Offensive Jihad

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis

How can you say the Quran is not law itself. I thought the Quran is on tablets in heaven and recited from God through Gabriel and Mohammad ? These verses state from Allah that the Quran is literal, clear, perfect, fully explained, firm, and explaining all things. Quran 6.14, 11.1, 12.1, 16.89, 27.1, 41.3, 57.9.

You say that the situation was important and that the conflict already happened when that verse revealed which both parties attacked each other. Do you mean the historical and cultural context at that time?
regarding the Quran verse 9.29. Lets look at the historical context to it then. According to the esteemed Muslim scholar
Ibn Kathir's in The Battles of the Prophet p. 183-4.

Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. The Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says,“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9. 29)
Mohamad decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.

There is nothing here about any Romans attacking the Muslims. This was about Muhammad stopping non-Muslims from taking religious pilgrimages to Mecca. The Quraish (now Muslims) were worried that this would interfere with their profits and Muhammad received a revelation, saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!"

So If the Roman Empire had converted to Islam, Mecca would have tons of pilgrims visiting the Ka'ba. If the Romans decided to pay the Jizya instead, Muslims would still be making lots of money. It seems, then, that the motive for Allah's command in Surah 9:29 was simply to fight people until they started sending money to the Muslims.

Also remember Mohammad had written threatening letters to foreign Kings. There is nothing defensive about any of this.

Not every verse in Qur'an is automatically becomes a command for every Muslim (this what I mean with law). This is why I said that Qur'an is a source of law, but not the law itself. Verse 9: 29 is an example. That verse is not automatically becomes a command for Muslims to always fight non-Muslims. Peace agreement between Muslims and non-Muslims is permissible. Different than verses about fasting which automatically become command.

Qur'an was not revealed in form of tablet. But Allah told verses to angel Gabriel, and then angel Gabriel told again to prophet Muhammad.

The source from Muslim historians say that conflict between Muslims and Romans already happened in that time although only in small scale and sporadic. The command to fight in that verse was not to make Muslims got money after the polytheists banned to visit Ka'bah.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis

Greetings Syed.
Within Islam isn’t there the principle of abrogation? If so Sahih ak Bakhari 4354 states the last chapter of the Quran received by Mohamed was Surah Bara’a (Surah 9). Therefore wouldn’t that abrogate earlier verses?

Interesting... and Greeting to you as well...

I see you are quite informed about the Abrogation and when was the last Surah revealed Etc.

The abrogation does not mean that the entire Quranic Verses which were revealed earlier have been abrogated for newer ones and though they still appear in the Quran they should be ignored, that is wrong way to approach the Quran. All its Verses compliment each other, please note.

The Abrogation Subject is a different subject unless you can prove it to me that all the Verses I have quoted from Quran have been abrogated for 9:29. Please prove it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis

Also as mentioned in my other posts Surah 9.29 does not mention attack the Jews and Christians because they are attacking you. Instead it says attack them because of their false beliefs.

The 9:29 must be read in the context of earlier revelation on Self Defence (2:190-194, 22:39). So the Jews and Christians for example the Zionists of today or the Crusaders of the past when attacked Muslims, the Quran explicitly informs us to fight them and defend yourselves against them. Simple. It does not mean to fight the Jews and Christians because of their belief, because then the Quran would be contradicting itself because in other places it speaks of Christians being closest to the Muslims (5:82).

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis

Also the Rashidun Caliphate was expansionist – meaning it was aggressive.

Please elaborate on this...how?

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis

Also remember Mohammad had written threatening letters to foreign Kings. There is nothing defensive about any of this.

. A Letter to Chosroes, Emperor of Persia

"In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.



From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allâh to Chosroes, king of Persia.



Peace be upon him who follows true guidance, believes in Allâh and His Messenger and testifies that there is no god but Allâh Alone with no associate, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. I invite you to accept the religion of Allâh. I am the Messenger of Allâh sent to all people in order that I may infuse fear of Allâh in every living person, and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may live in security, otherwise, you will be responsible for all the sins of the Magians."



‘Abdullah bin Hudhafa As-Sahmi was chosen to carry the letter. This envoy carried it to the king of Bahrain but we do not know as yet if the latter despatched to Chosroes by one of his men or chose ‘Abdullah himself.



The proud monarch was enraged by the style of the letter as the name of the Prophet [pbuh] had been put above his own name. He tore the letter into shreds and forthwith dictated a command to his viceroy in Yemen to send a couple of troopers to arrest the Prophet and bring him to his presence. The governor, Bazan by name, immediately sent two men to Madinah for the purpose. As soon as the men reached Madinah, the Prophet [pbuh] was informed by a Divine Revelation that Pervez, the emperor of Persia, had been murdered by his son. The Prophet [pbuh] disclosed to them the news and they were stunned. He added asking them to tell their new monarch that Islam would prevail everywhere and outstrip the sovereignty of Chosroes himself. They hurried back to Bazan and communicated to him what they heard. Meanwhile, Sherweh, the new monarch sent a letter to Bazan confirming the news and bidding him to stop any procedures as regards the Prophet till further notice. Bazan, together with the Persians in Yemen, went into the folds of Islam, and gladly signified his adhesion to the Prophet. [Fath Al-Bari 8/127,128]




Is this threatening? Or was sending troopers to summon our Blessed Prophet (saw) was threatening?

