Proof that Jihad means fighting for Islam, and therefore "holy war".

[stevecanuck]

Jafar made the following statements:

- We have no concept .... of "Holy" war in Islam.
- The idea that Jihad means holy war is an orientalist's dream

He actually contradicted himself in the same post when he admitted: "We have Lesser Jihad which is an armed conflict".What is "armed conflict" in the context of fighting for Islam if not holy war? But, we don't need Jafar's self contradictory ramblings to prove that jihad means holy war, because we have sura 9 to do that in no uncertain terms. It contains the following verses in which conjugations of 'jihad' are clearly used interchangeably with those of 'qatl' (kill/fight), and all in the context of fighting for allah and Islam:

9:12 - But if, after coming to terms with you, they break their oaths and revile your belief, fight (qatl) the leaders of the disbelief - for they have no oaths - in order that they will desist.
9:13 - Will you not fight (qatl) against those who have broken their oaths and conspired to expel the Messenger?
9:14 - Fight (qatl) them, Allah will punish them with your hands and degrade them. He will grant you victory over them and heal the chests of a believing nation.
9:16 - Did you suppose that you would be left before Allah has known those of you who fought (jihad) and did not take a confidant other than Allah, His Messenger, and the believers? Allah is Aware of what you do.
9:19 - Do you consider giving drink to the pilgrims and inhabiting the Sacred Mosque is the same as one who believes in Allah and the Last Day, and struggles (jihad) in the Way of Allah? These are not held equal by Allah. Allah does not guide the harmdoers. (In this case 'jihad' is interpreted in most translations as 'struggle' or 'strive', but is still used in the context of fighting. Here, God (actually Mohamed pretending to receive revelations) is telling the faithful that simply cheering and praying will not please him as much as fighting).
9:20 - Those who believe, and migrated, and struggle (jihad) in the Way of Allah with their wealth and their persons are greater in rank with Allah. It is they who are the winners (continuation of 9:19).
9:24 - Say: 'If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your tribes, the property you have acquired, the merchandise you fear will not be sold, and the homes you love, are dearer to you than Allah, His Messenger and the struggling (jihad) for His Way, then wait until Allah shall bring His command. Allah does not guide the evildoers.'
9:25- Allah has helped you on many a battlefield. In the Battle of Hunain, when your numbers were pleasing you they availed you nothing; the earth, for all its vastness, seemed to close in upon you and you turned your backs and fled. (I've included this to prove that warfare is the topic at hand, lest Jafar try to tell us Mohamed was organizing a bake sale.)
9:25 - Fight (qatl) those who neither believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not embrace the religion of the truth, being among those who have been given the Book (Bible and the Torah), until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humiliated.
9:39 - If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and replace you by another nation. You will in no way harm Him; for Allah has power over all things. (This shows Allah/Mohamed is still cajoling and threatening the faithful to lay down their lives for him.)
9:41 - Whether lightly or heavily, march on and fight (jihad) for the Way of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. This will be best for you, if you but knew.
9:44 - Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day will not ask your permission so that they may struggle (jihad) with their wealth and their selves. Allah knows best the righteous.


Notice that 'qatl' is the root word for the first three verses above, but gives way to 'jihad' in the next four, reverts to 'qatl' in the infamous 9:29, then goes back to 'jihad' by 9:41, proving that the two are used interchangeably.

[stevecanuck]

Then there are the (at least) 17 verses that describe "fighting in the way of Allah". How can anyone pretend to claim that this does not refer to holy war?

(verse numbers - 2:190, 2:218, 2:244, 3:13, 3:157, 3:167, 4:74, 4:75, 4:76, 4:84, 4:95, 9:19, 9:20, 9:81, 9:111, 47:4, 73:20)

[jimnyc]

Abbas calls for "war for Allah,"
and the West Bank erupts in violence
Intifada-style violence follows Abbas' call
for religious "war for Allah,"
causing 9 Palestinians' deaths Senior Fatah official Tirawi:



"The big explosion is coming...
No one will say that weapons are forbidden
in the West Bank"

Palestinian Media Watch (http://www.palwatch.org) reported on Thursday that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas had publicly declared the current conflict with Israel a religious "war for Allah (http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=12170)." On Friday, the independent Palestinian news service Ma'an printed an opinion piece that likewise interpreted the last lines of Abbas' speech as a call to West Bank Palestinians to initiate violence:
"He gave the sign to let the [Palestinian] street in the West Bank loose. Isn't the Quranic verse he quoted during his last speech, 'Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory' [Surah 22:39, trans. Sahih International] a clear sign to loosen the reins of the street?"

