This sura is called "Repentance" in English, however, I was overwhelmed more with its call for fighting and striving. Not just with idolaters (vs. 5), unbelievers, and hypocrites (v. 73), but also People of the Book (vs. 29). I found myself seeking out talk of repentance so as to not be struck down! Right off the bat are calls for killing idolaters who refused to "repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat" (vs. 5). Y'all know I am used to Jesus and his radical teachings which include loving our enemies! So, this call for killing those in disagreement, honestly, didn't sit well with me. I am not for converting by the sword no matter if it has been wrongly practiced in Christendom in the past. It's wrong. I don't see it modeled by Jesus nor his followers in the Bible. I truly believe we share the Good News and live out our "Jesus values" and if people want to join us, terrific. However, if they want to follow their own paths, so be it. I'm not going to hunt you down and kill you for making this decision. God is the Judge, not me.
17. The idolaters have no right to visit the mosques of God while bearing testimony to their disbelief. Meaningless will be their acts, and in Hell they will bide for ever,
18. Only those who believe in God and the Last Day, who fulfil their devotional obligations, pay the zakat, and fear no one but God, can visit the mosques of God. They may hope to be among the guided.
I'm not sure of the story behind the mosques here, however, just reading it at face value, I thought of how we welcome unbelievers in my church and every church I've ever been associated with. Hopefully there is a good reason for forbidding idolaters from not visiting mosques. Really, if you want people to see the goodness of your spirituality/religion/
24. You tell them: "If your fathers and sons, your brothers and wives and families and wealth, or the business you fear may fail, and the mansions that you love, are dearer to you than God, His Apostle, and struggling in His cause, then wait until God's command arrives, for God does not show transgressors the way."
This reminds me of the teaching of Jesus that I discussed a few days ago.
38. What has happened to you, O believers, that when you are asked to set out in the cause of God your feet begin to drag? Do you find the life of the world so pleasing that you forget the life to come? Yet the profit of the life of this world is but meager as compared to the life to come.
Great reminder that the things of this world are temporary compared to eternal life.
39. Unless you go out (to strive), God will inflict grievous punishment on you, and bring other people in your place, and you will not be able to harm Him in the least, for God has the power over all things.
Not trying to be contentious, but are verses such as this one the reason why extreme groups/people believe fighting for God is necessary? It seems fighting is required to avoid a "grievous punishment" when taken out of context (or not?).
51. Tell them: "Nothing can befall us except what God decrees. Our protector is He, and in God should the faithful place their trust."
Wonderful verse!
I noticed many times in this sura how God and Muhammad are a couple. It became a theme I looked for there for a bit. Here is one instance where the coupling was pronounced.
61. There are some among them who talk ill of the Prophet by saying: "He listens to everyone." Tell them: "He listens for your good, and trusts in God and trusts the faithful, and he is a blessing for those who believe. For those who offend the Apostle of God there is painful punishment."
62. They swear by God to please you; but if they are believers it would have been worthier to have pleased God and His Apostle.
63. Have they not realised that anyone who opposes God and His Prophet, will abide in Hell for ever? And that is the worst disgrace.
And also this
71. Those who believe, men and women, befriend one another, and enjoin what is right and prohibit what is wrong. They observe their devotional obligations, pay the zakat, and obey God and His Apostle. God will be merciful to them, for God is all-mighty and all-wise.
90. Some Arabs of the desert came with ready excuses, asking for leave to stay behind. But those who had lied to God and His Prophet stayed at home doing nothing. So the punishment for those who disbelieve among them will be painful.
From reading these suras I better understand why Muhammad is so important to Muslims. You can't separate him from God in Islam according to the Quran's own words!
Except maybe in this point where it appears repentance is not accepted by God.
95. They will beg you in the name of God, on your return, to forgive them; but you keep away from them: They are scum; their abode is Hell: Requital for what they had done.
96. They will plead on oath that you accept them. Even if you accept them, remember God does not accept people who are disobedient.
Does this mean if Muhammad will accept these people's repentance, yet still God will not? Is Muhammad more merciful that God? What are your thoughts on this passage?