Also please answer why isn't Muhammad (Saw) asking for Jizyah? According to you he should be threatening him to pay Jizyah in case of rejecting Islam?

The Prophet (saw) being the only Messenger of Allah (Swt) at that time on earth was obligated to invite all Nations and Tribes to Islam and so he naturally approached the head of state and inform him about the Message of God. Prophet Jesus (a.s) would've done the same had he been sent to All Mankind and Moses (a.s) as well, but they were only sent to the Tribe of Israel.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset

As a muslim can someone answer me this? These are genuine questions, some out of ignorance of the particular situations at that time.

Though jihad should be defensive (if a enemy is waging war against islam and entering muslim lands, killing muslims) muslims armies still entered the land of the romans (europe). The ottoman armies reached austria, and muslims also conquered sicily and al-andalus. We fought plenty of wars in north africa as well mainly against pagan berber tribes. Also india was took over by the sword i believe, though many areas were took over peacefully through da'wah and trade in SE Asia.

question still stands, if jihad was purely defensive, why did we enter europe itself?

People are just people whatever the religion, and megalomaniacs always rationalize that conquest is the best defence. "The best form of defence is attack". Paranoia and fear, booty and plunder, under the banner of glory and righteousness. It has always been that way since the dawn of civilization. In very ancient times before the concept of property and any form of government and people were few in number, people just shared the land like other animals and there was peace.
Evil infiltrates all forms of order and civilizations.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset

As a muslim can someone answer me this? These are genuine questions, some out of ignorance of the particular situations at that time.

Though jihad should be defensive (if a enemy is waging war against islam and entering muslim lands, killing muslims) muslims armies still entered the land of the romans (europe). The ottoman armies reached austria, and muslims also conquered sicily and al-andalus. We fought plenty of wars in north africa as well mainly against pagan berber tribes. Also india was took over by the sword i believe, though many areas were took over peacefully through da'wah and trade in SE Asia.

question still stands, if jihad was purely defensive, why did we enter europe itself?

A few logical possibilities...

1. Those muslims misinterpreted the Koran and went on an offensive jihad. ->this would be a gross misinterpretation if the Koran was clear on what is allowed and what is not allowed for jihad. From reading this thread, I think the Koran is not clear on the subject.

2. Those muslims ignored the Koran and furthered Islam by illegal means.

3. The conquest was purely political. They just happened to convert people to Islam wherever they went.

4. Spreading Islam through conquest is an acceptable interpretation of jihad.

my 2cts.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset

As a muslim can someone answer me this? These are genuine questions, some out of ignorance of the particular situations at that time.

Though jihad should be defensive (if a enemy is waging war against islam and entering muslim lands, killing muslims) muslims armies still entered the land of the romans (europe). The ottoman armies reached austria, and muslims also conquered sicily and al-andalus. We fought plenty of wars in north africa as well mainly against pagan berber tribes. Also india was took over by the sword i believe, though many areas were took over peacefully through da'wah and trade in SE Asia.

question still stands, if jihad was purely defensive, why did we enter europe itself?

Very good question....

Btw India wasn't taken by the sword, even though conquerors did go to India, yet it was the Sufis who with their tolerance and excellent character inspired the hearts of hundreds of thousands of Hindus who accepted Islam. Had the Sufis been literalistic orthodox mullas like today we have plenty around the world, they would never have come close to them and accepted Islam. Great Sages such as Khwaja Muinuddin Chisti, Shah Hamdani of Kashmir and Jalaluddin Bukhari (May Allah (swt) have Mercy on them).

As for why did Muslims enter the lands of Europe, if you speak of the Ottomans, then they were unjust in waging wars against Eastern Orthodox Christian European states which comprise today of Russia, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland Etc. They kept waging wars against them, either conquered them or forced to pay Jizyah, made their women slaves and took the beautiful to their harems, supported the Tatar Muslims (of modern day Crimea) to raid Russian lands and take women captive, took Christian boys from their parents and raised them as Janissaries. All such actions by Ottomans were wrong, against the teachings of our Beloved Prophet (saw).

The Prophet (saw) himself said “The best of people are my generation, then those who follow them."

Beginning from the 3rd generations of Ummah infighting and Kingship (Mulke Aaz) began which ended with the Ottomans. Brother killed his own brother to get the throne. However, there did come in between God Fearing Kings like Salahuddin (r.a), Umer bin Abdul Aziz (r.a) and many others who did not do Jihad for expanding their territories.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset

Ok but what about al-andalus and southern france?

