Surah “Tawbah”- What does it really Say?

Introduction

Why Tawbah?

I choose Surah Tawbah to write about because it is, in a sense, the Qur’an’s “outward looking” chapter, dictating the foreign relations policy of the Islamic state. There is reason to believe that it is the last ever “revealed” chapter of the Qur’an. This would mean it arrived at a time when the Muslims are feeling confident enough to pose a military threat, at least locally.

The chapter sets out in incredible fashion, with a series of rather disjointed calls to aggression that give the impression of being reactionary, intended to serve immediate challenges. There is no let-down in the rest of the chapter either, with the issues still related to religious conflict in one way or another, as we shall see. There is little of religious import in Tawbah, which thus stands as a sort of mini-foreign policy nested within the Qur’an.

Whether all the belligerence is softened by certain other verses also in the Qur’an is going to be up to the individual Muslim to decide, but there are also plenty of other verses in the rest of the Qur’an which corroborate it, which we do not address in this article.

Mushrikeen, Kafirun

We note that in these passages the Qur’an is addressing the “mushrikeen“, and especially so in the first 8 tone-setting verses where the word appears 6 times, doing so only 5 more times in the rest of the entire chapter (total 167 occ.). This word is best translated as “associators”, which for practical purposes becomes “polytheists”, which is apparrently a word which the Qur’anic author settles upon for this purpose, those that “associate” others with God.

It is far from clear from the Qur’an as to whether Christians and Jews are included among these, however modern Muslims will ofter contend that this is the case for Christians, since the Qur’an does reject their trinitarian teaching and the Qur’an is only condoning a minority of non-trinitarian “Christians” of the type of “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and other fringe groups we still have today, descendents of the Arian-type Christian herersies. This is not an issue that will easily ever be clarified, leave alone in this article, so I’m not going to attempt to.

But in any case, “mushrikeen” does become an umbrella term for the large part of the world’s non-Muslim population, and is more or less a constant pejorative in the Qur’an. You cannot possibly do any worse than be a “mushrik”, an honor possibly shared with the kufars, the two groups bearing the brunt of all the Qur’an’s condemnations, with no indication of the exact meaning or even the diffferences between the two if any were intended. That second word, “kufar” (plu.kafireen) literally simply means to “cover-up”, presumably the truth. This is a strange term to use for non-Muslims, with no equivalent term in the Bible. It is only seen in v.2, and the next time we see it is much later in v.26, and 5 other times in the entire chapter (though total~ 480 occ.).

In addition there is a third group that incurs the Qur’anic author’s ire the “munafiqun”, usually translated as hypocrites, which is presumably those who only follow Muhammad rather begrudgingly (eg,9:101, ~35occ.)

The teachings of Tawbah, Summarized

It’s possible to summarize the teachings of Tawbah into just three main points of thrust, which is quite incredible in itself. The rest of the article is the detailed discussion of these points:

1. Laid out in the very first 14 verses is the call to violence effectively against all non-Muslims. There are some specifications regarding the location and timing of violence with respect to the Muslim religious sites are sacred periods.
2. Additionally, coersive religious conversion is implied in verses 5,6,11, 29.
3. The rest of the chapter, which deals with issues that arise from having an agressive intent, like inciting the masses to violence by attaching spiritual reward/punishment, raising war-budget, caricaturing the opposition to aid motivation, diatribe against those displaying aversion toward violence, even something like PTSD support for them, and so on.

Verses 1-14: Eventually, all non-Muslims are under threat

First, we note that two types of non-Muslims are differentiated in these passages- the “nice” ones that remain peaceable and refrain from conniving, and the “naughty” ones that do not. These are the main teaching points in the first 14 verses of the chapter:

1. Treaties can be broken in the case of “naughty” mushriks (v.1,12). The ambiguity is the question of just what costitutes “naughty”. Were it open aggresion by the mushriks, the treaty would have been broken anyway by definition. Rather these are more likely accusations of subtle subversion as in “they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you” (v.4). All this leaves open the possibility of ambiguous pretexts for war, but of course, this is going to be the case in any war, one’s information is only ever going to be as good as the source.
2. The “nice” unbelievers will be attacked when the term of the treaty runs out as well as long as the sacred months (months 7,10,11,12) have also passed (v.4,5,7).

We can analyse the passage verse by verse to see how we arrived at these conclusions so that we have a proper grasp of the material:

V.1 begins with an exhortation to break a particular treaty at the end of Ramadan (the end of the 9th month): “dissociation …to those with whom you had made a treaty”(v.1); “disassociation…from the mushriks” (v.3); “a declaraton on the day of the greater pilgrimage (v.3). There is the strange interjection about waiting for the sacred months to pass (v.2), which doesn’t make sense if there really is a clear and present threat, and is just a mark of the contradictory nature of the text. There is no obvious way to resolve this.

V. 4 has the exception: “EXCEPT” those that have been “nice” (v.4). The “nice” mushriks have not provoked the Muslims “with whom you made a treaty…and they have not been deficient toward you in anything, or supported anyone against you” (v.4). In their case, Muslims must wait for the end of the treaty’s term AND the for four ‘sacred months to pass (traditionally 7,10 [?1- Mohsin Khan v.5], 11 &12): “…till the treaty completes its term (v.4), THEN when the sacred months have passed” (v.5, also v.2) at which time, they face attack too.

This is reiterated in v.7 where the Muslims are told to be true as long as the mushriks are also true, meaning in relation to a treaty. By implication in corroboration with 5, there is no call to be peaceful after that.

