrayed the true nature of their operations in the Muslim world, asserting that "western values must triumph over radical Islam", that they aim to modernize Islam, and that they are at war with "Islamic fascists.". Look at how explicit the non-muslims are about their intentions to wage war against the believers until they submit to their way of life. The west considers its culture and civilization superior to all others and conseuqently demands that all submit to it. This is their zeal to spread falsehood while our passion is for the spread of truth.

Concerning fighting, Imam Abû Hanîfa and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal mentioned that the unrestricted fighting is confined to the arabian peninsula, which is something I explained earlier when I quoted Ma'âriful Qur'ân. Also, the majority of the scholars, including Imam Shâfi'î and Imam Al-Awzâ'î spoke of the permissibility of negotiating with the disbelievers, though some held that it should be done when the Muslim interests would be compromised by any other course of action (Ibn Rushd, Bidâyatul-Mujtahid, vol. 2, p. 463).

If you have more questions about this topic then you should read the book on Jihad by Shaykh Jalal Abualrub which goes through this issue in great detail.
:w:

[Hijrah]

There is also a view from many scholars like Sheikh Ibn Baaz that Jizyah can only be taken from the Ahle-Kitaab and the Magians and only accepting Islam can save the Mushriks.

But Where could I find that book?

[Hijrah]

:sl:

Where Can I find that book?

[Abdul-Raouf]

Human can only say "Ayahs that Seem Conflicting"........... He couldn prove it.. because he has misjudged......

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

There is also a view from many scholars like Sheikh Ibn Baaz that Jizyah can only be taken from the Ahle-Kitaab and the Magians and only accepting Islam can save the Mushriks.

http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_se...main_cat_id=22

But Where could I find that book?

The 2nd edition will be coming out soon inshaa'Allah then you can purchase it from here:
http://islamlife.com/viewpage.php?page_id=2
Email Shaykh Jalal for more details regarding the book or where you can get the first edition.

:w:

[Hijrah]

http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_se...main_cat_id=22

The 2nd edition will be coming out soon inshaa'Allah then you can purchase it from here:
http://islamlife.com/viewpage.php?page_id=2
Email Shaykh Jalal for more details regarding the book or where you can get the first edition.

:w:

The book is out of print, What about what Qurtubi said that the reason for fighting them in 2:193 is as a matter of fact Kufr? and one last thing, I apologize for what I did, this won't happen again...insha'allah.



:sl:

[Hijrah]

Also, I saw in another thread:

"I was sent with the sword just before the Last Hour, so that Allah is worshipped alone without partners. My sustenance was provided for me from under the shadow of my spear. Those who oppose my command were humiliated and made inferior, and whoever imitates a people, he is one of them." (Ahmad 2:50)

What is meant by that?

:sl:

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:

The book is out of print, What about what Qurtubi said that the reason for fighting them in 2:193 is as a matter of fact Kufr?

I answered that in my other post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/512105-post7.html

The view here is that force is utilised with the aim of dismantling all disbelieving political authorities so that the message of Islam may be carried to all people and the rule of God established. If the non-muslim country is open to the spread of Islam in their lands then the rationale behind fighting would be negated.

and one last thing, I apologize for what I did, this won't happen again...insha'allah.

JazakAllah khayr for your cooperation :)

"I was sent with the sword just before the Last Hour, so that Allah is worshipped alone without partners.

It means practically the same thing as the other hadith and verse 2:193 which we just discussed. Fighting against disbelief, subject to conditions and regulations. Consider also the sunnah of the Prophet saws in calling people to Islam.

:w:

[Hijrah]

:sl:

I answered that in my other post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/512105-post7.html

The view here is that force is utilised with the aim of dismantling all disbelieving political authorities so that the message of Islam may be carried to all people and the rule of God established. If the non-muslim country is open to the spread of Islam in their lands then the rationale behind fighting would be negated.

JazakAllah khayr for your cooperation :)


It means practically the same thing as the other hadith and verse 2:193 which we just discussed. Fighting against disbelief, subject to conditions and regulations. Consider also the sunnah of the Prophet saws in calling people to Islam.

:w:

In other words, if they don't hinder Da'wah then we don't fight them at all like Ibn Taimiyyah mentioned?...

[Hijrah]

Consider also the sunnah of the Prophet saws in calling people to Islam.