Salaam... I don't know much about the reason for that attack, but I believe it was not Jihad, it was for the sake of conquest,may be someone else can assist us here.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis

You askHow are Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighting for self-defense for Islam? I don’t know- you tell me. Have Muslims always fought for self defense. I don’t believe so. Probably they are getting their ideas from the Quran or hadith.

ISIS and Al-Qaeda are getting their facts from the Qur'an and Ahadith and distorting them. This is much like how Christianity distorted teachings of the Bible and decided that they had to fight the infidels. The crusaders were terrorists, and so are these terror groups who distort the beautiful teachings of Islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis

You talk about the verse being in context to the past. Ok. Here is some historical context to Quaran verse 9.29. This is from Ibn Kathir in The Battles of the Prophet p. 183-4.
“Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. The Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9. 29).

There is nothing here about any Romans attacking the Muslims. This was about Muhammad stopping non-Muslims from taking religious pilgrimages to Mecca. The Quraish (now Muslims) were worried that this would interfere with their profits and Muhammad received a revelation, saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!"

So If the Roman Empire had converted to Islam, Mecca would have lots of pilgrims visiting the Ka'ba. If the Romans elected to pay the Jizya instead, Muslims would still be taking in lots of money. It seems, then, that the motive for Allah's command in Surah 9:29 was simply to fight people until they started sending money to the Muslims. Also remember Mohammad had written threatening letters to foreign Kings. There is nothing defensive about any of this.

In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it is stated:
Allah said,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.


War with idolaters having been dealt with in previous verses, fighting with the People of the Book is introduced with this verse. The verse refers to those People of the Book who lived in Arabia. Like the idolaters of that country, they too had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects. The Jizya, referred to in the verse, was the tax which such non-Muslims had to pay as free subjects of the Muslim State in return for the protection they enjoyed under it. Islam has ordained that in Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and its headquarters, only the People of tee Book, and not idolaters, could live as subjects by paying the Jizya, while outside Arabia all non-Muslims could live under a Muslim Government on payment of this tax. Arabia, being the cradle and center of Islam and, as it were, the citadel thereof, was to be kept free from idolaters. It should also be noted that as against Jizya which was imposed on non-Muslims, the tax imposed on Muslims is called Zakat which is a heavier tax than Jizya, and Muslimss, in addition to this tax, had to perform military service which was very hard in those days from which non-Muslims were exempt. Thus the latter in a way fared better, for they had to pay a lighter tax and were also free from military service.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis

You said “the verses about Jihad, for example, are meant to demonstrate what occurred in the battles of the Muslims of the past” I thought the Quran is on tablets in heaven and recited in Arabic from God through Gabriel and Mohammad ? These verses state from Allah that the Quran is literal, clear, perfect, fully explained, firm, and explaining all things. Quran 6.14, 11.1, 12.1, 16.89, 27.1, 41.3, 57.9.

The verse of the Qur'an which is unanimously referred to by all Muslim scholars stating which type of verses are in the Holy Qur'an, if the following:

3:7 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

This verse above is clear, but if you wanted more information then I can post many lengthy posts about scholars giving long explanations about the meanings of this verse alone and how it relates to explaining the categories of verses in the Holy Qur'an. What is clear is that there are verses which are clear and foundational and then there are verses which are unclear. The Qur'an is not a literal Word, it is BOTH literal and metaphorical. It has parables, stories, narrations, descriptions, predictions, etc. It has many types of discourse.

With regards to my statement that the verses of Jihad require some knowledge of those instances, I refer you to Hazrat Shah Waliyullah (ra), who wrote in his book Al-Fauz Al-Kabir, a book which explains the sciences of the commentary of the Holy Qur'an, that:
[BEGIN QUOTE]
An account of the Holy War (Jihad) has been given in chapters Al-Baqara and Al-Anfal and at some other places. The penal laws (Hudud) have been mentioned in chapters Al-Ma'ida and Al-Nur. Similarly, an account of the inheritance has been given in chapter Al-Nisa' and that of marriage and divorce in chapters Al-Baqara and Al-Nisa, and at some other places.
When this form of narration, the benefit of which is available to the whole community over, there comes an other form of narration, for example, sometimes question was put to the Holy Prophet (saw)and he gave a reply, or during an event when the believers made sacrifices of their lives as well as properties while the hypocrites showed self admiration and stinginess. God praised the believers and cursed the hypocrites holding out threats to them. Or some thing happened in which the Muslims were helped and saved from harm by the enemy. God, thus, showed favours to the Muslims and thereby reminded them of those favours. At times, a situation arose wherein a need was felt for giving a warning, a rebuke, a hint, an allusion, a command, a prohibition and denouncement. God, in this connection, revealed what pertained to it. It is, therefore, necessary for the commentator to make a mention of those stories by way of a summary.
[END QUOTE]

format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z

Salaam... I don't know much about the reason for that attack, but I believe it was not Jihad, it was for the sake of conquest,may be someone else can assist us here.

