Possible explanation for why Uthman decided Sura 9 should have no Basmallah
-
But it's just not good enough. I mean 95 "Kill the pagans wherever you find them" would land any politician or general in the world before a war crimes tribunal. Especially since it follows from "When the forbidden/sacred months are over" - this is plotting pre-emptive sectarian violence. It's not good enough. It's not judgement, it's conspiracy.
You are seriously taking 95 out of context, my friend.
Look at the verse directly preceding it
94 Except for those with whom you had a treaty from among those who have set up partners if they did not reduce anything from it nor did they plan to attack you; you shall fulfill their terms until they expire. God loves the righteous.
It's clear to see that verse 95 was only in reference to those who were did not uphold their peace treaties, and were planning to attack the believers. This is not "pre-emptive sectartian violence".
Then you have to look at the verse AFTER 95, which also says
96 If any of those who have set up partners seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the words of God, then let him reach his sanctuary. This is because they are a people who do not know.
It's clear to see that with verse 94, it is only talking about the tribes which had failed to uphold their peace treaties, and had been continually attacking the believers.
-
In every translation I've seen, the text is suggestive of the "forbidden months" expiring because time runs out, not because of the other side breaking the terms. That's why it says "when" and not "if". Hence 95 is talking about pre-emptive violence.
-
We should perhaps question if there is a 'sura 9' to begin with. All suras are demarcated with the basmalah and so if there is no basmalah, there isn't any suras. Allah is the arranger of Quran so there is a purpose behind every inclusion and omission.
-
In every translation I've seen, the text is suggestive of the "forbidden months" expiring because time runs out, not because of the other side breaking the terms. That's why it says "when" and not "if". Hence 95 is talking about pre-emptive violence.
Salam,
So your problem is voilence in the sura , well let me just remind you that sometimes we need a War . War can bring prosperty or adversity for some people. So whether you like it or not wars are necessary to show the truth or to hide it.
-
Hence 95 is talking about pre-emptive violence.
lol@pre-emptive violence.
You are of course right if we ignore the preceding verse of 94, and also ignore the "repent" in 95 itself. Repent for what? Well, if it's about pre-emptive violence and no-one did anything wrong then is it about repenting for being polytheist? But is such an action mentioned elsewhere in The Quran? Nope. Will it go against other verses? Yes. But let's ignore this contradiction for the moment. What about the theme of equivalence throughout warfare in The Quran? Shall we ignore that as well? I know, why dont we ignore every other verse and conclude from one verse, this is most logical isn't it? lol
It's good knowing the arguments of those who attack Quran are so weak, sometimes one just has to laugh.
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm
http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/ICR/ICR_16.htmEnjoy.
-
Thereformer1 - My problem is not with necessary violence but with aggression and sectarianism. I have no problem with other Suras which urge believers to defend themselves - i.e. Sura 2 - "fight those who fight you but do not transgress - God does not favour the aggressors". That is correct - it is self defence and is directed at enemy combatants. Sura 9 is not defensive but aggressive - breaking the teaching of Sura 2. It is not directed at combatants but another religious group, the polytheists - thus is it pre-emptive incitement to sectarian violence.
Apart from this, Sura 9 is a disaster zone in other ways as well - it directs hatred at Jews and Christians, it is even racist against Arabs who are apparently the worst of all peoples in their "hypocrisy and disbelief". This isn't God talking. It's just a writer involved sectarian in civil wars.
Wakas - Actually, when verses contradict each other so directly it doesn't mean you interpret them differently. You can only interpret them differently when they are unspecific and leave room for doubt. When they contradict each other without leaving room for doubt, that means you have to question their veracity, or at the very least take the Shia approach of saying only God understands their true meaning and that they are too complicated for human minds. But then that isn't really helpful as if a book is to complex to be understood, that it is the fault of the writer, not the reader.
-
Apart from this, Sura 9 is a disaster zone in other ways as well - it directs hatred at Jews and Christians, it is even racist against Arabs who are apparently the worst of all peoples in their "hypocrisy and disbelief". This isn't God talking. It's just a writer involved sectarian in civil wars.