Thankfully I did notice some verses on repentance (such as 74, 102, 104, 112).
111. God has verily bought the souls and possessions of the faithful in exchange for a promise of Paradise. They fight in the cause of God, and kill and are killed. This is a promise incumbent on Him, as in the Torah, so the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is more true to his promise than God? So rejoice at the bargain you have made with Him; for this will be triumph supreme.
This part about God buying souls and possessions in exchange for heaven reminds me of the Bible where Paul reminds us that we are bought with a price - the precious blood of Jesus.
113. It is not worthy of the Prophet and those who believe to seek forgiveness for those who are idolaters, even though they may be their relatives, after they have come to know that they are destined for Hell.
This verse was kind of sad for me. It also reminded me of something I've heard asked before. I'll tweak it a bit for this post. Think of someone you are talking with concerning matters of faith. It could be a dear family member, a beloved friend or an acquaintance who is quickly on the way to becoming a dear friend or maybe just some gal off the street. Got someone in mind? Even if you knew the person you are talking about in matters of faith would never convert to your side -- never become Muslim, never become a Christian, Hindu, Universalist, whatever -- would you still be her friend? Or are you only being friendly because you have these "ulterior motives"? I guess the point of the matter is, do we believe people matter ONLY if there is hope that they will convert to your thinking? Or do people matter, period? I guess this is why this verse 113 made me a bit sad. It seems to give up on people when you are assured (not sure how) that they will never come to your (religious) side. I just think people are worth more than our agendas. (And forgive me for those of you who have never considered converting people or having agendas concerning them, but I know some in the world who seem to have this outlook in life and come across as if people are projects.)
116. Verily God's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. He alone is the giver of life and death; and none do you have besides God as friend and helper.
Another wonderful verse!
123. O believers, fight the unbelievers around you, and let them realise that you are firm: Remember, God is with those who are pious and obedient to Him.
I prefer Jesus' teachings to love our neighbors - which in his story of the Good Samaritan made it clear that even our enemies are considered neighbors.
129. So, if they turn away, say to them: "God is sufficient for me. There is no God but He; I depend on Him alone, the Lord of the glorious Throne."
Loved this beautiful ending to a somewhat difficult chapter.
16 comments:
Which is why Muslim read the Quran "in context"---History, Hadith, Sunnah and semantics are all important to understanding he Quran and is usually available in Tafsr (commentary).
Surah 9 ---according to Yusuf Ali commentary is about dealing with trechery, breaking of treaties, and principles of defensive War.
This was at a time when the Byzantine Empire was preparing to attack the Prophet(pbuh). (The attack never happened)
Verse 1 of Sura 9 makes the subject clear.
Verse 73---refers to a plot by some people to kil the Prophet(pbuh) when he returned from a trip to a place called Tabuk (Commentary--Yusuf Ali)
Verse 29--again, this is about defensive war---not conversion. (Islam (submission) isn't about "actions" only, it is about intentions---therefore, unless you have a sincere intention to believe, you cannot be a Muslim(one who submits)---you will, at most, be a hypocrite.) "Jizya"---is a tax on those who are not Muslim but willingly agree to live in a Muslim state/nation. In return, Muslims promise to protect them and their properties. (Muslims also pay a tax---the obligatory charity---zakat). The reason this came about is because when Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) made peace treaties with Non-Muslims (Pagans, People of the Book) some of them betrayed the peace treates.
(some of People of the book--not only betrayed the peace treaty--but aided the enemy (Meccans)which was treason---since they were a part of the Medina community)
Verse 17---Mosques (places of worship of the One God) should be maintained by people who beleive in one God---Some Pagans wanted to maintain Mosques for Profit---the economy of Mecca was built on the concept of many different Pagan tribes putting up their idols for worship---resulting in people comming for pilgrimage which resulted in trade---that is why caravans stopped there. With Islam---a Mosque will no longer be used as a pretext to make profit---but to worship God.
Susanne, a very thought-provoking post. I have been thinking hard what to say so that I don't sound wrong to either Christians or Muslims because it is clear in my mind but I don't know how to put it down as a comment. I'll try; please bear with me.