[Op-ed by Muhannad Ubeid, Ma'an (independent Palestinian news agency),
July 25, 2014

[jafar00]

You prove nothing stevecanuk. Firstly, the verses you quoted have significant historical context and second, to do anything "in the way of Allah" means that you do it within the confines of the law and the limits, Allah sent down to us.

What are some of the limits?

take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law (6:151)

And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you, but do not commit aggression because Allah does not like aggressors. (2:190)

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (8:61)

And from Hadiths there are 10 Islamic rules of warfare which are limits to be observed.

1. “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)
2. “Do not practice treachery or mutilation.(Al-Muwatta)
3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.(Al-Muwatta)
4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)
5. “If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)
6. “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
7. “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)
8. “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)
9. “No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud).
10. “Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
- See more at: http://1000gooddeeds.com/2012/11/20/10-islamic-rules-of-war/#sthash.4a71xKoI.dpuf

There is still no concept of "Holy War", let alone that Jihad=Holy War in your posts.

[aboutime]

You prove nothing stevecanuk. Firstly, the verses you quoted have significant historical context and second, to do anything "in the way of Allah" means that you do it within the confines of the law and the limits, Allah sent down to us.

What are some of the limits?

take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law (6:151)

And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you, but do not commit aggression because Allah does not like aggressors. (2:190)

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (8:61)

And from Hadiths there are 10 Islamic rules of warfare which are limits to be observed.

1. “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)
2. “Do not practice treachery or mutilation.(Al-Muwatta)
3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.(Al-Muwatta)
4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)
5. “If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)
6. “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
7. “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)
8. “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)
9. “No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud).
10. “Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
- See more at: http://1000gooddeeds.com/2012/11/20/10-islamic-rules-of-war/#sthash.4a71xKoI.dpuf

There is still no concept of "Holy War", let alone that Jihad=Holy War in your posts.


jafar. IF YOU obey all of those 10., without question.
That tells us...according to your own list.
HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH, and supporters like you...IGNORE those laws, and blame others to find forgiveness.

[jafar00]

Abbas calls for "war for Allah,"

and the West Bank erupts in violence

Intifada-style violence follows Abbas' call

for religious "war for Allah,"

causing 9 Palestinians' deaths

Senior Fatah official Tirawi:



"The big explosion is coming...

No one will say that weapons are forbidden

in the West Bank"



Palestinian Media Watch (http://www.palwatch.org)reported on Thursday that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas had publicly declared the current conflict with Israel a religious "war for Allah (http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=12170)." On Friday, the independent Palestinian news service Ma'an printed an opinion piece that likewise interpreted the last lines of Abbas' speech as a call to West Bank Palestinians to initiate violence:
"He gave the sign to let the [Palestinian] street in the West Bank loose. Isn't the Quranic verse he quoted during his last speech, 'Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory' [Surah 22:39, trans. Sahih International] a clear sign to loosen the reins of the street?"

[Op-ed by Muhannad Ubeid, Ma'an (independent Palestinian news agency),
July 25, 2014









Do the Palestinians not have the right to defend themselves from oppression?

[Daniyel]

Jihad means to fight for the righteousness of Allah in every way, the sad is the justification people give it to produce violence instead of insisting to negotiate or compromise at all cost in order to prove the peace and charity Muslims usually talk about in the Islam.

[stevecanuck]

You prove nothing stevecanuk. Firstly, the verses you quoted have significant historical context and second, to do anything "in the way of Allah" means that you do it within the confines of the law and the limits, Allah sent down to us.

What are some of the limits?

take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law (6:151)

And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you, but do not commit aggression because Allah does not like aggressors. (2:190)

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (8:61)

And from Hadiths there are 10 Islamic rules of warfare which are limits to be observed.

1. “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)
2. “Do not practice treachery or mutilation.(Al-Muwatta)
3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.(Al-Muwatta)
4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)
5. “If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)
6. “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
7. “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)
8. “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)
9. “No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud).
10. “Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
- See more at: http://1000gooddeeds.com/2012/11/20/10-islamic-rules-of-war/#sthash.4a71xKoI.dpuf

There is still no concept of "Holy War", let alone that Jihad=Holy War in your posts.


