Offensive Jihad

[سيف الله]

Salaam

But now after the world realized about the importance of live peacefully and made a deal to not launch offensive to other countries, Muslims countries made the same deal too.

I have to disagree with this statement brother, powerful nations disregard the notion of peace whenever it suits them. Lets take the USA post world war 2. It has a long and rather sordid history of subverting, invading, overthrowing governments who they don't approve of, while imposing their economic system, culture, whether the population wants it or not.

Just look at the misery and death they have brought to Iraq over the decades. (Supporting Saddam, Gulf war 1, Sanctions which destroyed the Iraq economy/society, Gulf War 2, economy/society destroyed again and now were heading towards Gulf War 3).

Getting back on topic I agree that IS behaviour is appalling and are tarnishing the name Islam.

 

[ardianto]

For some reason the board won't let me edit my post above. I press edit and it just locks up endlessly trying to load the page.

I was going to edit what I said because I stupidly wrote it before I read the posts above. I assumed you would all be differentiating Islam from ISIS.... and instead I see posts say that Islam decrees that:

1. You accept and convert yourself, and your people to Islam; or

2. You pay us money (with the assumption you can afford it, if not go to 3?); or

3. We will invade and kill you.

And somehow you are trying to tell us that this defensive and not offensive?

It is the logic of the conqueror. It is clearly aggressive. It is the way ancient Rome operated. It is how biker gangs operate. Swear loyalty, pay protection, or we kill you. This doesn't show Islam being oppressed. It shows Islam demanding superiority and seeking to oppress others. And if this is what Muslims stand for, then we non-muslims have every reason to fight against Islam.

Please tell me I'm reading this wrong. I really want to be able to peacefully co-exist with Islam.

You are not reading that wrong, but you read from article that written by those who interpret surah At-Taubah: 29 too strict.

If you were living under Islamic state (I repeat, IF you lived under Islamic state) that implement sharia, then you ......

1) Can choose to accept Islam or still in your own believe. If you choose to not become Muslim, then you .....

2) Pay Jizya, or tax for non-Muslim. Yes, you have to pay jizya because you don't have to pay zakat like Muslims. Jizya is only for non-Muslim male who afford. And the compensation of pay jizya are, you can use the state facilities, you are free from conscription, unlike Muslims. (Do you want to fight for Islamic state?. I am sure, you don't). And unlike zakat, there's no minimum amount of jizya. It could be zero.

3) If you lived in Islamic state, of course you must recognize the Muslim government as legitimate government. Just like you must recognized your Canadian government as legitimate government of Canada.

Not every Muslim has strict interpretation of Islam. ISIS indeed, intrepret Islam too strict which criticized by many other Muslims. And just for info, ISIS declare war to Muslims who do not pledge allegiance to their 'caliph'.

 

[Genesis]

Hey everyone. Can someone please clarify to me about Offensive Jihad? Is it true that Islam allows things like what Islamic State in Iraq is doing?

Ive often heard from Muslims that military jihad and military action should only ever be for defensive purposes but verse in the Quran verse 9.29 implies an aggressive action - not defensive-"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, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Also Muslim tradition holds that Mohammad sent threatening letters to other rulers in the region to submit to Islam or "face the consequences".

Further more the early caliphates were expansionist and spread by the sword.

So I think groups like Isis base their ideas on genuine Muslim doctrine.

 

[Genesis]

Muslims launched offensive war in the past which they attacked Romans and Persians. But bro, do you know how many lands which attacked by Romans and Persians in their offensive?.

Yes, Muslims launched offensive war in the past, but Muslims were not the only people who attacked other lands. Offensive war were something common in the past, even it still happened in 20th century. German launched offensive which caused WW2. Japanese launched offensive which caused Pacific war. China invaded Tibet.

But now after the world realized about the importance of live peacefully and made a deal to not launch offensive to other countries, Muslims countries made the same deal too.

Hello Arddianto
I think you are avoiding the subject here. We are not talking about secular governments but Islam that holds itself to be a higher moral authority.

 

[Genesis]

I did prove your point, because you were right. But you still do not acknowledge the fact that these wars, even if they seem like they are for the offensive, are not for that purpose. They were not meant to spread Islam, they were meant to remove the inhibitions to the spread of Islam. I think that's a very key point here.