Sarah wrote an amazing post once (Sarah can you please give us the link?) in which is wondered (aloud) if Quran was meant to be a list of commands for a specfic community of a specific time and a list of military orders.
I see that both Quran and the Gospel has time-specific stories and commands. The commands from the Gospel can be applied today as well because their aim is to make us better human beings with reliance on civic and moral rules rather than rituals, and emphasis on correction of behaviour rather than punishment. The aim of the Gospel is clearly not to lay down codes of punishment but to correct errant behaviour.
That is how Jesus lived. One, he didn't have authority to punish like the head of a state. Two, where he could pronounce punishment as a religious authority, he chose to pardon over punishing - "he who is sinless cast the first stone"!
Jesus was the ultimate mystic social reformer.
That is why you find these passages from the Quran so disturbing. If you read them in the context, will they be any less disturbing for you as a follower of Jesus? I doubt it.
When I was reading the Quran two years ago with a Saudi professor of Islamic Studies, the problem I faced was that we both accepted that there is no absolute way to decide by ALL Muslims which passages are time-bound and shouldn’t or can’t be applied today, and which passages have universal value.
The passages you find disturbing do refer to specific events and circumstances, but there is no one way in which we can argue they don’t have relevance today or will not be relevant in the future. War tactics change with time which means in case of a war, we can’t use these same verses to guide us into battle because then we will revive a lot of practices we today consider barbaric and immoral, like enslaving people and possessing women with our Right Hands.
So what will happen is that moderate and peace-loving Muslims will tell you that these verses refer to specific time, place and situations and read them as a piece of history and move on. Extremists will tell you that all those who don’t accept Islam deserve Allah’s wrath and that they can’t enter our masajid. BTW, Jizya was only paid by Jews and Christians only. Pagans were forced to convert to Islam or else were killed. If they converted to Christianity instead that was accepted and then they were asked to pay jizya. After Mecca was occupied, no pagan was allowed to live like a pagan. All their temples (except the Kaaba) were demolished and all idols were smashed. Convoys were sent on missions to do this. That is why today not a single pagan Kaaba remains in KSA although until the end of 9th century there were over 4000 kabaat in various parts of Arabia. There is a Kaaba in Yemen which looks just like the Kaaba in Mecca but now it is white-washed and used as a mosque.
Regarding not praying for the dead non-Muslims, it is one thing all Muslims (except Sufis) agree on. We are not supposed to ask God to pardon the souls of non-Muslim friends or relatives. The Prophet himself didn’t pray for his uncle Abu Talib who was his fiercest supporter and who had offered him protection against the Quraish, but who refused to accept that the man who had lived all his early life with him could be a prophet of Allah.
I would just say that there are five pillars of Islam that make everyone who follows them a Muslim and fighting or going to war is not one of them.
"there is no absolute way to decide by ALL Muslims which passages are time-bound and shouldn’t or can’t be applied today, and which passages have universal value."
I disagree---ALL of the Quran is BOTH time-bound and Universal--At the same time. ---for example, the Jizya may have been a time bound application---however, its concept/ethical value still applies today---and is in fact "Law" in many Western countries----That is, Jizya was a social contract in which civilian non-muslims were given the right to protection in return for following the laws of the country. Today, legal non-citizens (residents) are given the same right of protection in return for them abiding by the laws of the country (and they are civilian---because they cannot join an army of the country they are not a citizen of)This social contract is symbolized by resident permits---or other documents instead of Jizya---but the concept is the same.
That religious institutions should not be "for profit" is also something accepted by western "Law" (though not practiced by many Christian Churches)This is reflected in the tax exempt status these institutions are given because taxes on organizations are levied on PROFITS.
Many of the concepts/values put forward for defensive warfare, treatment of prisoners etc in the Quran are today part of the Geneva convention!.
Yes Kat, that is why I put 'ALL' in caps because there will be people who disagree with me, and there are people with whom I disagree.