Denial is all you have. All I can say in response would be to repeat my OP and let the reader decide for himself.

[Drummond]

Do the Palestinians not have the right to defend themselves from oppression?Jafar, on the point of your disagreement with Stevecanuk .. are you sure this isn't a repeat of the 'abrogation' issue ? Where you cite certain verses, designed to leave one impression .. BUT .. ignoring superseding verses, verses that cancel out the earlier ones ?

And on the point of 'Palestinians having the right to defend themselves' .. this is simply disingenuous. This current conflict began because three Israeli kids were kidnapped, then murdered. Tell me, do Israelis have the right to deter murderous scum from trying it again ??

Besides .. (a) Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction, and (b) terrorism - AND HAMAS ARE RECOGNISED AS BEING TERRORISTS - is NOT, repeat NOT, about 'defence !!! Precisely the opposite.

I say this AGAIN to you, Jafar. Were Hamas to renounce violence and verifiably disarm, then both sides could live in a lasting peace. So, as a 'man of peace' yourself (.. so you tell us ..) ... why won't you agree that they SHOULD disarm ??

I mean, it's not (.. so you tell us ..) as though you, ahem ..... 'support terrorists' :rolleyes::rolleyes: .. eh, Jafar ?:rolleyes:

'amnesia' mode, in consideration of your recent pro-Hamas posting, but of course ...]

[jimnyc]

Do the Palestinians not have the right to defend themselves from oppression?

The above is yet another example of a "holy war" - your beloved palestinians are fighting for allah. How quickly they responded to such a call is hilarious!

[aboutime]

Do the Palestinians not have the right to defend themselves from oppression?


They SURE DO jafar. So, when will they (palestinians) begin to defend themselves from HAMAS?

Of course. YOU don't see Hamas as oppression since you support the Human Shield Program.

[stevecanuck]

You prove nothing stevecanuk. Firstly, the verses you quoted have significant historical context

Yes, Jafar. ALL verses in the qur'an have historical context. We all know that, and just saying so doesn't mean a thing unless you provide said context and argue why that doesn't support my position.



and second, to do anything "in the way of Allah" means that you do it within the confines of the law and the limits, Allah sent down to us.

What are some of the limits?

take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law (6:151)

Correct, but you're really just making my point for me. The rules as set down by your god are clearly explained in 9:29 (and at least 16 others, some of which use the root word 'jihad'). It says to fight the infidels, which covers the stipulation not to take life "except by way of justice and law".


And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you, but do not commit aggression because Allah does not like aggressors.
(2:190)

Remember that lesson you gave us about how the ban on drinking alcohol was introduced gradually? Well, it's the same with the command to wage offensive warfare. Sura 9 was the last one Mohamed created (except for sura 110, which is only 3 lines predicting the eventual victory and spreading of Islam). It came AFTER your quote and therefore BY YOUR OWN LOGIC abrogates it.



But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace
, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
(8:61)

And from Hadiths there are 10 Islamic rules of warfare which are limits to be observed.

1. “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)
2. “Do not practice treachery or mutilation.(Al-Muwatta)
3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.(Al-Muwatta)
4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)
5. “If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)
6. “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
7. “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)
8. “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)
9. “No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud).
10. “Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
- See more at: http://1000gooddeeds.com/2012/11/20/10-islamic-rules-of-war/#sthash.4a71xKoI.dpuf

In previous threads where I showed hadiths to prove my point, you said I had to provide 2 others saying the same thing, because single hadiths were considered not to be reliable enough. I see that rule only applies to me.
Btw, on both occasions when that happened, I provided you 2 more hadiths and you abandoned the threads immediately. You're not just a liar, but a coward and disingenuous to the nth degree.


There is still no concept of "Holy War", let alone that Jihad=Holy War in your posts.

Let's examine the facts.
- YOU admit that lesser jihad means physical conflict.
- Both forms of jihad are done in the name of Allah.
- Therefore it is inescapable that phsical conflict (war), done in the name of Allah (there's the 'holy' element), means holy war.

Since Jafar's credibility is non-existent, he will have no problem with inventing another "Is not!!!" reply.

[aboutime]

Yes, Jafar. ALL verses in the qur'an have historical context. We all know that, and just saying so doesn't mean a thing unless you provide said context and argue why that doesn't support my position.