:sl:
Could you elaborate, because there is always a Hadith here and there which I read that would indicate that the Prophet (SAWS) took the offensive in many of his attacks, like one hadith in The Book of Tayyamum I just read about this woman and her whole village who accepted Islam, a hadith narrated by Imran, it said that the Muslims attacked all the pagans surrounding her abode and left her village, a lot of what you are saying and what other scholars say of Jihad being against those who seek harm seems to be plausible but there is always something that I read eventually, either it's in a Hadith or some other scholarly work that seems to be in conflict with that. It's not just concerning this subject. It's just any subject. And the thing is, there is only one way that is right!

[Hijrah]

http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_se...main_cat_id=22



:w:

:sl:
I'm sorry but this person doesn't go into much detail.

The Sharee'ah enjoins fighting the unbelievers, but not the killing of those who have been captured. If a male unbeliever is taken captive during warfare or otherwise, e.g. as a result of a shipwreck, or because he lost his way, or as a result of a ruse, then the head of state (Imaam) may do whatever he deems appropriate: killing him, enslaving him, releasing him or setting him free for a ransom consisting in either property or people. This is the view of most jurists and it is supported by the Qur'aan and the Sunnah. There are, however, some jurists who hold that the options of releasing them or setting them free for a ransom have been abrogated. As for the People of the Book and the Zoroastrians (Majoos), they are to be fought until they become Muslims or pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled. With regard to the others, the jurists differ as to the lawfulness of taking tRibute from them. Most of them regard it as unlawful of taking tribute from them. Most of them regard it as unlawful to accept it from [heathen] Arabs.

http://allaahuakbar.net/scholars/ibn..._on_jihaad.htm

Could you explain this all in the light of Ayah [9:6] which goes along the lines of: "If any of the pagans seek your protection, grant them it, so that they may hear the word of Allah..."

I'm really confused, are those jurists who believe that (in the bold), are they the same as those who believe that the idea of a ransom or setting captives free as abrogated?

So the latter [form of Jihaad] consists in defense of the religion, of things that are inviolable, and of lives. Therefore it is fighting out of necessity. The former [type of jihad], however, is voluntary fighting in order to propagate the religion, to make it triumph and to intimidate the enemy, such as was the case with the expedition to Tabook and the like.

All this seems very contradictory to what you are telling me.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl: br. Hijrah,
If you want me to comment on a hadith you need to post the full narration. If you read the seerah of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh you will understand how all these rulings fit together. Please refer to my recommended resource list.

Could you explain this all in the light of Ayah [9:6] which goes along the lines of: "If any of the pagans seek your protection, grant them it, so that they may hear the word of Allah..."

That is what is being referred to in the highlighted part below:

Question: Can pagans live as permanent citizens of an Islamic state?

Answered by Sheikh Sâlim al-Qarnî
It is agreed that Ahl-al-Dhimmah includes the Jews, Christians, and Magians. They may live in the Islamic state as citizens and must pay the jizyah in lieu of Zakâh and military service.

As for other pagans, scholars disagree. Many scholars apply the same ruling to them, but there are opposing opinions held by other scholars.

In any event, messengers, ambassadors, businessmen, temporary workers, and asylum seekers cannot be transgressed against or have their rights violated if they enter our countries peacefully, regardless of their religion. They must be respected for the duration of their stay as long as they remain peacefully in our countries.

Those who seek asylum will have the right to be safe, including those who enter Muslim lands to listen to the Qur’ân and learn about Islam. If they do not wish to convert to Islam, they will still be safe to go home.

For more details see Ahkâm ahl al-Dhimmah by Ibn al-Qayyim.

As for the last quote you provided, this is the third time I'm repeating my explanation for this view:

The view here is that force is utilised with the aim of dismantling all disbelieving political authorities so that the message of Islam may be carried to all people and the rule of God established. If the non-muslim country is open to the spread of Islam in their lands then the rationale behind fighting would be negated.

Bro, you are still stuck on the same issues and asking the same questions. Intellectually your questions have been answered; you have been provided with knowledge of the answer. If the doubts persist then your deficiences are spiritual not intellectual or informational; I think you need to focus on improving your relationship with Allah swt and move on from this topic.

:w:

[Hijrah]

Salaam,

You know what? You're right.