We can presume V.6 refers to a surrender situation for mushriks that are not inclined to fight back and who surrender to Muslim aggression instead. “Those who seek your protection”, are to be granted it “until they hear the words of Allah” and they are to be “delivered to a place of safety”, presumably within the new Islamic rule. Some translate hitta as “so that” (check commentary). But overall the point is seemingly to Islamicize those that surrender which goes with vv.5,11,29 which we cover later. Freedom of religion is never mentioned, and it is obvious that this “seeking of protection” is from Muslim aggression, coming as it does right after the “slay them wherever you find them” verse. The commentaries corroborate this, both al-Jalalayn and Ibn Kathir writing that this is only for those who approach the Muslims with the express request to hear about Islam or more generally for emissaries. The “safe” place is simply returning them back to their people where they can “reflect on” what they have heard.

Prohibiting Treaties

Next, vv. 7, 8 place a moratorium on treaty-making, apart from at the Ka’aba. This seems terribly aggressive as policy, and again, quite unique. What nation prohihibits treaties?

Concern about the Ka’ba rather than about peace?

The caveat of the Ka’aba is interesting, giving an insight into the mind of an author seemingly more concerned about the Ka’ba itself rather than with peace per se (similarly we find Q 2:217 prohibits fighting in the Ka’aba itself, but not fighting per se– “fighting in it is a heinous thing“).

“How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-haram? So as long as they are upright/true toward you (respect the pact- Muhammed Sarwar), be upright/true toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous. How, if they were to gain the upper hand over you, they would not respect any tie with you, of kinship or treaty. They please you with their tongues, but their hearts are against you and most of them are lawbreakers…”

Commentaries, esp. 9:5

The first few verses have nonetheless given rise to a multitude of interpretations from the classical commentators. Hossein’s Study Qur’an records so many that it would be futile to even attempt to make sense of the disparate views. Hossein notes that of the commentators, only one associates this with the treaty of Hudaubiyah, while the majority relate it to the conquest of Mecca in 8/630. He notes there is considerable disagreement as to the legal implications of both the “repudiation” (v.1) and the “announcement” (v.3). In essence, there are several opinions about the several elements of the passage. Perhaps Hossein is including later and modern commentaries and scholars. But he does note that Al-Tabari attempts to tone it down: “Al-Ṭabarī makes it clear that this passage could not possibly mean that after the lapse of the sacred months the believers were free to kill any idolater…”. Clearly al-Tabari reaches the same conclusion as we have from the surface reading of the text or he would not feel the need to make this comment in the first place.

Robert Spencer notes that Surah Tawbah, “is the only one of the Qur’an’s 114 suras that does not begin with Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim—“IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE COMPASSIONATE, THE MERCIFUL” and then notes the explanations for this from classical Muslim commentators: “Tafsir al-Jalalayn says (the basmalah) is not recited because Muhammad did not command that it should be. It explains that while this sura is commonly called “Repentance,” it is “in fact, the Sura of Punishment,” it quotes a statement attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib, saying that the Bismillah “is security, and this sura was revealed to remove security by the sword.” Spencer states that this chapter “…contains many of the Qur’an’s most strident declarations regarding warfare. A hadith recorded by Bukhari asserts that this was “the last Sura which was revealed in full…”

He summarises the classical commetaries on verse 9:5:

“The fourteenth-century Islamic scholar Ibn Juzayy declares that this verse (9:5) abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an” and specifically abrogates the Qur’an’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers (47:4). According to as-Suyuti, “This is an Ayat of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking,” that is, the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “kill the idolaters wherever you find them” and “seize them by capture and besiege them in citadels and fortresses until they either fight or become Muslim.” (…) none of the mainstream Islamic commentators on the Qur’an attach any conditions to this verse; unlike 2:191 and 4:89, one is not to “kill them wherever you find them” only when the unbelievers have committed some offense, but at any time, simply by virtue of their being unbelievers…”

Let’s quote Ibn Kathir on 9:5 in full:

“This is the verse of the sword…Allah’s statement next, then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the sacred area…This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,…These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important…In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.’”

Coersive Religious Conversion- V. 5,6, 11, 29

“slay the idolaters (…) But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way” (v.5)

“But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers in religion; and We detail the verses for a people who know.” (v.11- SI)

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled (sāghirūna 13 occ.: “small, humiliated, disgraced and abased)” (SI. Pickthall: being brought low. Yusuf Ali: and feel themselves subdued.

This is seemingly an unqualified order to fight. The verse does not seem addressed to any particular situational context. There should be no question therefore as to it’s universal applicability. Non-Muslims should be ‘utterly subdued”. The very next verse states who these people are that are to be fought, which is Jews and trinitarian Christians (Q 9:30).

Commentraries on 9:29

Robert Spencer notes regarding the the Muslim commentaries:

“The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that this verse specifies that Muslims must fight against those who do not follow Islam, “which confirms and abrogates” other religions (…)

Ibn Kathir explains the need for this fighting in the context of the contention that the people of the book were in bad faith when they rejected Muhammad: “Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad, they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought.…Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets.”

We quote Ibn Kathir in full:

“…Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah’s Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad’s advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts.

Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah’s statement, (Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,)

This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah’s religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims’ control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination.

The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.

Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace Allah said, (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, (Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.

The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, “I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors (of our houses of worship) for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit (or betrayal) against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur’an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices (with prayer) at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.’ When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”’

“The command to fight the people until they say “La ilaha illallah Muhammad Rasul-Allah”, and establish Salat, and pay the Zakat, and believe in everything that the prophet (saws) brought. Whoever does that, his life and his wealth are protected except by its right, and his secrets are entrusted to Allah, the most high. Fighting those who withhold Zakat or other than that is one of the duties of Islam and the Imam should be concerned with the Laws of Islam”  Muslim 21b “the Book Faith”.

I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah (Muslim, 21a).

The remainder of the Surah

Next we see how going from the initial verses, the violent theme continues, with various other related issues also being addressed.

PTSD support for it’s own teaching?