Correct, but you're really just making my point for me. The rules as set down by your god are clearly explained in 9:29 (and at least 16 others, some of which use the root word 'jihad'). It says to fight the infidels, which covers the stipulation not to take life "except by way of justice and law".



Remember that lesson you gave us about how the ban on drinking alcohol was introduced gradually? Well, it's the same with the command to wage offensive warfare. Sura 9 was the last one Mohamed created (except for sura 110, which is only 3 lines predicting the eventual victory and spreading of Islam). It came AFTER your quote and therefore BY YOUR OWN LOGIC abrogates it.




In previous threads where I showed hadiths to prove my point, you said I had to provide 2 others saying the same thing, because single hadiths were considered not to be reliable enough. I see that rule only applies to me.
Btw, on both occasions when that happened, I provided you 2 more hadiths and you abandoned the threads immediately. You're not just a liar, but a coward and disingenuous to the nth degree.



Let's examine the facts.
- YOU admit that lesser jihad means physical conflict.
- Both forms of jihad are done in the name of Allah.
- Therefore it is inescapable that phsical conflict (war), done in the name of Allah (there's the 'holy' element), means holy war.

Since Jafar's credibility is non-existent, he will have no problem with inventing another "Is not!!!" reply.



Steve. AIN'T IT GREAT WHEN jafar GOES INTO HIS DEFENSIVE MODE, BACKED WITH ANGER, AND HATE. Only to prove to all of us. How absolutely, positively, unquestionably jafar's words make him look even DUMBER THAN A BOX OF ROCKS?
We should be asking jafar to post MORE, instead of LESS.
His propaganda is so worn-out. Not even he is smart enough to get the hints from all of us.

Go for it jafar. You're better than the Comedy channel being broadcast from the OVAL OFFICE.

[tailfins]

Do the Palestinians not have the right to defend themselves from oppression?

There's no such thing as "Palestinians"

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/palestinian_truth.htm


The Arab countries did not send troops to help the people that are today known as "Palestinians" but rather they sent troops to drive the Jews into the sea. Most of the "Palestinian Arabs" fled to avoid the fighting. Remember, in 1948 they were not referred to as "Palestinians". This name was was created by the Soviet disinformation masters in 1964 when they created the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) (http://www.think-israel.org/brand.russiatheenemy.html). The term "Palestinian People" as a description of Arabs in Palestine appeared for the first time in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter (http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12363), drafted in Moscow. The Charter was affirmed by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, handpicked by the KGB. This term was formally used by newspapers around the world after 1967.

[jafar00]

The above is yet another example of a "holy war" - your beloved palestinians are fighting for allah. How quickly they responded to such a call is hilarious!

Jihad means "Struggle". There are many ways to struggle. Fighting for your life is one way and that's what the Palestinians have been trying to do for generations.


Yes, Jafar. ALL verses in the qur'an have historical context. We all know that, and just saying so doesn't mean a thing unless you provide said context and argue why that doesn't support my position.

I assume you are aware of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah? Go back and study what happened then and after it was dissolved and you will understand the historical context of the surah.


Correct, but you're really just making my point for me. The rules as set down by your god are clearly explained in 9:29 (and at least 16 others, some of which use the root word 'jihad'). It says to fight the infidels, which covers the stipulation not to take life "except by way of justice and law".

You are just reading it at face value and assuming that it means something that it doesn't.

Here's a good article that explains it better than I can.