Why do you say you're Muslim, when you reject a major part of the Quran? Maybe you should try the Baha'i faith or something.
Second of all, re-read 94 again. You will see that it makes clear that only the tribes which DONT uphold their peace treaties should be attacked. That sounds fair to me.
Then read 96, which says you should protect those who want protection.
Really I think if you are saying that entire Suras of the Quran are evil, you should really switch to another religion.
Peace.
-
Thereformer1 - My problem is not with necessary violence but with aggression and sectarianism. I have no problem with other Suras which urge believers to defend themselves - i.e. Sura 2 - "fight those who fight you but do not transgress - God does not favour the aggressors". That is correct - it is self defence and is directed at enemy combatants. Sura 9 is not defensive but aggressive - breaking the teaching of Sura 2. It is not directed at combatants but another religious group, the polytheists - thus is it pre-emptive incitement to sectarian violence.
Salam Alaykom,
from my part I strongly recommand you to search of the cause of the shadings of this sura 9, because it's not talking about voilence at all or maybe the translation of the sura in english make it for you find some voilence statements in its verses. As I know the words in arabic don't talk about violence.
-
Salam Alaykom,
from my part I strongly recommand you to search of the cause of the shadings of this sura 9, because it's not talking about voilence at all or maybe the translation of the sura in english make it for you find some voilence statements in its verses. As I know the words in arabic don't talk about violence.
Really?
http//www.islamawakened.com/Quran/9/5/default.htm
Yusuf Ali - But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)
Pickthal - Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush
Hilali/Khan - Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
H/K/Saheeh - And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush
Free Minds - So when the restricted months have passed, then you may kill those who have set up partners wherever you find them, and take them, and surround them, and stand against them at every point.
It's the use of this term "when" that is the definitive term for me. It's not saying it is contingent upon the other side doing something wrong. It is a decision already made. That's why I said earlier this would land any politician or general in the world before a war crimes tribunal. It's like when Israel was exposed as having planned the Lebanon war well before Hezbullah ambushed their soldiers in 2006. This, like that, is premeditated aggression.
Why do you say you're Muslim, when you reject a major part of the Quran? Maybe you should try the Baha'i faith or something.
Second of all, re-read 94 again. You will see that it makes clear that only the tribes which DONT uphold their peace treaties should be attacked. That sounds fair to me.
Then read 96, which says you should protect those who want protection.
Really I think if you are saying that entire Suras of the Quran are evil, you should really switch to another religion.
Peace.
It's the other way round. It's because I don't believe these bad things that I am a Muslim. If I believed in this cruelty, it would mean I believed God was unjusted, so I couldn't be a muslim. But because I know it is a false chapter, I know God is just, that is why I am a Muslim. So we should thank Allah that it does not begin with Bismi Allahi alrrahmani alrraheemi.
You see this is the nature of God's power. When the wrong minded people try to stick something false in the Quran, God prevents them from sealing their bad work.
-
Really?
http//www.islamawakened.com/Quran/9/5/default.htm
Yet you're still making mistakes in understanding the voilence in this sura, here in the sura the God has ordered to kill the infidels when the forbidden month finished. They will kill them if they will refuse Islam again as a last chance for them to enter to Islam or the punishment is killing them . it sounds normal and fair because if they didn't kill them, those bunch of infidels will kill Muslims by way ot another they will also think the same thoughts about attacking Muslims, because God knows what they hid in their hearts , he ordered to kill them if they didn't change their behaviours over Muslims "hatred and doctrine" about Muslims community. Do you read the Qur'an ? if Yes go look for the lost nations who they were killed by angels . this is voilence but serving the Muslims and Islam which is the Din of God.
-
They will kill them if they will refuse Islam again as a last chance for them to enter to Islam or the punishment is killing them . it sounds normal and fair because if they didn't kill them, those bunch of infidels will kill Muslims by way ot another they will also think the same thoughts about attacking Muslims, because God knows what they hid in their hearts
Yes, I do read the Quran, and I have heard this explanation before. But it's exactly what I described - pre-emptive sectarian violence, as well as genocide and forced conversion. It may have sounded reasonable to a 7th Century medieval audiance but it doesn't meet modern standards of human rights. I don't at all want to be judgemental of our ancestors, but it isn't a satisfactory teaching for the modern world, so I can't consider divinely guided.