Gladly, the key lies in the fact that the Khilafat ar-Rashidun was the end of the Khilafat for Muslims. After the first four Khulafa, the monarchy started. Thus, the best era of rule of Muslims was only the first 30 years. And I have more than enough proof for this, none of this is made up:

Sa'eed bin Jumhan narrated:
"Safinah narrated to me, he said: 'The Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) said: "Al-Khilafah will be in my Ummah for thirty years, then there will be monarchy after that."' Then Safinah said to me: 'Count the Khilafah of Abu Bakr,' then he said: 'Count the Khilafah of 'Umar and the Khilafah of 'Uthman.' Then he said to me: 'Count the Khilafah of 'Ali."' He said: "So we found that they add up to thirty years." Sa'eed said: "I said to him: 'Banu Umaiyyah claim that the Khilafah is among them.' He said: 'Banu Az-Zarqa' lie, rather they are a monarchy, among the worst of monarchies."'
(Jami' At-Tirmidhi)
Link: Hadith - Chapters On Al-Fitan - Jami` at-Tirmidhi - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (??? ???? ???? ? ???)

Narrated Safinah:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone He wills.
Sa'id told that Safinah said to him: Calculate Abu Bakr's caliphate as two years, 'Umar's as ten, 'Uthman's as twelve and 'Ali so and so. Sa'id said: I said to Safinah: They conceive that 'Ali was not a caliph. He replied: The buttocks of Marwan told a lie.

(Sunan Abu Dawud)
Link: Hadith - Book of Model Behavior of the Prophet (Kitab Al-Sunnah) - Sunan Abi Dawud - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (??? ???? ???? ? ???)

After that, there were deviations in the Islamic rule. I am not saying that the rulers afterwards were not righteous, but that would have to wait until tyranny started. It is not clear as to when that started exactly, but suffice it to say, Muslims still suffer from that now. It makes my heart bleed to see it but it is true.

During some later years, it might have just been the tyrannical governments which kept attacking other nations. I base my thinking on these above narrations. Unfortunately, I do not know more than that. I hope it helped.

format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto

Not every verse in Qur'an is automatically becomes a command for every Muslim (this what I mean with law). This is why I said that Qur'an is a source of law, but not the law itself. Verse 9: 29 is an example. That verse is not automatically becomes a command for Muslims to always fight non-Muslims. Peace agreement between Muslims and non-Muslims is permissible. Different than verses about fasting which automatically become command.

Qur'an was not revealed in form of tablet. But Allah told verses to angel Gabriel, and then angel Gabriel told again to prophet Muhammad.

The source from Muslim historians say that conflict between Muslims and Romans already happened in that time although only in small scale and sporadic. The command to fight in that verse was not to make Muslims got money after the polytheists banned to visit Ka'bah.

You talk about the law and the source of law. If the Quran is clear, perfect and explained in detail as Allah says it is then I don’t know why you are separating the law and the source of the law? See the verses below-

“This is) a Book, the Ayat whereof are perfect (in every sphere of knowledge), and then explained in detail from One (Allah), Who is All-Wise Well-Acquainted (with all things).”
11.1,

“These are the verses of the Book that is clear.”
12.1 and 27.1.

“A Book whereof the Ayat are explained in detail”
41.3,

“It is He Who sends down manifest Ayat to His servant that He may bring you out from darkness into light.”
57.9.

You said “the command to fight in that verse was not to make Muslims got money after the polytheists banned to visit Ka'bah.” But Airdanto the Quran in verses 9.28 – 30 are clear that is was about money …

"You who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:28-29)

Also Ibn Kathir was clear in saying that it was about money in “ The Battles of the Prophet”.

format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z

Interesting... and Greeting to you as well...

I see you are quite informed about the Abrogation and when was the last Surah revealed Etc.

The abrogation does not mean that the entire Quranic Verses which were revealed earlier have been abrogated for newer ones and though they still appear in the Quran they should be ignored, that is wrong way to approach the Quran. All its Verses compliment each other, please note.

The Abrogation Subject is a different subject unless you can prove it to me that all the Verses I have quoted from Quran have been abrogated for 9:29. Please prove it.




The 9:29 must be read in the context of earlier revelation on Self Defence (2:190-194, 22:39). So the Jews and Christians for example the Zionists of today or the Crusaders of the past when attacked Muslims, the Quran explicitly informs us to fight them and defend yourselves against them. Simple. It does not mean to fight the Jews and Christians because of their belief, because then the Quran would be contradicting itself because in other places it speaks of Christians being closest to the Muslims (5:82).




Please elaborate on this...how?