9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Some people have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings. Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes:
These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)
Likewise, the following fatwa points out that Muslims cannot attack a peaceful non-Muslim country:
Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?
Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court
If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.
The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.
The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet’s lifetime.
May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
The above fatwa refers to the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against other nations. The Prophet Muhammad did not initiate agression against anyone, rather he and his followers were under attack from all who sought to crush the new Islamic state. The first hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when the Prophet Muhammad’s messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut’ah, was a defeat for the Muslims. Only after this did subsequent battles between the Muslims and the Roman Empire occur, and the Muslims emerged victorious. Likewise, as mentioned in the above fatwa, hostiltiies between the Muslims and the Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his governor in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, although his efforts were thwarted when the latter accepted Islam. Other non-muslim groups, such as those in Madinah, also initiated hostilities against the Muslims despite peace treaties as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:
As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed…[and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80)
In light of the historical context of this verse, it becomes very clear that the verse was revealed in connection with agression initiated against Muslims. As Dr. Jamal Badawi very accurately concludes with regard to verse 9:29 and similar verses:
All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, or by some Christians. (SOURCE)
Therefore, the command to fight in verse 9:29 relates to those non-muslims who commit agression and not those who are committed to live in peace. The verse is subject to certain conditions that were apparent when it was implemented in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:
What we have stated makes it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3. deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases, fighting becomes a necessity of the religion and one of its sacred ordainments. It is then called, ‘Jihad’. (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 81)
The verse then proceeds to mention some issues relating to the Islamic state, and governing non-muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Dr. Maher Hathout comments on the regulations in verse 9:29:
Freedom of religion is an essential aspect in an Islamic state. One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving). The People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are not obliged to pay the Islamic zakat that is spent by the state for social necessities and state affairs as defined in the Quran (see 9:60). But they must pay other taxes to share in the state budget. If they refuse to pay this tax to the state and rebel against the state, then it is the obligation of the state to confront them until they pay it. This is what Caliph Abu Bakr did after the death of the Prophet, when some people refused to pay zakat. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.53)
The verse mentions Jizya, which is unfortunately misunderstood by some people. Like any nation, the Islamic government requires its citizens to pay taxes in return for its services. Since Muslims pay the Zakat, the non-muslim citizens are required to pay Jizya (for more information on Jizya, please refer to Jizya in Islam and Jizyah and non-muslim minorities). Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar writes concerning the Jizya tax:
The sum of jizya was never large to the extent that the men were unable to pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the Umayyad rule. (SOURCE)
Shaykh Abu’l-Hasan Al-Mawardi (d. 1058CE) explicitly points out that the Jizya should be exacted in accordance with the means of the people, and the Imam should judge the conclude the amount to the satisfaction of the leaders of those being taxed:
The fuqaha (Jurists) differ as to the amount of the Jizya. Abu Hanifa considers that those subject to this tax are of three kinds: the rich from whom forty-eight dirhams are taken; those of average means from whom twenty four are taken, and the poor from whom twelve dirhams are taken: he thus stipulated the minimum and maximum amounts and prohibits any further judgement on behalf of those responsible for its collection. Malik, however, does not fix its minimum and maximum amount and considers that those responsible should make their own judgement as to the minimum and maximum. Ash-Shafi’i considers that the minimum is a dinar, and that it is not permitted to go below this while he does not stipulate the maximum, the latter being dependant on the ijtihad (judgement) of those responsible: the Imam, however, should try to harmonise between the different amounts, or to exact an amount in accordance with people’s means. If he has used his judgement to conclude the contract od jizyah to the satisfaction of the leaders of the people being taxed, then it becomes binding on all of them and their descendants, generation after generation, and a leader may not afterwards change this amunt, be it to decrease it or increase it. (Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. 1996, pp. 209-210)
Hence, the laws of Islam forbid Muslims from opressing non-muslims and command them to treat others with justice and compassion. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself forbade Muslims from harming non-muslim citizens of an islamic state or any non-muslim with whom there was an agreement of peace, as he said,
“The one who wrongs a covenanter or impairs his right or overworks him or forcibly takes something from him, I will be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment. (Sunan Abi Dawud 170/3 no. 3052, Sunan an-Nasa’i 25/8 no. 2749, and verified by Al-Albani no. 2626).
In conclusion, verse 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against only those who initiate agression as illustated by its historical context. Muslims may only fight under strict conditions, and are commanded to live peacefully with peaceful non-muslim neighbors.