The passage continues from verse 14 through to 24, finally culminating at v.29 which is going to compete with v.5 as the Qur’an’s clearest call to violence, but we’ll come to that later. We read the call “fight them…”, and the alleged promise of God of what sounds like PTSD support (v.14), an indication the author is aware of the deleterious effects of violent killing upon the perpetrators themselves. Hence Allah will “heal feelings…remove rage from hearts”, yet the Muslims are being called to it nevertheless.

Threatening Conscientious Objectors

That the above verses relates to healing of the Muslims’ PTSD from their own violence is corroborated with the next two verses attempting to combat the natural human reluctance for unnecessary violence- “do you think that you will be left untested without God identifying which of you would fight (jahadu) (…) God is fully aware of you actions”. Thus even when we read “(they) attacked you first” (v.13), it would certainly seem to apply only to the “naughty” non-Muslims, a differentiation which has already been clarified by the author in earlier verses:

“(14) Fight them (qatiluhum قَاتِلُوهُمْ)… (Allah) will heal the believers’ feelings and remove the rage from their hearts…(16) do you think that you will be left untested without God identifying which of you would fight (jahadu) for his cause and take no supporters apart from God, his Messenger and other believers? God is fully aware of you actions” (9:14,16).

Verses 38-63 mainly has Muhammed continuing a prolonged effort to motivate reluctant troops:

“O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah , you adhere heavily to the earth?” (v.38)…if you do not go out and fight God will punish you severely (v.39),…” (they) ask you for exemption from struggle”…” (they ask for) permission to stay at home” (v.45)….”give me permission to stay at home, do not trouble me” (v.49)…”they are cowardly” (v.56), “they hated the thought of fighting in God’s way…they said to one another “do not go out in this heat…” (v.81) “…you chose to sit at home the first time, so remain with those who stay behind” (v.83); “And when a surah was revealed [enjoining them] to believe in Allah and to fight with His Messenger, those of wealth among them asked your permission [to stay back] and said, “Leave us to be with them who sit [at home].” (v.86 SI); “And those with excuses among the bedouins came to be permitted [to remain], and they who had lied to Allah and His Messenger sat [at home]. There will strike those who disbelieved among them a painful punishment.” (v.90); “The cause [for blame] is only upon those who ask permission of you while they are rich. They are satisfied to be with those who stay behind, and Allah has sealed over their hearts, so they do not know.” (v.93)

Apart from being rather disturbing to hear the desert Arabs being goaded and groomed to violence in this manner, its also incredibly whiny for it to just go on incessantly for 46 verses. The chapter only has a total of 129 verses.

Xenophobic denigration, even for family

We’ve already seen (v.8 “looking to please you with their tongues but their hearts are against you” ) non-Muslims generally caricatured as untrustworthy, on which pretext treaty making itself receives a blanket prohibition (v.7). The diatribe continues into vv.9 through 10. Caricaturing the opponent is a familiar technique for inciting masses to war through history and there are strong xenophobic overtones. How is it possible the author has nothing good to say about non-Muslims when many of these, even the majority eventually converted to Islam!It is not even obvious what the Muslims are supposed to do when they are faced with a treaty themselves as the losing side- are they meant to simply fight to the death each time? Once again this is contradictory writing.

Xenophobia works through painting an entire ethnic group with a negative character trait (s). even the non-Muslims in one’s own family “would not respect any tie of kinship”, while conversion to Islam is automatically a sign of instant trustworthiness “then they are your brothers”:

“if they were to gain the upper hand over you, they would not respect any tie of…kinship…they please you with their tongues but their hearts are against you…(11) if they repent, keep up the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, then they are you brothers in the faith…(23) do not take your fathers or brothers as allies if they prefer disbelief to faith” (9:8,11,23)

Further, it is “not fitting “for a Muslim to ask forgiveness even for mushriks in their own families because they are destined for Hell. The exception provided only serves to prove the rule, that allegedly Abraham prayed for his father “only because he had made a promise to him”, and later he “washed his hands of him” too. Unbelievers are a lost cause, even the ones in one’s own family. This is a literary contradiction first of all, leave alone the morality of it. Islam is a new religion, so all Muslims are going to be new converts. Every Muslim’s family is going to have non-Muslims in it. If all disbelievers are bound to Hell, then how come some of the are converting to Islam. For the same reason it’s also a moral contradiction for a Muslim not to pray for disbelievers, given that their resistance to one’s faith is certainly not a given:

“It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire. And the request of forgiveness of Abraham for his father was only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became apparent to Abraham that his father was an enemy to Allah , he disassociated himself from him. Indeed was Abraham compassionate and patient.” (Q 9:113, SI)

Dealing with Mockers, War Fund-Raising

Now between verses 61 and 70, Muhammed has a different challenge, people are cracking jokes about him. Unsurprisingly they are promised hellfire etc.The reader can examine those themselves, I won’t elaborate more here.

From v.73 onward, financial considerations come up. Not only are the followers constitutionally resistant, they’re also quibbling about the pay, it seems. We also see the strange phraseology of “God and his Messenger” being introduced, as though Muhammed and God are seen acting as a single unit:

“God and his messenger enriching them out of their bounty” (v.74)

and again here the author almost forgets that the people should be caring about God while fighting rather than Muhammed. Clearly the verse should have sounded less petty had it said “they should have cared more about God’s will than their own lives” however what we get is:

“they should (not) have cared about themselves more than they cared about (Muhammed)” (v.120).

Why is this happening? It seems that in the increasing desperation to raise the war-effort, no mean feat, the theology is crumbling unnoticed. The financial considerations continue, this is essentially war fund-raising. Verses 75-80 are a tirade against those that take money from Muhammad’s “bounty”, then rescind on going to battle. Further they criticise those who do give to the war effort (v.79). Oddly the verse ends up calling them disbelievers and ends up really levying severe condemnations, their sins are deemed unforgiveable. Whatever it was must have really angered the author. Further admonishments of reluctant givers appear: “some of the desert Arabs consider what they gave to be an imposition…” (v.98)

Those who give “freely” and “a little with great effort” are commended (v.79), akin to the Biblical tale of the woman who puts two copper coins into the Temple treasury. They are promised reward in the afterlife “those who believed strove hard with their possessions and their persons…God has prepared for them Gardens…” (v.88), “God has purchased the persons and the possessions” (v.111).