From what I can tell about abrogation there seem to be as many ways of understanding abrogation as there are Muslims.
Do all Muslims agree on how many verses of the Quran that have been abrogated? Other there many or only a few?
Is it true that others deny there is any abrogation at all? There appears no general agreement as to what all the abrogated verses are and not all hold to the same set of abrogated ayahs. Is that correct?
The issue of abrogation is a very serious problem for the Qur'an. As I have said. If the Qur'an is the actual Word of God, then it is eternal and, is thus incapable of change. If the Qur'an is the Word of God, it should be perfect and no verse can be superior to another.

You say 9.29 needs to be read in the context of earlier revelation on Self Defense (2:190-194, 22:39). However if you read 9.29 in context starting at verse 28 you will see that it was about the Muslims wanting money off the Romans and it does not say to defend themselves from the Romans who are attacking them but instead it says “Fight those who believe not in Allah.” In other words fight those who do not have the same religion as you!

"O You who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:28-29)

Ibn Kathir says-

“Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah.”
(Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4)

So there you have it - Muhammad received a revelation from God, saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!" According to Ibn KathirThis was about fighting for money ! This was not about self defense.

You say “they (People of the Book) had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it and Muslims were ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects” Where is your proof of this? There's absolutely nothing in 9.29 or Ibn Kathir commentary about Romans attacking the Muslims. As I’ve shown you above – it was about Muslims leading an offensive Jihad against Christians and Jews due to them having a different religion and for Muslims to get money.

Yes the Quran is contradicting itself.

You asked me to elaborate on the expansionist Rashidun Caliphate. Its obvious. A Caliphate that is about self defense protects its borders. It does not expand its borders. The only was the Rashidun Caliphate could expand was by offensive Jihad. And all the caliphates after it for that matter.

format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z

. A Letter to Chosroes, Emperor of Persia

"In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.



From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allâh to Chosroes, king of Persia.



Peace be upon him who follows true guidance, believes in Allâh and His Messenger and testifies that there is no god but Allâh Alone with no associate, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. I invite you to accept the religion of Allâh. I am the Messenger of Allâh sent to all people in order that I may infuse fear of Allâh in every living person, and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may live in security, otherwise, you will be responsible for all the sins of the Magians."



‘Abdullah bin Hudhafa As-Sahmi was chosen to carry the letter. This envoy carried it to the king of Bahrain but we do not know as yet if the latter despatched to Chosroes by one of his men or chose ‘Abdullah himself.



The proud monarch was enraged by the style of the letter as the name of the Prophet [pbuh] had been put above his own name. He tore the letter into shreds and forthwith dictated a command to his viceroy in Yemen to send a couple of troopers to arrest the Prophet and bring him to his presence. The governor, Bazan by name, immediately sent two men to Madinah for the purpose. As soon as the men reached Madinah, the Prophet [pbuh] was informed by a Divine Revelation that Pervez, the emperor of Persia, had been murdered by his son. The Prophet [pbuh] disclosed to them the news and they were stunned. He added asking them to tell their new monarch that Islam would prevail everywhere and outstrip the sovereignty of Chosroes himself. They hurried back to Bazan and communicated to him what they heard. Meanwhile, Sherweh, the new monarch sent a letter to Bazan confirming the news and bidding him to stop any procedures as regards the Prophet till further notice. Bazan, together with the Persians in Yemen, went into the folds of Islam, and gladly signified his adhesion to the Prophet. [Fath Al-Bari 8/127,128]




Is this threatening? Or was sending troopers to summon our Blessed Prophet (saw) was threatening?

Also please answer why isn't Muhammad (Saw) asking for Jizyah? According to you he should be threatening him to pay Jizyah in case of rejecting Islam?

The Prophet (saw) being the only Messenger of Allah (Swt) at that time on earth was obligated to invite all Nations and Tribes to Islam and so he naturally approached the head of state and inform him about the Message of God. Prophet Jesus (a.s) would've done the same had he been sent to All Mankind and Moses (a.s) as well, but they were only sent to the Tribe of Israel.

To the King of Ethioia-
In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: From Muhammad the Prophet of Islam to the Negus, the king of Ethiopia: peace be on you, I thank God for you, The God, who is no god but him, the King, the Holy, the Guardian, and I witness that Jesus, the son of Mary is the Spirit of God and His Word. The word he gave to the pure the believer Mary, and from this word she gave birth to Jesus. God made Jesus from his soul just as he made Adam from his hand. I invite you and your soldiers to believe the God the Almighty. I wrote and advised you, so accept my advise. Peace upon those who follow the right way.

So accept my advise – or what ?? This sounds like a threat !

To the King of Bahrain -
In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: From Muhammad the Prophet of God to Munzir bin Sawa, may peace be on you! I praise God, who is one and there none to be worshiped but except him. I bear evidence to the oneness of God and that I am a servant of God and his Prophet. Thereafter I remind you of God. Whoever accepts admonition does it for his own good. Whoever followed my messengers and acted in accordance their guidance; he, in fact, accepted my advice. My messengers have highly praised your behavior. You shall continue in your present office. You should remain faithful to and his Prophet. I accept your recommendation regarding the people of Bahrain. I forgive the offenses of the offenders.

