Ayahs that Seem Conflicting

format_quote Originally Posted by `Abd al-Azeez

Brother lets make this perfectly clear :

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is my Question Brother...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jazakulah khairan, once again u have answered my questions perfectly

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

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

Threads merged.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Where could I find that book?

Where Can I find that book?

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah

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

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

But Where could I find that book?

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

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

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

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

Also, I saw in another thread:

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

What is meant by that?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah

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

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

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

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

JazakAllah khayr for your cooperation

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

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

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

JazakAllah khayr for your cooperation


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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salaam,

You know what? You're right.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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