Other standout violent verses: 73, 111, 120

Verse 9:73

In 9:73, violence is seemingly commanded against the “infdels” for “becoming defiant after having submitted” and “trying to do something but they could not achieve it” (9:74), essentially an accusation of insurrection:

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously (wa-ugh’luẓ- 13 times, stern/harsh/severe) with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate...

…They swear by God that they did not but they certainly did speak words of defiance and became defiant after having submitted; they tried to do something though they did not achieve it…” (Q 9:73,74)

Muslim commentaries:

Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs: “(O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers) with the sword (and the hypocrites) with words! (Be harsh) be tough (with them) with both parties with words and actions. (Their ultimate abode is hell) their destiny is hell, (a hapless journey’s end) they shall come to.“

Jalal – Al-Jalalayn: “O Prophet, struggle against the disbelievers, with the sword, and the hypocrites, with words and [definitive] arguments, and be harsh with them, through rebuke and aversion [towards them]; for their abode will be Hell, an evil journey’s end, [an evil] resort it is!“

Ibn Al Kathir: The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites: “Allah commanded His Messenger to strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and to be harsh against them. Allah also commanded him to be merciful with the believers who followed him, informing him that the destination of the disbelievers and hypocrites is the Fire in the Hereafter. Ibn Mas`ud commented on Allah’s statement,(Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites) “With the hand, or at least have a stern face with them.” Ibn `Abbas said, “Allah commanded the Prophet to fight the disbelievers with the sword, to strive against the hypocrites with the tongue and annulled lenient treatment of them.” Ad-Dahhak commented, “Perform Jihad against the disbelievers with the sword and be harsh with the hypocrites with words, and this is the Jihad performed against them.” Similar was said by Muqatil and Ar-Rabi`. Al-Hasan and Qatadah said, “Striving against them includes establishing the (Islamic Penal) Law of equality against them.” In combining these statements, we could say that Allah causes punishment of the disbelievers and hypocrites with all of these methods in various conditions and situations, and Allah knows best.Reason behind revealing Ayah 9:74Al-Amawi said in his Book on Battles, “Muhammad bin Ishaq narrated that Az-Zuhri said that `Abdur-Rahman bin `Abdullah bin Ka`b bin Malik narrated from his father, from his grandfather that he said, `Among the hypocrites who lagged behind from battle and concerning whom the Qur’an was revealed, was Al-Julas bin Suwayd bin As-Samit, who was married to the mother of `Umayr bin Sa`d. `Umayr was under the care of Al-Julas. When the Qur’an was revealed about the hypocrites, exposing their practices, Al-Julas said, `By Allah! If this man (Muhammad) is saying the truth, then we are worse than donkeys.’ `Umayr bin Sa`d heard him and said, `By Allah, O Julas! You are the dearest person to me, has the most favor on me and I would hate that harm should touch you, more than I do concerning anyone else! You have uttered a statement that if I exposed, will expose you, but if I hide, it will destroy me. One of them is a lesser evil than the other.’ So `Umayr went to the Messenger of Allah and told him what Al-Julas said. On realizing this, Al-Julas went to the Prophet and swore by Allah that he did not say what `Umayr bin Sa`d conveyed he said. `He lied on me,’ Al-Julas said. Allah sent in his case this verse,(They swear by Allah that they said nothing (bad), but really they said the word of disbelief, and they disbelieved after accepting Islam) until the end of Ayah. The Messenger of Allah conveyed this Ayah to Al-Julas, who, they claim, repented and his repentance was sincere, prompting him to refrain from hypocrisy.”’ Imam Abu Ja`far Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, “The Messenger of Allah was sitting under the shade of a tree when he said,(A man will now come and will look to you through the eyes of a devil. When he comes, do not talk to him.)’ A man who looked as if he was blue (so dark) came and the Messenger of Allah summoned him and said,(Why do you curse me, you and your companions) That man went and brought his friends and they swore by Allah that they did nothing of the sort, and the Prophet pardoned them. Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored revealed this verse, (They swear by Allah that they said nothing (bad)…)Hypocrites try to kill the ProphetAllah said next,(and they resolved that which they were unable to carry out) It was said that this Ayah was revealed about Al-Julas bin Suwayd, who tried to kill his wife’s son when he said he would inform the Messenger of Allah about Al-Julas’ statement we mentioned earlier. It was also said that it was revealed in the case of `Abdullah bin Ubayy who plotted to kill the Messenger of Allah. As-Suddi said, “This verse was revealed about some men who wanted to crown `Abdullah bin Ubayy even if the Messenger of Allah did not agree.,It was reported that some hypocrites plotted to kill the Prophet, while he was at the battle of Tabuk, riding one night. They were a group of more than ten men. Ad-Dahhak said, “This Ayah was revealed about them.” In his book, Dala’il An-Nubuwah, Al-Hafiz Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqi recorded that Hudhayfah bin Al-Yaman said, “I was holding the bridle of the Messenger’s camel while `Ammar was leading it, or vise versa. When we reached Al-`Aqabah, twelve riders intercepted the Prophet. When I alerted the Messenger, he shouted at them and they all ran away. The Messenger of Allah asked us,(Did you know who they were) We said, `No, O Allah’s Messenger! They had masks However, we know their horses.’ He said,(They are the hypocrites until the Day of Resurrection. Do you know what they intended) We said, `No.’ He said, (They wanted to mingle with the Messenger of Allah and throw him from the `Aqabah (to the valley).) We said, `O Allah’s Messenger! Should you ask their tribes to send the head of each one of them to you’ He said, (No, for I hate that the Arabs should say that Muhammad used some people in fighting and when Allah gave him victory with their help, he commanded that they be killed.) He then said, (O Allah! Throw the Dubaylah at them.) We asked, `What is the Dubaylah, O Allah’s Messenger’ He said, (A missile of fire that falls on the heart of one of them and brings about his demise.)” Abu At-Tufayl said, “Once, there was a dispute between Hudhayfah and another man, who asked him, `I ask you by Allah, how many were the Companions of Al-`Aqabah’ The people said to Hudhayfah, `Tell him, for he asked you.’ Hudhayfah said, `We were told that they were fourteen men, unless you were one of them, then the number is fifteen! I testify by Allah that twelve of them are at war with Allah and His Messenger in this life and when the witness comes forth for witness. Three of them were pardoned, for they said, `We did not hear the person whom the Messenger sent to announce something, and we did not know what the people had plotted,’ for the Prophet had been walking when he said,(Water is scarce, so none among you should reach it before me.) When he found that some people had reached it before him, he cursed them.”’ `Ammar bin Yasir narrated in a Hadith collected by Muslim, that Hudhayfah said to him that the Prophet said,(Among my Companions are twelve hypocrites who will never enter Paradise or find its scent, until the camel enters the thread of the needle. Eight of them will be struck by the Dubaylah, which is a missile made of fire that appears between their shoulders and pierces their chest.) This is why Hudhayfah was called the holder of the secret, for he knew who these hypocrites were, since the Messenger of Allah gave their names to him and none else. Allah said next(and they could not find any cause to do so except that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them of His bounty.) This Ayah means, the Messenger did not commit an error against them, other than that Allah has enriched them on account of the Prophet’s blessed and honorable mission! And had Allah guided them to what the Prophet came with, they would have experienced its delight completely. The Prophet once said to the Ansar,(Have I not found you misguided and Allah guided you through me, divided and Allah united you through me, and poor and Allah enriched you through me) Whenever the Messenger asked them a question, they replied, “Allah and His Messenger have granted the favor.” This type of statement, (And they had no fault except that they believed in Allah…), is uttered when there is no wrong committed. Allah called the hypocrites to repent,(If then they repent, it will be better for them, but if they turn away; Allah will punish them with a painful torment in this worldly life and in the Hereafter.) The Ayah says, if they persist on their ways, Allah will inflict a painful torment on them in this life, by killing, sadness and depression, and in the Hereafter with torment, punishment, disgrace and humiliation, (And there is none for them on earth as a protector or a helper.) who will bring happiness to them, aid them, bring about benefit or fend off harm.