This also sounds like a threat. Continue to follow Mohameds advice or be expelled from his present office!


To The King of the Copts-
In the name of Allah the Rahman, the Merciful. From the Apostle of Allah to the Mukaukis, chief of the Copts. Peace be upon him who follows the guidance. Next, I summon thee with the appeal of Islam: become a Moslem and thou shalt be safe. God shall give thee thy reward twofold. But if thou decline then on thee is the guilt of the Copts. O ye people of the Book, come unto an equal arrangement between us and you, that we should serve none save God, associating nothing with Him, and not taking one another for Lords besides God. And if ye decline, then bear witness that we are Moslems.

To the King of Oman-
Peace be upon him who follows true guidance; thereafter I invite both of you to the Call of Islam. Embrace Islam. Allâh has sent me as a Prophet to all His creatures in order that I may instil fear of Allâh in the hearts of His disobedient creatures so that there may be left no excuse for those who deny Allâh. If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if you refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship."

A threat ! Accept Islam or else “My horsemen will appropriate your land” !

You ask Also why isn't Muhammad asking for Jizyah in the letter you quoted? The letter you quoted was to the Persian king. He was not one of the People of the Book.

You say Jesus and Moses would've done the same as Mohamad had they been sent to All Mankind but they were only sent to the Tribe of Israel
If you read the following verses in the Bible you will see this is not true-
In the Injil we have-
Mt 15:28, Mk 7:29-30, Mt 10:18. Lk 7:2-10, Mt 20:28, Mk 10:45, Jn 3:16; 4:42; 12:32; Mt 10:18; 24:14; 28:18-20; Mk 13:10; 14:9; 16:15; Lk 4:25-30; 24:47; Jn 17:20-21: Acts 1:8. Mt 8:11-12; 21:43; 25:31-32; Lk 13:28-30; Jn 10:16; 11:52.

And in the Torah we have-
Gn 12:3; Is 2:2; 9:1; 40:5; 42:1,4 = Mt 12:18,21; 49:6; 60:1-3; Mc 4:1-5; 5:4; Zc 9:9-10.

format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z

Very good question....

Btw India wasn't taken by the sword, even though conquerors did go to India, yet it was the Sufis who with their tolerance and excellent character inspired the hearts of hundreds of thousands of Hindus who accepted Islam. Had the Sufis been literalistic orthodox mullas like today we have plenty around the world, they would never have come close to them and accepted Islam. Great Sages such as Khwaja Muinuddin Chisti, Shah Hamdani of Kashmir and Jalaluddin Bukhari (May Allah (swt) have Mercy on them).

As for why did Muslims enter the lands of Europe, if you speak of the Ottomans, then they were unjust in waging wars against Eastern Orthodox Christian European states which comprise today of Russia, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland Etc. They kept waging wars against them, either conquered them or forced to pay Jizyah, made their women slaves and took the beautiful to their harems, supported the Tatar Muslims (of modern day Crimea) to raid Russian lands and take women captive, took Christian boys from their parents and raised them as Janissaries. All such actions by Ottomans were wrong, against the teachings of our Beloved Prophet (saw).

The Prophet (saw) himself said “The best of people are my generation, then those who follow them."

Beginning from the 3rd generations of Ummah infighting and Kingship (Mulke Aaz) began which ended with the Ottomans. Brother killed his own brother to get the throne. However, there did come in between God Fearing Kings like Salahuddin (r.a), Umer bin Abdul Aziz (r.a) and many others who did not do Jihad for expanding their territories.

What do you mean India wasn’t taken by the sword. What about the battle of Rajastan and the Ghaznavid invasions?

format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H

ISIS and Al-Qaeda are getting their facts from the Qur'an and Ahadith and distorting them. This is much like how Christianity distorted teachings of the Bible and decided that they had to fight the infidels. The crusaders were terrorists, and so are these terror groups who distort the beautiful teachings of Islam.



In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it is stated:
Allah said,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.


War with idolaters having been dealt with in previous verses, fighting with the People of the Book is introduced with this verse. The verse refers to those People of the Book who lived in Arabia. Like the idolaters of that country, they too had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects. The Jizya, referred to in the verse, was the tax which such non-Muslims had to pay as free subjects of the Muslim State in return for the protection they enjoyed under it. Islam has ordained that in Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and its headquarters, only the People of tee Book, and not idolaters, could live as subjects by paying the Jizya, while outside Arabia all non-Muslims could live under a Muslim Government on payment of this tax. Arabia, being the cradle and center of Islam and, as it were, the citadel thereof, was to be kept free from idolaters. It should also be noted that as against Jizya which was imposed on non-Muslims, the tax imposed on Muslims is called Zakat which is a heavier tax than Jizya, and Muslimss, in addition to this tax, had to perform military service which was very hard in those days from which non-Muslims were exempt. Thus the latter in a way fared better, for they had to pay a lighter tax and were also free from military service.