[Hijrah]

:sl:
The use of fitnah in the above verse has been interpreted in two ways by the scholars, as either 'shirk or kufr' or 'tyranny' 'persecution' and 'oppression'. Shaykh Sâmî Al-Mâjid speaks in terms of the latter view:

As for the spread of Islam, this is supposed to take place peacefully by disseminating the Message with the written and spoken word. There is no place for the use of weapons to compel people to accept Islam. Weapons can only be drawn against those who persecute and oppress others and prevent them from following their own consciences in matters of belief. The Muslims cannot just stand by while people are being denied the right to believe in Islam and their voices are being crushed. This is the meaning of Allah’s words: “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 193]



The Prophet (peace be upon him) said in his letter to the Roman governor Heracles: “I invite you to accept Islam. If you accept Islam, you will find safety. If you accept Islam, Allah will give you a double reward. However, if you turn away, upon you will be the sin of your subjects.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

Once people have heard the Message without obstruction or hindrance and the proof has been established upon them, then the duty of the Muslims is done. Those who wish to believe are free to do so and those who prefer to disbelieve are likewise free to do so. (SOURCE)

The above understanding of the verse is based on what has been reported from Abdullah b. 'Umar in his discussion of this ayat. As for the other view, it is elucidated by the late Grand Mufti of Pakistan, Mufti Muhammad Shafy in his monumental exegeis Ma'âriful-Qur'ân:

At this place, two meanings have been reported from authorities of Tafsîr from among the Sahâbah and Tâbi'în: (1) That Fitnah is taken to mean Kufr and Shirk and Dîn is taken to mean the Dîn of Islâm. This very Tafsîr has been reported from Sayyidnâ Abdullâh ibn 'Abbâs [r]. Given this exegetic view, the verse would mean that Muslims must continue fighting disbelievers until disbelief disintegrates yielding its place to Islâm and there remains no religion and faith other than Islâm. Given this situation, this injunction will be specific only to the people of Makkah and the people of Arabia - because the Arabian Peninsula is the home of Islâm. The presence of any other religion, other than Islâm in it, shall be dangerous for Islâm. As for the rest of the world, other religions and faiths could be kept existing as confirmed by other verses of the Holy Qur'ân and reports from Hadîth. (Shafy, Ma'âriful-Qur'ân, vol 4. p. 216)

The topic relating to the Arabian peninsula has been further clarified here. The implication here is to eliminate the hold of any hostile powers on the arabian peninsula; this does not contradict the verse on no compulsion in religion because when it says "fight them until there is no more fitnah", the 'them' is referring to those hostile forces. This is why the subsequent verses speak about if they 'desist', which could occur by means of a peace agreement (Ma'âriful-Qur'ân, vol. 4, p.218).

:w:

:sl:

My question is though is if Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah Be Upon Him) had fought the arabian idolators (of Makkah) when that ultimatum was given for them to leave the land, accept Islam or fight what would he have done later on if they refused and eventually surrendered. What would he have done to the remaining people? And why is it that at first before the order to expel all the unbelievers from the Arabian Peninsula, why was there an order to fight all the ARAB mushrikeen and at first the Jews and Christians of that area had an option of paying the jizyah for the remainder of their stay over there...? I'm sorry but these questions came to my mind just recently, and obviously I don't want to flood the board making unnecessary threads.

[Hijrah]

bump...

[Hijrah]

Forgive me for being impatient, but it is always these controversial issues like this that really get to me, so I aplogize for this deeply but can someone please answer my question here?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:

:sl:

My question is though is if Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah Be Upon Him) had fought the arabian idolators (of Makkah) when that ultimatum was given for them to leave the land, accept Islam or fight what would he have done later on if they refused and eventually surrendered.

They did refuse and they did eventually surrender at the conquest of Makkah. Some people still refused. Read the story of Safwan ibn Umayyah. He was the most hostile opponent of Islam, the one who instigated multiple plots to assasinate the Prophet Muhammad saws, and the one responsible for much of the suffering of the Muslims. When Makkah was conquered he tried to fight back with a few others, but he failed and so he fled intending to leave arabia. His former friend 'Umayr ibn Wahb came to the Prophet asked the Prophet saws for a guarantee of safety for safwan so he could have an opportunity to come and repent. The prophet saws granted that. Umayr asked for a sign to show safwan as proof that the Prophet saws had granted him safety. At that, the Prophet saws took off his very own turban and handed it to 'Umayr.