Verse 9:111

9:111 “Indeed Allah has bought from the faithful their souls and their possessions for paradise to be theirs: they fight in the way of Allah, kill, and are killed. A promise binding upon Him in the Torah and the Evangel and the Qurʾān. And who is truer to his promise than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him, and that is the great success.

Commentaries

Abbas – Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs(Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers) who are sincere (their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs) in exchange for the Garden (they shall fight in the way of Allah) in obedience of Allah (and shall slay) the enemy (and be slain) by the enemy. (It is a promise) from Allah (which is binding on Him) that He must fulfil (in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made) with Allah, i.e. the Garden, (for that is the Supreme Triumph) the abounding safety.

Al-Jalalayn-Indeed God has purchased from the believers their lives and their possessions, that they expend it in obedience of Him — for example by striving in His way — so that theirs will be [the reward of] Paradise: they shall fight in the way of God and they shall kill and be killed (this sentence is independent and constitutes an explication of the [above-mentioned] ‘purchase’; a variant reading has the passive verb come first [sc. fa-yuqtalūna wa-yaqtulūn, ‘they shall be killed and shall kill’], meaning that some of them are killed while those who remain, fight on); that is a promise which is binding (both [wa‘dan, ‘promise’, and haqqan, ‘binding’] are verbal nouns, and are in the accusative on account of their omitted [implicit] verbs) upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’ān; and who fulfils his covenant better than God?, that is, no one is better in fulfilling it. Rejoice then (there is a shift from the third [to second] person here) in this bargain of yours which you have made, for that, bargain, is the supreme triumph, the one that secures the ultimate goal.

Ibn Al Kathir-Allah has purchased the Souls and Wealth of the Mujahidin in Return for Paradise:

“Allah states that He has compensated His believing servants for their lives and wealth — if they give them up in His cause — with Paradise. This demonstrates Allah’s favor, generosity and bounty, for He has accepted the good that He already owns and bestowed, as a price from His faithful servants. Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Qatadah commented, “By Allah! Allah has purchased them and raised their worth.” Shimr bin `Atiyyah said, “There is not a Muslim but has on his neck a sale that he must conduct with Allah; he either fulfills its terms or dies without doing that.” He then recited this Ayah. This is why those who fight in the cause of Allah are said to have conducted the sale with Allah, meaning, accepted and fulfilled his covenant. Allah’s statement, (They fight in Allah’s cause, so they kill and are killed.) indicates that whether they were killed or they kill the enemy, or both, then Paradise will be theirs. The Two Sahihs recorded the Hadith,(Allah has made a promise to the person who goes out (to fight) in His cause; `And nothing compels him to do so except Jihad = in My Cause and belief in My Messengers. ‘ He will either be admitted to Paradise if he dies, or compensated by Allah, either with a reward or booty if He returns him to the home which he departed from.) Allah’s statement,(It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Tawrah and the Injil and the Qur’an.) affirms this promise and informs us that Allah has decreed this for His Most Honorable Self, and revealed it to His Messengers in His Glorious Books, the Tawrah that He sent down to Musa, the Injil that He sent down to `Isa, and the Qur’an that was sent down to Muhammad, may Allah’s peace and blessings be on them all. Allah said next, (And who is truer to his covenant than Allah) affirming that He never breaks a promise. Allah said in similar statements,(And who is truer in statement than Allah)4:87, and, (And whose words can be truer than those of Allah)4:122. Allah said next,(Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success.), meaning, let those who fulfill the terms of this contract and uphold this covenant receive the good news of great success and everlasting delight.