-
Yes, I do read the Quran, and I have heard this explanation before. But it's exactly what I described - pre-emptive sectarian violence, as well as genocide and forced conversion. It may have sounded reasonable to a 7th Century medieval audiance but it doesn't meet modern standards of human rights. I don't at all want to be judgemental of our ancestors, but it isn't a satisfactory teaching for the modern world, so I can't consider divinely guided.
the new modern standrads for human right !!! ??? usa and Europe who they're calling communities for human rights issues, they are the first who they broke the laws of human rights and they interfered in everyone's business let alone that their laws of human rights based first of all in the human rights from Islam laws.
-
Wakas - Actually, when verses contradict each other so directly it doesn't mean you interpret them differently. You can only interpret them differently when they are unspecific and leave room for doubt. When they contradict each other without leaving room for doubt, that means you have to question their veracity, or at the very least take the Shia approach of saying only God understands their true meaning and that they are too complicated for human minds. But then that isn't really helpful as if a book is to complex to be understood, that it is the fault of the writer, not the reader.
Thanks for the vague and non-evidenced based rebuttal.
-
the new modern standrads for human right !!! ??? usa and Europe who they're calling communities for human rights issues, they are the first who they broke the laws of human rights and they interfered in everyone's business let alone that their laws of human rights based first of all in the human rights from Islam laws.
Well actually, there were empires in the Middle East before there were empires in Europe so you can't go saying the Europeans were the first to break laws of human rights.
If you say Human Rights laws originate from Islam and God's teachings, then yes, I agree, but muslim empires do not have a very good history of putting these into practise - they've all practised slavery.
Wakas - one vague and non-evidenced based post deserves another. But if you do want me to be specific, the text in verse 4 and verse 5 do not leave room for doubt. Verse 4 (free minds translation) says "continue the pledge with them until its expiry". Hence Verse 5 means that when the treaty expires, wage war. That is aggression.
-
Well actually, there were empires in the Middle East before there were empires in Europe so you can't go saying the Europeans were the first to break laws of human rights.
If you say Human Rights laws originate from Islam and God's teachings, then yes, I agree, but muslim empires do not have a very good history of putting these into practise - they've all practised slavery.
No, You're wrong because there were Jewish who they killed the prophets then after them there were christian who they were killings and crusifying people in the name of God let alone stealing and make people slaves then after hundreds of years we have heard that arab in the middle east were also making people slaves but not for a long time when Islam came , changed this situation.
-
Wage "war" upon whom? Any and everyone? Let me simplify for you
Let's say a group of people contains people who are upholding the treaty, and people who are not. Pretty simple so far.
91-3 refers to those who broke the treaty. How do we know this? Because 94 says EXCEPT those who did not. So, when it continues with 95 with "fa/so/then" which is a "resumption particle" according to corpus.quran.com who could it possibly be referring to? Could it possibly be the people NOT an exception to the rule? Well, not only is this common in everyday language, but becomes blatantly obvious from the context of 95. I note you did not answer whom the "repent" refers to. Could it possibly refer to the same people the word "repent" refers to in 93? It is those who broke the treaty in 93.
In other words, the Arabic, the logic, cross-reference and flow of the verses only points to one answer.
Also, you make a blatant error in 95 by saying it is when the treaty expires, it says when the restricted months are passed!
-
Wage "war" upon whom? Any and everyone? Let me simplify for you
Let's say a group of people contains people who are upholding the treaty, and people who are not. Pretty simple so far.
91-3 refers to those who broke the treaty. How do we know this? Because 94 says EXCEPT those who did not. So, when it continues with 95 with "fa/so/then" which is a "resumption particle" according to corpus.quran.com who could it possibly be referring to? Could it possibly be the people NOT an exception to the rule? Well, not only is this common in everyday language, but becomes blatantly obvious from the context of 95. I note you did not answer whom the "repent" refers to. Could it possibly refer to the same people the word "repent" refers to in 93? It is those who broke the treaty in 93.