But jizya is not as simple. The concept is quite complex. Not everything is in the Quran. Some of it is part of sunnah of the Prophet and his companions. For example, according to the Pact of Omar II those who paid jizya were not allowed to ride camels which was the ride of only Muslims; they could only ride on asses. This is just one very small example of the very long pact.
The concepts if taxation and battle tactics have a long history and of course they will overlap concepts from other communities. Jizya wasn't invented by Islam either. It had been practiced in pagan Arabia for years, perhaps centuries,g where one more powerful tribe demanded jizya to protect another weaker tribe from enemies. In fact, in what is now Oman and the UAE, one Muslim tribe would ask another Muslim tribe to pay jizya for protection.
The "ethical value" or concept behind jizya was that Muslims had to fight Jews/Christians until they accepted Islam or paid the jizya. That concept doesn't exist as such in any Western country as far as I know. I don't know of any Western country fighting another country and its people until they became citizens or accepted their subjugation to pay a tax.
I think I mentioned in the previous comment that there will be people who will insist that "ALL of the Quran is BOTH time-bound and Universal--At the same time" and I'm OK with it since I firmly believe that everyone has their right of opinion.
Kat, thanks for your comments. Some of what you said was familiar while other stuff wasn't. So I appreciate your taking time to set me straight on a few things. :)
"With Islam---a Mosque will no longer be used as a pretext to make profit---but to worship God."
That makes good sense.
Thanks again!
Suroor,
"I have been thinking hard what to say so that I don't sound wrong to either Christians or Muslims because it is clear in my mind but I don't know how to put it down as a comment. I'll try; please bear with me."
Of course! I appreciate that about you. :)
"the problem I faced was that we both accepted that there is no absolute way to decide by ALL Muslims which passages are time-bound and shouldn’t or can’t be applied today, and which passages have universal value. "
Yes, that seems true and I realized when I posted that I did NOT know the full context, however, as a "girl off the street" reading the Quran for the first time, I wanted to write impressions and ask questions as to what jumped out at me. One reason is to get feedback from people like you and Kat and Durriyyah and so forth. It's a fun (for me) way to learn. So I appreciate ALL who have written in explanation as I've posted.
Good points about Jesus' message in the Gospel and the circumstances in which he taught and lived. Jesus believed you could transform society by allowing God to change people's hearts (and thus society became more godly as people followed Jesus' teachings rather than whatever came naturally). This is different than bringing a sword and forcing people to convert because they are afraid of loosing their heads.
"So what will happen is that moderate and peace-loving Muslims will tell you that these verses refer to specific time, place and situations and read them as a piece of history and move on."
And that's EXACTLY what Samer did when I read my post to him yesterday to get his perspective! :)
"That is why today not a single pagan Kaaba remains in KSA although until the end of 9th century there were over 4000 kabaat in various parts of Arabia."
How interesting! Hmmmm.
"Regarding not praying for the dead non-Muslims, it is one thing all Muslims (except Sufis) agree on."
Aha! I did not realize this meant DEAD non-Muslims! Duh! Thanks for clearing that up for me.
"I would just say that there are five pillars of Islam that make everyone who follows them a Muslim and fighting or going to war is not one of them."
Awesome! Thank you for your informative comment!
" In fact, in what is now Oman and the UAE, one Muslim tribe would ask another Muslim tribe to pay jizya for protection."
So it seems jizya was just a custom known to and adopted by Muslims. Not anything unique to Islam.
Thank you both for your interesting follow-up comments! Enjoyed 'em! Please keep sharing on this or other posts. :)
I want to clarify something---The Quran is very clear about its concepts/values. ---However, Human implementation of Quranic values IS flawed (by egoic desires).
This has happened time and again in Muslims history---and time and again, Muslims have rebelled against this corruption and clamoured to "go back" to the values of the Quran. That is why the Quran is timeless---because its guidance continues to inspire Muslims in real life even today.
The "ethical value" or concept behind jizya was that Muslims had to fight Jews/Christians until they accepted Islam or paid the jizya.-----this is incorrect as far as the Quran is concerned.