Verse 9:120

Here, 9:120 has a partial context for 9:123, where it says that the “people of Medina and the neighbouring desert Arabs should not have held back from following God’s Mesenger, nor should they have cared for themselves more than him…” (AH):

9:123 (Dawood)- “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly (ghil’ẓatan) with them. Know that God is with the righteous.“

The commentaries:

Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs “(O ye who believe!) in Muhammad (pbuh) and in the Qur’an (Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you) the Banu Qurayzah, Banu’l-Nadir, Fadak and Khaybar, (and let them find harshness in you) toughness from you, (and know) O believers (that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)) Allah helps the believers: Muhammad (pbuh) and his Companions, by making them victorious over their enemies.“

Al-Jalalayn “O you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, that is, the nearest, followed by the next nearest of them, and let them find harshness in you, that is, severity, in other words, be harsh with them, and know that God is with the pious, helping and granting [them] victory.

Ibn Al Kathir- The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas: Allah commands the believers to fight the disbelievers, the closest in area to the Islamic state, then the farthest. This is why the Messenger of Allah started fighting the idolators in the Arabian Peninsula. When he finished with them and Allah gave him control over Makkah, Al-Madinah, At-Ta’if, Yemen, Yamamah, Hajr, Khaybar, Hadramawt and other Arab provinces, and the various Arab tribes entered Islam in large crowds, he then started fighting the People of the Scriptures. He began preparations to fight the Romans who were the closest in area to the Arabian Peninsula, and as such, had the most right to be called to Islam, especially since they were from the People of the Scriptures. The Prophet marched until he reached Tabuk and went back because of the extreme hardship, little rain and little supplies. This battle occurred on the ninth year after his Hijrah. In the tenth year, the Messenger of Allah was busy with the Farewell Hajj. The Messenger died eighty-one days after he returned from that Hajj, Allah chose him for what He had prepared for him in Paradise. After his death, his executor, friend, and Khalifah, Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, became the leader. At that time, the religion came under attack and would have been defeated, if it had not been for the fact that Allah gave the religion firmness through Abu Bakr, who established its basis and made its foundations firm. He brought those who strayed from the religion back to it, and made those who reverted from Islam return. He took the Zakah from the evil people who did not want to pay it, and explained the truth to those who were unaware of it. On behalf of the Prophet, Abu Bakr delivered what he was entrusted with. Then, he started preparing the Islamic armies to fight the Roman cross worshippers, and the Persian fire worshippers. By the blessing of his mission, Allah opened the lands for him and brought down Caesar and Kisra and those who obeyed them among the servants. Abu Bakr spent their treasures in the cause of Allah, just as the Messenger of Allah had foretold would happen. This mission continued after Abu Bakr at the hands of he whom Abu Bakr chose to be his successor, Al-Faruq, the Martyr of the Mihrab, Abu Hafs, `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him. With `Umar, Allah humiliated the disbelievers, suppressed the tyrants and hypocrites, and opened the eastern and western parts of the world. The treasures of various countries were brought to `Umar from near and far provinces, and he divided them according to the legitimate and accepted method. `Umar then died as a martyr after he lived a praise worthy life. Then, the Companions among the Muhajirin and Ansar agreed to chose after `Umar, `Uthman bin `Affan, Leader of the faithful and Martyr of the House, may Allah be pleased with him. During `Uthman’s reign, Islam wore its widest garment and Allah’s unequivocal proof was established in various parts of the world over the necks of the servants. Islam appeared in the eastern and western parts of the world and Allah’s Word was elevated and His religion apparent. The pure religion reached its deepest aims against Allah’s enemies, and whenever Muslims overcame an Ummah, they moved to the next one, and then the next one, crushing the tyranical evil doers. They did this in reverence to Allah’s statement,(O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you,) Allah said next,(and let them find harshness in you), meaning, let the disbelievers find harshness in you against them in battle. The complete believer is he who is kind to his believing brother, and harsh with his disbelieving enemy. Allah said in other Ayah,(Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers…)5:54,(Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those who are with him are severe against the disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.)48:29, and,(O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them.)9:73 Allah said,(And know that Allah is with those who have Taqwa), meaning, fight the disbelievers and trust in Allah knowing that Allah is with you if you fear and obey Him. This was the case in the first three blessed generations of Islam, the best members of this Ummah. Since they were firm on the religion and reached an unsurpassed level of obedience to Allah, they consistently prevailed over their enemies. During that era, victories were abundant, and enemies were ever more in a state of utter loss and degradation. However, after the turmoil began, desires and divisions became prevalent between various Muslim kings, the enemies were eager to attack the outposts of Islam and marched into its territory without much opposition. Then, the Muslim kings were too busy with their enmity for each other. The disbelievers then marched to the capital cities of the Islamic states, after gaining control over many of its areas, in addition to entire Islamic lands. Verily, ownership of all affairs is with Allah in the beginning and in the end. Whenever a just Muslim king stood up and obeyed Allah’s orders, all the while trusting in Allah, Allah helped him regain control over some Muslim lands and took back from the enemy what was compatible to his obedience and support to Allah. We ask Allah to help the Muslims gain control over the forelocks of His disbeliever enemies and to raise high the word of Muslims over all lands. Verily, Allah is Most Generous, Most Giving.

Textual Contradictions

GOD waits for pagans’ “Sacred Months”?

The apparent precursor to the aggression is a revelation “coming down”. Obviously to anyone outside the box reading this, Muhammed is fed up of the peaceful treaty, and so not for the first time in his career, he conveniently “receives” a divine mandate. This is understandable, an army general wants to press home an advantage, not stagnate.