This doesn't remove the defense aspect either. You have to look at the Holy Qur'an first:

2:190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

22:39 To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
22:40 (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

These are the reasons for Jihad. Since it was weak when only the Arabs had Islam, they needed to overcome the two superpowers at that time. If those powers inhibited them from spreading Islam, then this religion could not have spread to most of the world. It would have only remained in Arabia.

So please, read between the lines when looking at these texts. The main source of guidance is in the Holy Qur'an. It does not allow purely offensive Jihad, it allows it only in the guise of defensive Jihad. Even if Jihad may seem like it is Muslims fighting on the offense, it never is. Also, you can only consider the example of the Jihad of the first 4 Khalifas, the Khulafa-e-Rashidin.

The key thing to keep in mind is, "do not transgress" in Jihad. fighting peace-loving people who do not want to create war would be wrong. It's different with two huge empires who might view you as a threat. And yes, the Byzantines and the Persians would have potentially invaded Arabia if Islam grew too powerful. This is the way of kings, they enter other countries and they ruin them, making the highest of them the lowest. This is guidance given in the Holy Qur'an as well:

27:34 She said: "Kings, when they enter a country, despoil it, and make the noblest of its people its meanest thus do they behave.

In fact, this whole story of Hazrat Sulaiman (as) is an example of why this type of Jihad occurred. Read it carefully and consider the facts. It is very similar to the situation of the Muslims when the Holy Prophet (saw) was alive. After all, the Qur'an pointed out many prophecies and many examples of things which the Muslims needed to do.

Hello Ahmad
You are admitting the reason for the aggression of the early Caliphates was to spread Islam! But you then go on to quote verses in the Quran about defence. Verse 9.29 is not defensive though. It is offensive - aggressive. You say the Byzantines and Persians may have potentially invaded the Muslim lands. But it was Mohammad that wrote them threatening letters in the first place. And we don't know if they would have invaded them or not because the Muslims invaded them. This is ISIS type behaviour.

 

[ardianto]

Ive often heard from Muslims that military jihad and military action should only ever be for defensive purposes but verse in the Quran verse 9.29 implies an aggressive action - not defensive-"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, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Also Muslim tradition holds that Mohammad sent threatening letters to other rulers in the region to submit to Islam or "face the consequences".

Further more the early caliphates were expansionist and spread by the sword.

So I think groups like Isis base their ideas on genuine Muslim doctrine.

There are "asbabun nuzul" (cause of revelation) behind Qur'an verses, which one verse refer to the specific event in that time.

And surah At-Taubah: 29 actually is refer to the war between Muslims and Rum (Byzantine) empire that happened in that time. It cannot be used as justification to always fight non-Muslim anytime, anywhere. Although unfortunately there are Muslims who use this verse as justification for their offensive jihad.

 

[Genesis]

There are "asbabun nuzul" (cause of revelation) behind Qur'an verses, which one verse refer to the specific event in that time.

And surah At-Taubah: 29 actually is refer to the war between Muslims and Rum (Byzantine) empire that happened in that time. It cannot be used as justification to always fight non-Muslim anytime, anywhere. Although unfortunately there are Muslims who use this verse as justification for their offensive jihad.

Im confused. I thought the Quran was absolute and perfect for all time and all people. But now you are saying these verses were only for that time and those people in those situations?

 

[Genesis]

There are "asbabun nuzul" (cause of revelation) behind Qur'an verses, which one verse refer to the specific event in that time.

And surah At-Taubah: 29 actually is refer to the war between Muslims and Rum (Byzantine) empire that happened in that time.

also wasn't this an example of the Muslim armies attacking the Byzantines? If so this would not have been a defensive action?

 

[Ahmad H]

Hello Ahmad
You are admitting the reason for the aggression of the early Caliphates was to spread Islam! But you then go on to quote verses in the Quran about defence. Verse 9.29 is not defensive though. It is offensive - aggressive. You say the Byzantines and Persians may have potentially invaded the Muslim lands. But it was Mohammad that wrote them threatening letters in the first place. And we don't know if they would have invaded them or not because the Muslims invaded them. This is ISIS type behaviour.

Greetings Genesis,

You misunderstood my statement. Yes, sometimes Muslims took the first strike against their enemies, which can be considered offensive. But, these are meant for defensive purposes against an enemy that is already ready to attack you at anytime. The expedition of Tabuk was against the Romans as well, which was due to an actual threat from them.