Nowhere in the Quran is aggressive warfare commended. The Quran only calls for defensive warfare. In the Quran, the Jizya is a social contract, a solution to prevent treason (since this is what happened at that time as I mentioned previously)
"In the Quran, the Jizya is a social contract, a solution to prevent treason (since this is what happened at that time as I mentioned previously)"
Kat, thank you for your further comments. You know his reminded me of the last ruling Moghul king Aurangzeb. It was the reinstitution of jizya that caused Hindus to rebel against him but they were afraid to lose their heads so they went behind his back and helped the British to overthrow him! In this case jizya caused treason.
Babur had instituted jizya payment when he attacked India. According to the Quran this was wrong because jizya is not paid by polytheists. It is only meant for People of the Book. But Akbar ended jizya and although he was barbaric in his own ways, at least this was much appreciated by the people he ruled. When some generations later Aurangzeb began taxing them again there was uproar. I can understand why – you first attack a Hindu country and begin ruling it, then you tax them as well. But at least it was better than forcing them to convert. This happened with the Sikhs who were killed and tortured to convert to Islam and to this day Sikhs have immense hatred for Muslims. According to Sikh folk beliefs a Sikh man only cuts his hair if he kills one Muslim man!
Jizya is mentioned only once in the Quran and the various tafsir that interpret it actually do not mention the social value of avoiding treason but rather tell the reader that People of the Book are not following the True Religion (that Jews are not following Moses and Christians are not following Jesus) because all prophets taught about the coming of Muhammad which Jews/Christians deny. Thus they are following their lusts and vanity of their ancestors. According to Ibn Kathir, the Jews/Christians had to pay jizya because “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.” Rather than fear of treason, he mentions that the real cause was that they refused Muhammad’s prophethood. This is why jizya is not levied on idolators who were forced to convert and were believed to be even inferior to People of the Book. We can’t draw conclusions about the why and how of jizya from the Quran with only one verse referring to it and tafsirs giving their own subjective interpretations. It is how the Prophet and his companions instituted is what makes jizya what it is to us.
“Nowhere in the Quran is aggressive warfare commended.” – I must say I agree with it. That is something many people miss or ignore. But then not all the 34 wars and raids that took place in the last 10 years of the life of the Prophet are mentioned in the Quran either. Not all were in self-defense either. I really wonder why Muslims wanted to attack Romans since they were not a threat; that battle was not planned in self-defense. Raids certainly weren’t in self-defense and many scholars and writers of Islam claim that they were meant to provoke the pagans and start the establishment of Muslim rule.
Susanne, yes, jizya was not invented by Islam. Islam is always blamed for it which is unfair; it was a social tax used for religious purposes but existed as a social tax and nothing more for years before Islam and was used as a social tax and nothing more even within Muslim societies with one Muslim asking another for it in exchange for protection.
Kat, lovely clarification! Yes, I agree that it's the values that are timeless. The trouble is when people take it too literally and feel those "values" include killing unbelievers. Thankfully most Muslims, I feel, are like you.
Thanks for explaining your understanding of the jizya! Good stuff!
Suroor, interesting historical example of how jizya didn't cause the treason it was meant to prevent.
"I can understand why – you first attack a Hindu country and begin ruling it, then you tax them as well. "
I'd uproar, too! :)
Wow, I didn't realize the extreme hatred between Sikhs and Muslims. :-/
Interesting thoughts on why jizya was implemented by Muslims to People of the Book. Thanks for sharing those various perspectives.
Based on what you shared, I guess it's fair to say most, but not ALL Muslim wars/raids/conflict were merely for self-defense. Thanks for all the info. Great food for thought!
I found this surah difficult too. I thought this post was excellent and I've nothing much to add, really. I just found myself nodding at everything. :)
The part about not praying for dead non-Muslims - it is difficult for converts with family funerals, even people of the book apparently don't count and can't be prayed for. Plus the fact that women are not supposed to go to graves, according to some opinions. I just found it really shocking that you can presume to know someone's eternal destiny and write them off like that.
Sarah, I'm glad you liked the post. I think sura 9 was my least favorite sura thus far. :)
Enjoyed your comment. Thank you!
Post a Comment