The verse of the Qur'an which is unanimously referred to by all Muslim scholars stating which type of verses are in the Holy Qur'an, if the following:

3:7 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

This verse above is clear, but if you wanted more information then I can post many lengthy posts about scholars giving long explanations about the meanings of this verse alone and how it relates to explaining the categories of verses in the Holy Qur'an. What is clear is that there are verses which are clear and foundational and then there are verses which are unclear. The Qur'an is not a literal Word, it is BOTH literal and metaphorical. It has parables, stories, narrations, descriptions, predictions, etc. It has many types of discourse.

With regards to my statement that the verses of Jihad require some knowledge of those instances, I refer you to Hazrat Shah Waliyullah (ra), who wrote in his book Al-Fauz Al-Kabir, a book which explains the sciences of the commentary of the Holy Qur'an, that:
[BEGIN QUOTE]
An account of the Holy War (Jihad) has been given in chapters Al-Baqara and Al-Anfal and at some other places. The penal laws (Hudud) have been mentioned in chapters Al-Ma'ida and Al-Nur. Similarly, an account of the inheritance has been given in chapter Al-Nisa' and that of marriage and divorce in chapters Al-Baqara and Al-Nisa, and at some other places.
When this form of narration, the benefit of which is available to the whole community over, there comes an other form of narration, for example, sometimes question was put to the Holy Prophet (saw)and he gave a reply, or during an event when the believers made sacrifices of their lives as well as properties while the hypocrites showed self admiration and stinginess. God praised the believers and cursed the hypocrites holding out threats to them. Or some thing happened in which the Muslims were helped and saved from harm by the enemy. God, thus, showed favours to the Muslims and thereby reminded them of those favours. At times, a situation arose wherein a need was felt for giving a warning, a rebuke, a hint, an allusion, a command, a prohibition and denouncement. God, in this connection, revealed what pertained to it. It is, therefore, necessary for the commentator to make a mention of those stories by way of a summary.
[END QUOTE]

Yes you are right. All religions have their militants and the Crudsaders are an example of that. However they were far more removed from the Injil than what Muslims are removed from the Quran. Isa was a pacifist. Mohamad was a warrior. You will not find anything in the Injil to do with making war. The Quran is full of it.

You have only partly quoted Tafsir Ibn Kathir . Lets look at what he said again-

“Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah.”
(Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4)

So there you have it - Muhammad received a revelation from God , saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!" According to Ibn KathirThis was about fighting for MONEY !

You say “they too (People of the Book) had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects”
Where is your proof of this? According to the Quran 9.28 – 30 and to Ibn Kathir it was the Muslims who launched an offensive Jihad to make money.

Yes Im aware of the Jizah tax. You say “Thus the latter (People of the Book) in a way fared better” By this you mean the
Dimmis or Zimmis? Well actually over history in much of the Islamic world Zimmis were treated as second class citizens. For example -

Zimmis were not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They were allowed to renovate old churches provided they did not allow to add any new construction. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, were permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
Zimmis were not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, in case Muslims hear their prayers.
Zimmis were not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets.
Zimmis were not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches.
Zimmis were not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl.Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis . Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court.
So how do Zimmis fare better when they are second class citizens?
You say some verses in the Quran are allegorical with hidden meanings. Except Allah says about the Quran –

“This is) a Book, the Ayat whereof are perfect (in every sphere of knowledge), and then explained in detail from One (Allah), Who is All-Wise Well-Acquainted (with all things).”
11.1,

“These are the verses of the Book that is clear.”
12.1 and 27.1.

“A Book whereof the Ayat are explained in detail”
41.3,

“It is He Who sends down manifest Ayat to His servant that He may bring you out from darkness into light.”
57.9.

You said you could send me lengthy posts from scholars as to the meanings of the verse. It just seems to me if the Quran is clear, perfect and explained in detail as Allah says about it then why the need for lengthy posts from scholars.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H

ISIS and Al-Qaeda are getting their facts from the Qur'an and Ahadith and distorting them. This is much like how Christianity distorted teachings of the Bible and decided that they had to fight the infidels. The crusaders were terrorists, and so are these terror groups who distort the beautiful teachings of Islam.



In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it is stated:
Allah said,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.