I quoted the verses above because they were given about the permission for Jihad to the Muslims. The permission was only for Muslims to retaliate to threats which posed as a danger to the existence of Muslims, not to be aggressive and attack upon peaceful co-existing people. Muslims are not allowed to transgress anyone either.

ISIS are aggressors who kill innocent people, they murder to send messages and they starve people and put them in misery. This is not what Islam teaches.

As for quoting verse 9:29, I suggest you read the Tafsirs. They offer an explanation on these verses.

As for the statements of the Holy Qur'an, some being for the time period they were revealed in, and others being lasting, this is meant to illustrate God's guidance in all times. Some verses refer only to the future, but this does not mean the Qur'an is not for our time. It varies on when and how verses apply. If a verse is only about the past then it does not mean that such a verse disproves the Qur'an's being a Book of guidance for all time. All verses are applicable in their own way.

 

[Genesis]

Greetings Genesis,

You misunderstood my statement. Yes, sometimes Muslims took the first strike against their enemies, which can be considered offensive. But, these are meant for defensive purposes against an enemy that is already ready to attack you at anytime. The expedition of Tabuk was against the Romans as well, which was due to an actual threat from them.

I quoted the verses above because they were given about the permission for Jihad to the Muslims. The permission was only for Muslims to retaliate to threats which posed as a danger to the existence of Muslims, not to be aggressive and attack upon peaceful co-existing people. Muslims are not allowed to transgress anyone either.

ISIS are aggressors who kill innocent people, they murder to send messages and they starve people and put them in misery. This is not what Islam teaches.

As for quoting verse 9:29, I suggest you read the Tafsirs. They offer an explanation on these verses.

As for the statements of the Holy Qur'an, some being for the time period they were revealed in, and others being lasting, this is meant to illustrate God's guidance in all times. Some verses refer only to the future, but this does not mean the Qur'an is not for our time. It varies on when and how verses apply. If a verse is only about the past then it does not mean that such a verse disproves the Qur'an's being a Book of guidance for all time. All verses are applicable in their own way.

This is quite abit of a move from the usual Islamic position that militant verses in the Quran are defensive. Now we have its ok to attack first - in case you are attacked. The definition of defence is starting to become unclear. And I think it is because of this lack of clarity that groups like Al Queda and ISIS exist.
In regards to the Quaran being for that time period - why the need for a tafsir or commentary. I think 9.29 is very straight forward. I still don't see how if the Quaran is the absolute universal message for all time then its verses could only be for a time and people in the past?

 

[OmAbdullah]

Jihad is only allowed for defensive purposes. Islam was never spread by the sword. When Muslims took up the sword, it was because they were being persecuted and because the disbelievers were a threat to the existence of Islam at the time. The command for Jihad by the sword was given after Muslim suffered for 13 years of Meccan oppression.

Let it be clear that Islam never allows anyone to use force to subjugate anyone else to the religion. Groups like Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc., are all wrong because they attack innocent people. They have no bearing on Islam and what they do is not Jihad, even though they claim it. They tarnish the name of Islam.

Muslims can only do Jihad when they are being threatened and killed because they are Muslims and for no other reason. The call for Jihad is given by the appointed Imam of the time. No person or group can collectively claim with a self-appointed leader that they can do Jihad. Only an Imam appointed directly by Allah can do so. They either have to be a Muhaddith, or a Khalifah. Anything else I say will simply be a digression, but this is the truth of the matter.

What do you mean by the statement in bold? What is the proof of this statement from the Holy Quraan and /or the Sunnah of the FINAL Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam)? The fact is that this statement has no basis in Islam and this statement (in bold above ) is a newly invented false statement.

 

[OmAbdullah]

Hey everyone. Can someone please clarify to me about Offensive Jihad? Is it true that Islam allows things like what Islamic State in Iraq is doing?

We cannot say anything about ISIS because we don't know what is actually happening there. This is because the media is not giving true news.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

We cannot say anything about ISIS because we don't know what is actually happening there. This is because the media is not giving true news.

True, there are alot of lies about IS already disproven. But that doesnt change the fact that they kill muslims without proof or any rulling which allows them to do so. IS doesn't prefer peace, because they are specifically following their agenda by conquering more territories. Which means more wars, and no treaties.

IS are tyrants though we've had worse in the past. The killing of American journalists is still barbaric and doesn't justify US crimes in iraq, and i know pretty well how iraqis are suffering and have suffered under US/rawafidh dominance.