When 'Umayr caught up with Safwan and convinced him to come back, Safwan returned to Makkah. The Prophet saws confirmed that he had been granted safety and invited him to accept Islam. Safwan refused and asked for 2 months time to decide. To his surprise, the Prophet saws gave him four months, double what he had requested.

Later, after Hunain, Safwan was amazed to see a tremendous valley filled with cattle which was part of the booty the Muslims had acquired. When the Prophet Muhammad pbuh saw him, he gave him all of it. Safwan exclaimed, "Only a soul of a prophet would be content to give in this manner!" and the former archenemy of the muslims declared his acceptance of Islam and his love for the Messenger of Allah. Such mercy, forgiveness and generosity we find in the Prophet's actions are unparallel with anything from human history.

And why is it that at first before the order to expel all the unbelievers from the Arabian Peninsula, why was there an order to fight all the ARAB mushrikeen and at first the Jews and Christians of that area had an option of paying the jizyah for the remainder of their stay over there...?

The order of expulsion was the final culminating order from the initial directives.

:w:

[Hijrah]

:sl:

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...sconceptions#9

In this section of your misconceptions article, you mention:

Therefore, the context of the verse within the Surah makes it clear that this refers to those who are persistent in their hostilities and attacks against Muslims, and it is applied in battle only.

However, isn't it true that after the treaties for those other pagan tribes mentioned in 9:4 and 9:7 were over, they would be subject to the same ruling as Ayah 9:5? I have read that in many authentic tafsir books.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
Yes but it doesn't conflict with what I said at all, since it is after the treaty expires. At that point tribes from all over arabia sent delegations to the Muslims and that was the point when the rule of Islam was consolidated in arabia; it was not forced upon any tribe. Read up on the history; like I said before read the biography by Adil Salahi and all your confusion will dissolve.

:w:

[Hijrah]

you mean around the time that the Prophet wanted all the kuffaar expelled from Arabia?

assalam-u-alaikum,
my question still being though, as for those mushriks who had a 4 month respite after surah bara'ah, would they ALL have been killed if lets say, they didn't accept Islam or leave the land?

you mean around the time that the Prophet wanted all the kuffaar expelled from Arabia?

and also if the the rule of Islam was consolidated in arabia, wouldn't the same ruling as in ayah 9:5 be subject to the jews and the christians because they were to be expelled anyway? was the order of expulsion before the other pagan arab tribes treaties expired?

insha'allah, I shall read Salahi's book though...

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl: bro,
Just read the book because you are asking questions that don't make any sense.

my question still being though, as for those mushriks who had a 4 month respite after surah bara'ah, would they ALL have been killed if lets say, they didn't accept Islam or leave the land?

No, read 9:6. After the period of amnesty, remaining hostile forces would be confronted, but instead they accepted Islam and joined the Muslims.

and also if the the rule of Islam was consolidated in arabia, wouldn't the same ruling as in ayah 9:5 be subject to the jews and the christians because they were to be expelled anyway?

All remaining hostile forces would be confronted after the period of amnesty. Read from CMVAN:

Shaykh Sami al-Majid also makes some very interesting points in his discussion on this verse:

If we look at the verses in Sûrah al-Tawbah immediately before and after the one under discussion, the context of the verse becomes clear. A few verses before the one we are discussing, Allah says: “There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 1-2]
In these verses we see that the pagans were granted a four month amnesty with an indication that when the four months were over, fighting would resume. However, a following verse exempts some of them from the resumption of hostilities. It reads:
“Except for those pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 4]
So when Allah says: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” we must know that it is not general, since the verse above has qualified it to refer to the pagan Arabs who were actually at war with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who broke their covenants of peace. This is further emphasized a few verses later where Allah says:
“Will you not fight people who broke their covenants and plotted to expel the Messenger and attacked you first?” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 13] (SOURCE)

was the order of expulsion before the other pagan arab tribes treaties expired?

This wasn't a sudden verdict, it was an on-going process to consolidate the rule of Islam in the peninsula.

:w:

[Hijrah]

you answered most of my questions even though shaikh sami al-majid's part over there was referring to the other mushrik's not the jews and the christians...as for the order of expulsion I was referring to how the Prophet gave the order himself of how no two religions should be present together in Arabia, only Islam. and that's what I meant by the 'order of expulsion' and the 'kuffar being expelled from Arabia.' My question still being that when this was the case, wouldn't everyone be confronted if they refused to leave the land?