In addition to the end of the treaty, to add to the confusion, the aggression must also await the passing of the sacred “months”. Prior to that the idolators “may move freely about the land for four months”, however dark clouds are looming, for they: “should be aware that (they) will not escape God and that God will disgrace those who defy him” (v.2).

If God wanted to attack some pagans, why is he waiting for the treaty? Does he want to impress the UN? Why is he waiting for the “sacred months” to pass, is he trying to be pious? But for Muhammed, it makes more political sense to wait, he doesn’t want to be seen as a treaty-breaker, and he wants to be seen as God-fearing too. This way he get to be both. SO he “receives” this:

“…on the great day of the great pilgrimage a proclamation from God and his Messenger to all people: “God and his messenger and released from obligations to the idolators” (v.3)

The second contradiction is that Allah waits for the pagan sacred months to pass before he attacks. He’s comfortable breaking the treaty but not the sacred months? These are pagan sacred months and pilgrimages- they should mean nothing to God. To this day Muslims don’t know what they are supposed to signify in terms of their particular timing. Sunnis commemorate some Biblical events in the month of Muharram,  but there is not correlation of these dates with the Jewish religious calendar. The verses do not indicate that end of the months and the term of the treaty coincide- in v.4 these are mentioned. It’s also odd for God to wait for the end of a treaty in order to attack a group that he wanted to be attacked anyway. Both of these sound a lot more likely if they were political manoeuvring rather than divinely ordained.

We’ve seen two places in Surah Tawbah that speak of 4 sacred months, and at least two others in Bakarah that speak of “the sacred month”. Surah Tawbah goes into much more detail regarding this. It says :

“Allah decrees…four months of which are sacred: this is the correct calculation. Do not wrong yourselves in these months…(37) postponing the sacred months is a further act of disbelief…they permit what God has forbidden…”

Muslims have come to list the “four sacred months” as Dhu-al Qaddah, Dhu’l Hijjah, Muharram and Rajjab. These are numerically months 1, 7,11 and 12 of the Islamic calendar. Ramadan, the festival we’re all familiar with, is not even one of them.

Muharram is a festival, though celebrated by Sunnis and Shias for different reasons- Sunnis celebrate certain Biblical events on this day, and honestly this sounds like a retroactive tradition, it is likely set up as competitor to the Shi’a festival, in my view. These are vague events like the parting of the Red Sea, an event that is not even mentioned in the Qur’an and some others, we won’t even bother with them.

The Sunnis were at war with the Shi’i in this very month, and we find no mention of any regret or question regarding the appropriateness of the timing. What’s more they go even beyond that and massacre of the very grandson of Muhammed himself, along with most of his male relatives and his retinue in this very month.

The massacre was carried out for not pledging allegiance to caliph Yazid Ibn Mu’awiya, the 6th Islamic caliph (son of Mu’awiya the 5th) in the battle of Karbala.

My point is that it’s hard to see how this tradition of not fighting in Muharram could have been present at a time when a battle is proceeding in full swing that very month with full-on family massacres and everything. We never hear there was any reluctance to go out to battle or any special mercy, or any sense of “only self-defense”.

How many Sacred months- 1 or 4?

On top of all that we also have a stark textual contradiction: Two passages, both in chapter 9, indicate the existence of 4 sacred months, while two others, both in surah 2, indicate only a single month wherein fighting is disallowed. It’s like the author of surah 2 did not meet the author of surah 9.

If the response is that there’s ACTUALLY four months, but this verse mentions only one, how come both the question and the answer is only concerned with fighting in one month? How is it possible they are not asking the same question about the other months?

These two verses say there is a single holy month:

“They will question thee concerning the holy month, and fighting in it. Say: ‘Fighting in it is a heinous thing, but to bar from God’s way, and disbelief in Him, and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it — that is more heinous in God’s sight; and persecution is more heinous than slaying.’…” (Q 2:217)

and again:

“The holy month for the holy month; holy things demand retaliation. Whoso commits aggression against you, do you commit aggression against him like as he has committed against you, and fear you God, and know that God is with the godfearing” (Q 2:194)

And here’s the “four months” verses:

“ ‘Journey freely in the land for four months; and know that you cannot frustrate the will of God, and that God degrades the unbelievers.’ (…)Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Q 9:2,5)

“The number of the months, with God, is twelve in the Book of God, the day that He created the heavens and the earth; four of them are sacred. That is the right religion. So wrong not each other during them. And fight the unbelievers totally even as they fight you totally and know that God is with the godfearing.” (Q 9:36)

Do hadith explain the Islamic origin of the sacred months? – a weak attempt is made:

Contrary to traditional belief, hadith are a mess. Typically hadith and commentaries are summoned up as damage control for Qur’anic faux pas. New research on this issue is quite damning. But that’s a topic for a different day.

This is an example of a hadith that tells Muslims just what these “four months” refer to. As you will see, there is no particular explanation given, apart from some rambling narrative.:

“Abu Bakrah reported: The Prophet said, “Time has completed its cycle and has come to the state of the day when Allah created the heavens and the earth. The year consists of twelve months of which four are inviolable; three of them consecutive – Dhul-Qa’dah, Dhul-Hijjah and Muharram and Rajab, the month of Mudar (tribe), which comes between Jumada and Sha’ban. What month is this?” We said, “Allah and His Messenger know better”. The Prophet remained silent for some time until we thought that he would give it a name other than its real name. Then asked, “Is it not (the month of) Dhul-Hijjah?”. We replied in the affirmative. He asked, “Which city is this?”. We replied: “Allah and His Messenger know better”. He remained silent until we thought that he would give it another name. He asked, “Is it not Al-Baldah (Makkah)?” We said: “Yes”. He asked, “What day is this?”. We said: “Allah and His Messenger know better.” He remained silent until we thought that he would give it another name. He asked, “Is it not the day of An-Nahr (the sacrifice)?”. We replied in the affirmative. Thereupon he said, “Your blood, your property and your honour are inviolable to you all like the inviolablity of this day of yours, in this city of yours and in this month of yours (…)”.