 

[ardianto]

Im confused. I thought the Quran was absolute and perfect for all time and all people. But now you are saying these verses were only for that time and those people in those situations?

Law maybe changed if it's not relevant anymore with the current situation. But Qur'an and Hadith are sources of law, not the law itself. They become sources for Islamic Law (Sharia) and Islamic guidance of how to do (Fiqh). As sources of law, Quran and Hadith don't need to be changed because still and always relevant until the end of the world.

also wasn't this an example of the Muslim armies attacking the Byzantines? If so this would not have been a defensive action?

Conflict already happened when that verse revealed which both parties attacked each other.

 

[Ahmad H]

What do you mean by the statement in bold? What is the proof of this statement from the Holy Quraan and /or the Sunnah of the FINAL Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam)? The fact is that this statement has no basis in Islam and this statement (in bold above ) is a newly invented false statement.

How am I wrong? Did not the Imams in the past decide when Muslims should do Jihad? The Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) commanded the Muslims to fight, then it was Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra), then it was Hazrat Umar (ra), then it was Hazrat Uthman (ra), then it was Hazrat Ali (ra), etc. After them, if anyone were to do Jihad, do you think groups should form, or it would have to be the Khulafa who are heads of the Muslims states?

These were all Imams. Imam is a term designated for a "leader" in Islam. Just what is so wrong about Imams anyway? All of them were appointed by Allah. Read:

24:55 Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion - the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: 'They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. 'If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked.

Nothing I said in bold is besides the point in this verse of the Holy Qur'an.

 

[Ahmad H]

This is quite abit of a move from the usual Islamic position that militant verses in the Quran are defensive. Now we have its ok to attack first - in case you are attacked. The definition of defence is starting to become unclear. And I think it is because of this lack of clarity that groups like Al Queda and ISIS exist.

How are Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighting for self-defense for Islam? Either prove they claimed this or remove this thought altogether. You don't need to be an expert to see that they are just killing people randomly and target both Muslims and non-Muslims. This is not Jihad.

In regards to the Quaran being for that time period - why the need for a tafsir or commentary. I think 9.29 is very straight forward.

To show you just how flawed this logic is. Consider a random historical text from 1000 years ago. If there was one line about war in that book, and you read it and said it is very clear to you, despite the comments of a historian explaining the true intent behind the line in that book, then you would disregard that expert opinion and say you know just as well as the historian? It is intellectual dishonesty.

I hope this example made it clear that you have to read a commentary about a text which is from the other wide of the world, in a different time and in a very different era of geopolitical affairs. You DEFINITELY need a commentary on such a text.

I still don't see how if the Quaran is the absolute universal message for all time then its verses could only be for a time and people in the past?

Only some verses are about the past. Even then, those verses are meant to demonstrate lessons for the people of the future. They are examples and lessons meant to teach the religion. So even if these verses are not regarding the future state of the world, and merely describe the past, they are not meaningless to the universal message of Islam.

The verses about Jihad, for example, are meant to demonstrate what occurred in the battles of the Muslims of the past, so that Muslims learn from what happened in that time. The Qur'an is a book which is meant to be reflected on often through recitation. Jihad is a command which requires conditions for it to occur. So it is always possible that in the future Muslims would be required to do it.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

While crimes of IS are all over the news, this news often passes the media and crimes like this have directly given rise to IS among iraqi sunnis, the ethnic cleansing of sunnis in iraq has been happening since 2003 with US approval.

I have never anyone seen talking about this, another persecution of muslims never heard of by many.

 

[syed_z]

Asalaam O Alaikum to all...would like to share a few points on the offensive Jihad topic here....this is what I have come to learn from various Islamic sources especially Muhammad Asad's Message of the Quran, a contemporary commentary of the Quran...

This is quite abit of a move from the usual Islamic position that militant verses in the Quran are defensive. Now we have its ok to attack first - in case you are attacked. The definition of defence is starting to become unclear. And I think it is because of this lack of clarity that groups like Al Queda and ISIS exist.
In regards to the Quaran being for that time period - why the need for a tafsir or commentary. I think 9.29 is very straight forward. I still don't see how if the Quaran is the absolute universal message for all time then its verses could only be for a time and people in the past?

@ Genesis,

We cannot approach the Quran with haste as the Quran itself says in Chapter 20 Verse 114:

"(Know), then, (that) God is sublimely Exalted, the Ultimate Sovereign, the Ultimate Truth: and (knowing this,) do not approach the Quran in haste, before it has been revealed unto you in full...."