————————————————————————————————————————
Similar Narration
Bukhari: God’s Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, None has the right to be worshipped but God. (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196)
With regards to the narration, only part of it has been quoted, and the full text reads:
And the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay zakat, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah.
This narration lists some of the pillars of Islam that Muslims must adhere to. The fighting being ordained here refers to the enforcement of laws and regulations within an Islamic state. Just as modern governments enforce their legal policies, so to does the Islamic state. These legal policies refer to Muslims paying their Zakat (charity tax) and abiding by the laws in an Islamic state. Those who understood the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the best, were his companions, and we can examine their application of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to derive a better understanding. We find that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), many hypocrites who had pretended to be Muslim began to turn away and leave their religious duties, one example was Zakat (the charity tax). They wanted to compromise the commands of God. It was then that Abu Bakr, the First Caliph and the Caliph of that time, cited this narration to make it clear that a compromise would not be tolerated and he would fight them until they agreed to follow Islam in full. The fighting that resulted was known as the Riddah wars. Similarly, we can see that today’s governments would not tolerate it if a citizen refused to pay tax or abide by the laws of the country. If one lives in a state or country they must abide by the regulations to ensure a secure and healthy society. We should note that the ‘people’ referred to in this narration does not refer to all of humanity. As Shaykh Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah says:
“It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” (Majmu` al-Fatawa 19/20)
Clearly, this narration does not refer to imposing Islam upon non-Muslims, since the Qur’an explicitly states:
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion…
Also, we have already dealt with the claims that this verse was abrogated under our discussion of verse 9:5. Once understood in their correct context, these verses and narrations become clear.

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_929_commentary/


Remember that lesson you gave us about how the ban on drinking alcohol was introduced gradually? Well, it's the same with the command to wage offensive warfare. Sura 9 was the last one Mohamed created (except for sura 110, which is only 3 lines predicting the eventual victory and spreading of Islam). It came AFTER your quote and therefore BY YOUR OWN LOGIC abrogates it.

2:190 is not aborgated at all. In fact, other verses strengthen it like 8:61 (context: Battle of Badr) and 60:8.


In previous threads where I showed hadiths to prove my point, you said I had to provide 2 others saying the same thing, because single hadiths were considered not to be reliable enough. I see that rule only applies to me.
Btw, on both occasions when that happened, I provided you 2 more hadiths and you abandoned the threads immediately. You're not just a liar, but a coward and disingenuous to the nth degree.

As I have said before, you can't read translations at face value without studying further to get context. Hadith studies take many years and we are warned in the Mosque not to try and interpret them ourselves but to ask those with knowledge to help us to understand them because taken out of context, you can often arrive at a completely different conclusion to the reality. Some Hadiths are listed as unreliable, or complete fabrications, yet are included in Hadith collections such as Bukhari in order for students of Hadith to identify them. Weak Hadiths are those with singular chains of narration or no other accounts to back them up or those that appear to contradict the Qur'aan, or are quoted by well known liars.

If you are taking your knowledge about Islam from hate sites, you are going to be fooled by those making the same mistake of not understanding what they are reading, nor have any idea about the context or any other text that may support or debunk it.


Let's examine the facts.
- YOU admit that lesser jihad means physical conflict.
- Both forms of jihad are done in the name of Allah.
- Therefore it is inescapable that phsical conflict (war), done in the name of Allah (there's the 'holy' element), means holy war.

Since Jafar's credibility is non-existent, he will have no problem with inventing another "Is not!!!" reply.

We don't struggle in the name of Allah, but "in the way" of Allah (Fii Sabeelillah) and the "way" is within the limits set down such as the list of rules of warfare I gave before. There is no such thing as "holy" war in Islam. You could say "Al Harb al Maqadissah" which is "Holy War" in Arabic. This phrase does not appear in any of our texts. Not in Hadiths, not in the Qur'aan and never referred to by the Prophet (saw), his companions, or any of the rightly guided Caliphs that came after for centuries so I don't understand your insistence in pushing this holy war idea onto us.

[jimnyc]

Jihad means "Struggle". There are many ways to struggle. Fighting for your life is one way and that's what the Palestinians have been trying to do for generations.

"war for allah"

They came out and started their fighting - in the name of allah.

[stevecanuck]

We don't struggle in the name of Allah, but "in the way" of Allah (Fii Sabeelillah) and the "way" is within the limits set down such as the list of rules of warfare I gave before. There is no such thing as "holy" war in Islam. You could say "Al Harb al Maqadissah" which is "Holy War" in Arabic. This phrase does not appear in any of our texts. Not in Hadiths, not in the Qur'aan and never referred to by the Prophet (saw), his companions, or any of the rightly guided Caliphs that came after for centuries so I don't understand your insistence in pushing this holy war idea onto us.


The master of sophistry strikes again.


There are 113 bismallahs in the Qur'an. Everything in your little book of hate is prefaced by the phrase "In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate". Therefore, Jafar, every single command it in, including "fight in the way of God", is done "In the name of God".