In other words, the Arabic, the logic, cross-reference and flow of the verses only points to one answer.
Also, you make a blatant error in 95 by saying it is when the treaty expires, it says when the restricted months are passed!
That's because it says in 94 "you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry". Then "So when the restricted months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them". These statements are right next to each other! Continue the treaty until its expiry, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.
If it means "only some polytheists" then it is really, really badly written, and thus not divine. It should say "fight those who fight you" like it does in Sura 2. But it's not just this - the whole tone of Chapter 9 is awful and sectarian. It's written in the "vengeful god" style of the old testament.
-
That's because it says in 94 "you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry". Then "So when the restricted months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them". These statements are right next to each other! Continue the treaty until its expiry, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.
If it means "only some polytheists" then it is really, really badly written, and thus not divine. It should say "fight those who fight you" like it does in Sura 2. But it's not just this - the whole tone of Chapter 9 is awful and sectarian. It's written in the "vengeful god" style of the old testament.
Please read 913. It puts a different light on 95
913 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and intended to expel the messenger, especially while they were the ones who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God who is more worthy to be feared if you are those who acknowledge.
I can't believe you would reject a whole sura just because it doesn't sound like something Jesus would say. How did you expect the early Muslims to survive when they were being ambushed by the Meccans all the time, risking total destruction??? That is who this verse is referring to...
Maybe there's a better religion for you, where you can all play with bunny rabbits and frolic in the dandelions and daisies all day. You're really not Muslim.
-
Thank you for conclusively proving my point.
That's because it says in 94 "you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry". Then "So when the restricted months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them". These statements are right next to each other! Continue the treaty until its expiry, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.
On the one hand you admit it is "you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry" in 94 but on the other hand admit it is "so when the restricted months have passed" in 95.
So clearly it is not referring to the same thing, and ergo not the same people!Perhaps it is you who is easily confused, and not The Quran.
-
Well no, it's not clear because it's not giving the background context you're talking about. It's a strong argument against Quran Aloners that this passage seems to assume so much knowledge - what is all the fighting about? What are the treaties that have been broken? What kind of treaty violation justifies such extraordinary violence?
I accept that your explanation of the verses makes the most sense. However they're still bad verses. It says "kill the pagans" and leaves you to look around for what 'rules of war' it is supposing. In the modern world that would be bad. In the middle ages it was a terrible thing to do. And the rest of the chapter very much has the vengeful God tone which reminds one of crowds of frenzied people waving around banners saying "Death to those who insult the Prophet". It puts anger first and purpose second.
It also does not state that ALL the people who have not "signed a treaty" are guilty of crimes which justify the waging of war against them. This is the fundamental problem. Other parts of the Quran are so much more specific. It says, in your version, "KILL THE POLYTHEISTS" except those with whom you have a treaty. Is that really your idea of the voice of God?
It goes on to rant about the crimes committed by bad people, but anyone can do that. Anyone can say "Those gypsies/Jews/Muslims/blacks/whites/Asians murdered children, stole land, killed the Prophets/Saints/Dewas", anything you like. It's very good at whipping up emotions but it is not directly relating crime and punishment. It does not justify saying "Kill the gypsies/Jews/Muslims/blacks/whites/Asians, where you find them, except those you have a treaty with, until they give zakat and make salat". That's just whipping up a lynch mob.
Yes other bits of the Quran may specify better the rules of war, and you can say the reader is meant to understand how to cross reference. But the tone of chapter 9 is not a "wait a minute, before you run off to slaughter polythists, turn your texts to sura X ayat Y and remember not to hurt innocent people". The tone of chapter 9 is more like verse 14 - "Fight/kill them, God tortures them with your hands and He shames/disgraces them and He gives you victory/aid on (over) them, and He cures/heals (the) chests (innermosts of) a believing nation."