Since Quran is the word of God therefore all its Verses form one integral whole, hence one who is really intent to understand Quran should be aware of hasty approach by taking Verses, like Surah Taubah 9:29 and studying them in isolation.


The Verse of Surah Taubah 9:29 deals with the subject of Jihad (armed struggle) which is part of other Verses in the Quran on the same subject. Therefore this Verse should be understood in the light of all other Verses on Jihad.


The following is the earliest Quranic reference which gave Muslims to fight physically in Self-Defence, it was revealed right after Prophet (saw) migrated from Makkah to Madinah, the Makkans were going to wage war against Muslims:

(22:39) PERMISSION (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being waged - and, verily, God has indeed the power to help them (40) those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, "Our Sustainer is God!" For if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, (all) monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques - in (all of) which God's name is abundantly extolled - would surely have been destroyed.

So if ISIS attacks Christians in Arabia to kill them, or Zionist Judeo Christian alliance wages a war against Orthodox Russian Christians in Ukraine or against Muslims of Palestine and Afghanistan then the oppressed have the right to fight back.

The following Verses of Al Baqarah (2:190-194) elaborating the Principle of War in Self Defence were revealed a year after:

AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression - for verily, God does not love aggressors....

This and the following Verses lay down unequivocally the that only Self Defense (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. The defensive character of a fight in God's cause is moreover self evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you." and has been still further clarified in 22:39 "Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged."

These earliest fundamental principles of self defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quran is evident from the following Verses 60:08:

As for such (of the unbelievers) as do not fight against you on account of (your) faith and neither drive you out of your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for verily God loves those who act equitably.

Based on the Verse 60:08 nullifies the interpretation of Jihad being waged by ISIS.....they would surely be answerable on the Day of Judgment for what they are doing.

And based on this Verse it clearly and explicitly indicates to the Muslims that they are not supposed to wage offensive Jihad that is give three ultimatum to the entire Non Muslim World:
1. Submit
2. Pay Jizyah
3. Or the Sword

The Khulafa Rashidun fought wars based on this principle of Self Defense, they acted before the Persians and the Byzantines were gearing up to eliminate them, for this all I can tell you is to read History of the Caliphs to understand.

@ My Muslim Brothers here the Quran clearly forbids Use of Force or compulsion for the propagation of Islam - "Let him who will believe and let him who will disbelieve." (Quran 2:256, 18:29). The Sahaba knew the Quran better than us, they never waged offensive wars because they knew that converting Non Muslims through fight is against the Spirit of Islam. It was only to repel aggression as a result of which the Persians and the Byzantine empires fell.

 

[Genesis]

Law maybe changed if it's not relevant anymore with the current situation. But Qur'an and Hadith are sources of law, not the law itself. They become sources for Islamic Law (Sharia) and Islamic guidance of how to do (Fiqh). As sources of law, Quran and Hadith don't need to be changed because still and always relevant until the end of the world.


Conflict already happened when that verse revealed which both parties attacked each other.

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.

 

[Genesis]

How are Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighting for self-defense for Islam? Either prove they claimed this or remove this thought altogether. You don't need to be an expert to see that they are just killing people randomly and target both Muslims and non-Muslims. This is not Jihad.



To show you just how flawed this logic is. Consider a random historical text from 1000 years ago. If there was one line about war in that book, and you read it and said it is very clear to you, despite the comments of a historian explaining the true intent behind the line in that book, then you would disregard that expert opinion and say you know just as well as the historian? It is intellectual dishonesty.

I hope this example made it clear that you have to read a commentary about a text which is from the other wide of the world, in a different time and in a very different era of geopolitical affairs. You DEFINITELY need a commentary on such a text.



Only some verses are about the past. Even then, those verses are meant to demonstrate lessons for the people of the future. They are examples and lessons meant to teach the religion. So even if these verses are not regarding the future state of the world, and merely describe the past, they are not meaningless to the universal message of Islam.

The verses about Jihad, for example, are meant to demonstrate what occurred in the battles of the Muslims of the past, so that Muslims learn from what happened in that time. The Qur'an is a book which is meant to be reflected on often through recitation. Jihad is a command which requires conditions for it to occur. So it is always possible that in the future Muslims would be required to do it.

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.

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.

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.