As for the phrase "holy war" not occurring in either the Qur'an or hadiths, that's because "holy war" is an English language phrase. More sophistry. What a surprise. Your attempts at spinning are pathetic.

[aboutime]

The master of sophistry strikes again.


There are 113 bismallahs in the Qur'an. Everything in your little book of hate is prefaced by the phrase "In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate". Therefore, Jafar, every single command it in, including "fight in the way of God", is done "In the name of God".



As for the phrase "holy war" not occurring in either the Qur'an or hadiths, that's because "holy war" is an English language phrase. More sophistry. What a surprise. Your attempts at spinning are pathetic.


steve. I'm waiting for jafar to come here to advertise his upcoming, latest novel called

"A Thousand, and One Excuses to convince yourself you are an Idiot"

With a dedication from Hamas, and the voice of the late ARAFAT ghost of stupidity.

It will only be 3 pages long. The last page is the instruction manual, and a red button for
SELF DESTRUCTION before becoming a MARTYR by explosive vests.

[jafar00]

The master of sophistry strikes again.


There are 113 bismallahs in the Qur'an. Everything in your little book of hate is prefaced by the phrase "In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate". Therefore, Jafar, every single command it in, including "fight in the way of God", is done "In the name of God".



As for the phrase "holy war" not occurring in either the Qur'an or hadiths, that's because "holy war" is an English language phrase. More sophistry. What a surprise. Your attempts at spinning are pathetic.

Your own sophistry is to suggest that we even have a concept of what a holy war actually is. Care to elaborate?

[aboutime]

Your own sophistry is to suggest that we even have a concept of what a holy war actually is. Care to elaborate?


No need to elaborate your Propaganda techniques for you jafar. They can be called whatever you want them to be. Pretending you have no concept of a holy war only proves...you have something to hide, and make excuses for whenever you are confronted with TRUTH.

[stevecanuck]

Your own sophistry is to suggest that we even have a concept of what a holy war actually is. Care to elaborate?

You completely ignored my point.

[Drummond]

Your own sophistry is to suggest that we even have a concept of what a holy war actually is. Care to elaborate?

...A joke, surely ??:rolleyes:

Read your beloved Hamas's own Charter !!!!!!! Then come back to us and deny that they have any concept of a holy war !!!

They excuse their terrorism, in part at least, by asserting that it is done in the service of Islam ! And I assure you (.. SURELY you have to know this ?) that JIHAD figures strongly in its contents. Within the context of trying to defend terrorism, and encourage it in others.

You know, Jafar .. your propaganda might be a lot more credible if it, at the very least, had a nodding acquaintance with TRUTH !!!

Besides, YOU, A MUSLIM, have shown yourself to be a staunch supporter of Hamas when events test you. If you have no concept of a 'holy war', then you'd not see eye-to-eye with everything Hamas is doing.

Jafar, you're a waste of space. You continue with your propagandist fictions long after you've been discredited as any sort of 'peaceful' Muslim !! Because if you WERE at all 'peaceful', you would've turned against Hamas's savageries some time ago. And you wouldn't be intent upon stoking up enmity against Israel all the time, whilst remaining mute on the the subject of Hamas's violence.

Why won't you commit yourself to agree that Hamas should renounce violence, and verifiably disarm, if you're so 'dedicated' to peace 'as a good Muslim' .. ??? Because if Hamas did that, this would be a guaranteed solution to all the bloodshed.

[aboutime]

hey jafar. How's it feel to be proven wrong so many times?

Also. Please tell us when you plan to post the same Propaganda crap you have used many times before. It will allow all of us to just ignore what we have heard, and described as your repeated lies in defense of Hamas.

Otherwise. You might want to search the Internet for a HAMAS FRIENDLY site where other idiots like you haven't remembered their lies as much as you.

[stevecanuck]

Just to rub Jafar's nose in it a little more, let's think about the logic of obeying commands in the qur'an in terms whether one does so "in the name of allah" or not.

The qur'an exists for the sole purpose of telling muslims how to act and think in order to be in compliance with the wishes of allah. Not even Jafar could deny that. As I said before, each sura (except sura 9, which is considered to be a continuation of sura 8 despite being written about 7 years later) is prefaced by the bismallah (In the name of god.....). Get that Jafar? Every single command in the qur'an is given in terms of being "In the name of god", and that includes fighting. The linearity of that logic is indisputable.