War with idolaters having been dealt with in previous verses, fighting with the People of the Book is introduced with this verse. The verse refers to those People of the Book who lived in Arabia. Like the idolaters of that country, they too had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects. The Jizya, referred to in the verse, was the tax which such non-Muslims had to pay as free subjects of the Muslim State in return for the protection they enjoyed under it. Islam has ordained that in Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and its headquarters, only the People of tee Book, and not idolaters, could live as subjects by paying the Jizya, while outside Arabia all non-Muslims could live under a Muslim Government on payment of this tax. Arabia, being the cradle and center of Islam and, as it were, the citadel thereof, was to be kept free from idolaters. It should also be noted that as against Jizya which was imposed on non-Muslims, the tax imposed on Muslims is called Zakat which is a heavier tax than Jizya, and Muslimss, in addition to this tax, had to perform military service which was very hard in those days from which non-Muslims were exempt. Thus the latter in a way fared better, for they had to pay a lighter tax and were also free from military service.



The verse of the Qur'an which is unanimously referred to by all Muslim scholars stating which type of verses are in the Holy Qur'an, if the following:

3:7 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

This verse above is clear, but if you wanted more information then I can post many lengthy posts about scholars giving long explanations about the meanings of this verse alone and how it relates to explaining the categories of verses in the Holy Qur'an. What is clear is that there are verses which are clear and foundational and then there are verses which are unclear. The Qur'an is not a literal Word, it is BOTH literal and metaphorical. It has parables, stories, narrations, descriptions, predictions, etc. It has many types of discourse.

With regards to my statement that the verses of Jihad require some knowledge of those instances, I refer you to Hazrat Shah Waliyullah (ra), who wrote in his book Al-Fauz Al-Kabir, a book which explains the sciences of the commentary of the Holy Qur'an, that:
[BEGIN QUOTE]
An account of the Holy War (Jihad) has been given in chapters Al-Baqara and Al-Anfal and at some other places. The penal laws (Hudud) have been mentioned in chapters Al-Ma'ida and Al-Nur. Similarly, an account of the inheritance has been given in chapter Al-Nisa' and that of marriage and divorce in chapters Al-Baqara and Al-Nisa, and at some other places.
When this form of narration, the benefit of which is available to the whole community over, there comes an other form of narration, for example, sometimes question was put to the Holy Prophet (saw)and he gave a reply, or during an event when the believers made sacrifices of their lives as well as properties while the hypocrites showed self admiration and stinginess. God praised the believers and cursed the hypocrites holding out threats to them. Or some thing happened in which the Muslims were helped and saved from harm by the enemy. God, thus, showed favours to the Muslims and thereby reminded them of those favours. At times, a situation arose wherein a need was felt for giving a warning, a rebuke, a hint, an allusion, a command, a prohibition and denouncement. God, in this connection, revealed what pertained to it. It is, therefore, necessary for the commentator to make a mention of those stories by way of a summary.
[END QUOTE]

Yes you are right. All religions have their militants and the Crudsaders are an example of that. However they were far more removed from the Injil than what Muslims are removed from the Quran. Isa was a pacifist. Mohamad was a warrior. You will not find anything in the Injil to do with making war. The Quran is full of it.

You have only partly quoted Tafsir Ibn Kathir . Lets look at what he said again-

“Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah.”
(Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4)

So there you have it - Muhammad received a revelation from God , saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!" According to Ibn KathirThis was about fighting for MONEY !

You say “they too (People of the Book) had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects”
Where is your proof of this? According to the Quran 9.28 – 30 and to Ibn Kathir it was the Muslims who launched an offensive Jihad to make money.

Yes Im aware of the Jizah tax. You say “Thus the latter (People of the Book) in a way fared better” By this you mean the
Dimmis or Zimmis? Well actually over history in much of the Islamic world Zimmis were treated as second class citizens. For example -

Zimmis were not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They were allowed to renovate old churches provided they did not allow to add any new construction. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, were permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
Zimmis were not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, in case Muslims hear their prayers.
Zimmis were not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets.
Zimmis were not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches.
Zimmis were not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl.Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis . Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court.
So how do Zimmis fare better when they are second class citizens?
You say some verses in the Quran are allegorical with hidden meanings. Except Allah says about the Quran –

“This is) a Book, the Ayat whereof are perfect (in every sphere of knowledge), and then explained in detail from One (Allah), Who is All-Wise Well-Acquainted (with all things).”
11.1,

“These are the verses of the Book that is clear.”
12.1 and 27.1.

“A Book whereof the Ayat are explained in detail”
41.3,

“It is He Who sends down manifest Ayat to His servant that He may bring you out from darkness into light.”
57.9.

You said you could send me lengthy posts from scholars as to the meanings of the verse. It just seems to me if the Quran is clear, perfect and explained in detail as Allah says about it then why the need for lengthy posts from scholars.

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl

People are just people whatever the religion, and megalomaniacs always rationalize that conquest is the best defence. "The best form of defence is attack". Paranoia and fear, booty and plunder, under the banner of glory and righteousness. It has always been that way since the dawn of civilization. In very ancient times before the concept of property and any form of government and people were few in number, people just shared the land like other animals and there was peace.
Evil infiltrates all forms of order and civilizations.

I think the Quran encourages this confusion.