I apologize for not being clear enough, but I hope that explains my previous questions.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

My question still being that when this was the case, wouldn't everyone be confronted if they refused to leave the land?

No; this was a plan to consolidate the rules of Islam in the region, not a verdict after which Islam was forced upon anyone. As Shaykh 'Abdul-Muhsin ibn Nâsir Âl 'Ubaykân points out:

Another point is that there were non-believers who lived in Saudi Arabia during the Caliphs' times. Muslim men married non-Muslim women and lived together in the region. I even found fatwas for Sheikh Mohammad Ibn Uthaimeen who supported this notion. A third point is that this issue is the business of the country's guardians rather than the people. The Caliph Abu Bakr did not have the Jews removed from Medina during his time, nor did he ask Omar Ibn Al-Khattab to do so either. A fourth point is that even if non-believers are to leave the region, it does not mean violating their properties or permitting their bloodshed. Furthermore, having them leave the region is related to what is best and it is not an indefinite general predicament. (SOURCE)

And those tribes that were fought were those who showed aggression to the Muslims. I have explained this again and again in detail. You seem to be under the misconception that when the Prophet made this statement, all of a sudden the muslims rushed outside and fell upon the peaceful non-muslim tribes living in their midst and forced them to either accept Islam or be killed!! Such a notion completely contradicts the reality of what happened and how Islam was spread and how the non-muslims were dealt with.

:w:

[Hijrah]

EDIT: DELETE hehe

[Hijrah]

And they gave us their strongest oaths, without it being asked from them, of the broadening of their understanding and the certainty of their conscience, that they no longer held the slightest doubt that the one who says: "Yaa Rasoolallaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam)", or: "Yabna 'Abbaas", or: "Yaa 'Abdal-Qaadir", or other than them from the creations, seeking by that to avert an evil or bring a good from anything that Allaah ta'aalaa alone is capable of doing, such as healing the sick, or granting victory over the enemy, or guarding from a misfortune, or the like: that he is a mushrik guilty of major shirk, whose blood may be shed and whose wealth is lawful, even if he believes that the ultimate controller of the universe is Allaah ta'aalaa alone but he turned to the creations with du'aa', seeking intercession from them, and drawing closer to them, in order to fulfill his need from Allaah by virtue of their "secret" and by their interceding with Him for them while they are in the barzakh;

http://islamlife.com/news.php?readmore=139

In the bold, is it referring to apostasy or is that general or something like that?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
It is apostasy because it is shirk which takes a person out of the fold of islam

[Hijrah]

No, read 9:6. After the period of amnesty, remaining hostile forces would be confronted, but instead they accepted Islam and joined the Muslims.

:sl:
what would happen after the mushriks were confronted, and the Muslims were victorious though, what would be done with the rest of them?!

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
what would happen after the mushriks were confronted, and the Muslims were victorious though, what would be done with the rest of them?!

Individuals would be granted asylum as mentioned in ayat 9:6. Only forces that remained hostile were fought. Remember the story of Safwan ibn Umayyah.

:w:

[Hijrah]

Individuals would be granted asylum as mentioned in ayat 9:6. Only forces that remained hostile were fought. Remember the story of Safwan ibn Umayyah.

:w:

:sl:
Correct me if I'm mistaken but looking at the major tafseer books, is it not true that 9:6 was referring to those mushriks who happened to be passing through the Muslim lands, they would then get temporary asylum, hear the Qur'aan and then get escorted back to where they came from?! But you're saying that even after the fight was over the rest of the mushriks would be granted asylum, and that's how they would have been dealt with. Where is the evidence for that?! Is there a scholar who actually believed this?!

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
I am talking about the reality of what happened as attested to by ALL the scholars of Islam. After fighting the hostile polytheists tribes and meeting with delegations from other tribes, all the region came under the rule of Islam. Individuals who came and refrained from showing any hostility to the Muslims would not be harmed, but would be granted asylum to hear the message of Islam.

But you're saying that even after the fight was over the rest of the mushriks

Which mushriks are you talking about? From which tribe? Where were these ubiquitous mushriks after all the tribes in the region came under Islam?! Please - Don't just speak from your imagination, give me solid facts if you want my answer. Read about what actually happened and then you won't be asking hypotheticals that don't make sense.

:w:

[Hijrah]

alright, I'm done, I'll leave this subject which is in reality, trivial, may Allaah blesss you and your family akhee ansar-al-adl