(Riyad as-Salihin 213, excerpt)

My approach, and Muslim Responses

I base my arguments primarily on the Qur’anic text. I do include classical Muslim commentaries, and it doesn’t seem like their views are much different from my own reading. This article is primarily an analysis of the words of the Qur’an in and of themselves. If God wrote a book, then those actual words should add up to something meaningful, this is the basic premise of all my articles in fact, and it is a direct challenge to the basic premise of Muslims with respect to the Qur’an- that is is the direct words of God. If God is God, he is capable of expressing coherent meaning using huan words. I think that primary premise is unassailable.

I would advise the reader to bear in mind that Muslims will often accuse non-Muslims of not being able able to understand the Qur’an, and then deflecting the argument either to commentators of their choosing, or worse, completely stone walling the interpretation behind some claimed ineffability of the Arabic language itself.

In response I would say that first, religious commentators are hardly going to write anything critical of the faith in any religion. Rather, they are always knowingly or unknowingly going to include personal biases and political leanings. It’s not as though religious academics miraculously free themselves of confirmation bias. One would hardly expect a card-carrying mufassir to say “hmmm, I can’t explain this, maybe Muhammed did get that wrong…”. This is why we quote commentaries when they are genuine clarifications of the text or of the language, but no more than that.

If their is a God, then every human being bears the moral responsibility for examining his primary texts and making rational judgements about it themselves. Further, if the Qur’an is a meaningful work of a single author, then analysing it in of itself can provide the most pure and objective insight into that author’s mind. Muslims seemingly expend much energy researching scientific or numerological implications of various verses, so I will propose to them that this being all well and good, perhaps a study of the actual meaning of those words might be the most expedient, over and above any secondary implications. My main project is textual criticism of the Qur’an. If the Qur’an is miraculous, it should be OK check if the words add up or not, or in other words, God should be capable of writing a meaningful text.

Part of the problem with joining up Qur’anic studies with classical commentaries and hadith on it. We can’t know that any “context” being offered is indeed a genuine context, or one that is manufactured due to the lack of one that is evident. Islamic hadith and tafsir is messy, biased, politicised, mutually contradictory, historically problematic, and significantly detatched in time from the Qur’anic events. Apart from the obvious face-saving motives, hadith were also habricated for gaining political leverage among Muslim factions.

There’s a lot to be said of the problems of modern hadith and a lot of recent research about it.here’s a lot of new western scholarship that is slowly bringing a lot of this to light. It’s been slow because the Western world has largely lacked a real interest in studying the dizzying amount of proliferated Islamic material involved, a study of which tends to be a lifetime occupation, especially when the substance is less than interesting to the Western mind. However in recent times, with increased globalisation, there has been a natural increase in interest.

But let me put it like this: if you’re satisfied that the Qur’an requires supplementary commentaries and hadiths to rescue it, then that’s your choice. I think the minimum standard a Muslim should require is that the “direct word of God” is something semantically coherent. It’s not a very high bar, especially for a religion which has only one “miracle”, being that book itself.

The ploy of whataboutism with the Bible

A different onbjection is one that has become a staple in polemical discussions, which is to attempt a whataboutism by bringing up “the Amalekites”, an arguent imported from atheist rhetoric against religion. As far as this applies to a Muslim reader, I would just just ask- when the Qur’an is speaking favourably of the destruction of previous nations, what destruction is it speaking of, if not the Amalekites and others? Does it say you need to pick the ones that you like better?

If it is going to be argued that the verses are only applicable to a specific context “well that was for THOSE polytheists at THAT time”, then one must counter that unlike the Bible which is historical narrative, there are no time-stamps in the Qur’an, rather contexts if any, specified by external writings. However if that is the case then those external writings require independent vaidation and we’ve already noted the problems with this. Further, even if there were a contemporaneous narrative, unlike the Bible, there is no direction for a behavioural change from the past. Rather, a sort of “many prophets, one message” spanning all times is quite a prevalent Islamic trope. But if that’s the case then there’s hardly any room for a contextual argument. Further, if these verses were indeed time-specific, then why are they written in a manner that is not time-specific?

FINALLY, if you’re a Muslim who’s like “yeah we’re violent, so what?”, then just look at the contradiction in months bit for now, the rest of this is not for you. For you there’s a different article.

Appendix

Is the word “jihad” controversial?

There shouldn’t be any doubt that in these verses jihad is being used for fighting (Muslim polemicists might argue that its referring to some spiritual struggles), that’s what the whole theme of the surah is about. Further, where are they being asked to go, if not to fight? What does “you chose to sit at home the first time” (v.83) refer to, is it “the first time we went out for a spiritual struggle”?

We can trace the usage of “jihad” from v.16 where the context is very obviously physical. A word does not change its meaning in the same passage, because contexts do not change in a single narrative unless specified. Thus we see it used again in v.20, another exhortation to violence, promising higher status in this case, once again a recurring theme that we’ve discussed in the article, therefore fighting needs to be preferred to family ties (this means that one could be called to familial violence if required, cf.v.11):

“…those who beleived, who migrated and fought in God’s way with their possessions and their persons are in God’s eyes much higher in rank…(24) if your fathers etc….are dearer to you than…fighting (wajihadun) in his cause…”

Book References

The Critical Qur’an- Explained from Key Islamic Commentaries and Contemporary Historical Research, Robert Spencer, Bombadier Books, Post Hill Press, New/Nashville 2021

The Study Qur’an, a new translation and commentary, ed, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, HarperOne.