Surah 9:29, fight those who dont believe until they pay the Jizya

[Sami Zaatari]

salam all, critics of Islam argue that surah 9:29 (taubah) proves that Islam is an intolerant world dominating violent religion. but is that true? or have they failed to take the verse in its historical context and reasons for revelation? :

http://muslim-responses.com/Fighting..._dont_Believe_

you decide!

[ins321]

Looks like a very good article, but for those of us who are too lazy to read it all (like me), this is the bit that answers the question:

Opponents of Islam claim that Islam is not a religion of peace, that it is in fact a religion of violence, terrorism, and a faith that advocates wars against those who do not believe in this religion. One of the most common text they bring up to support their claim is that of Surah 9:29 (Surah Taubah). They claim this verse advocates violence, and war, against all those who do not believe in Islam, hence they conclude that Islam is an intolerant religion. Before refuting their claims, and their gross ignorance, let us first quote this passage:


YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.



To begin with, let us expose the Christian double standard, why do they firstly assume that fight has to completely mean physical only? Fighting those who do not believe in Islam can done in many other forms other than a physical fight or conflict, fighting someone can be done with the tongue, you refute and crush the persons lies, and you preach the truth to them until they repent of their ways and come to the truth. There is not a single objection any Christian or other can bring against this point, because they have deceptively interpreted this verse to mean physical altercation only, in fact what will Christians say to this verse from their Bible:

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword

Christians will interpret this verse saying that sword doesn't actually mean a physical sword, rather it is metaphorical language referring to the tongue, that by the tongue Christians shall spread the truth and crush the lies that have been propagated by satan. Therefore I must ask why don't Christians leave this interpretation open to the Quran as well? Why do they immediately assume that Surah 9:29 must ONLY refer to physical altercation? If a Christian objects to my claim that Surah 9:29 can also mean fighting unbelievers by the tongue, then it also throws out their own interpretation of Matthew 10:34 which means they no longer have any argument! So it is up to the Christian, if they want to argue honestly, or if they want to argue deceptively using double standards in interpretation.

[Sami Zaatari]

yup that small part there is enough to refute them, the rest just destroys them

[AbdulQahhar]

Do you believe that Islam does not aim to be a world dominating religion?

It doesn't need to be and maybe it will never be, not until the Judgement Day, Allahu 'Alam. Allah don't need us nor Islam nor anything. This is more a matter of how do we live - more Muslims around, easier for us, more justice - I'd presume - in this dunya. In the end, who wants to accept Islam, well elhamdulillah, and who doesn't, well, Allah is certainly Independent and we all depend on Him.

PS Let somebody show me one verse or one hadith where Islam aims to be the world dominating religion. I doubt you will find it.

[sahih-baba]

salam all, critics of Islam argue that surah 9:29 (taubah) proves that Islam is an intolerant world dominating violent religion. but is that true? or have they failed to take the verse in its historical context and reasons for revelation? :

http://muslim-responses.com/Fighting..._dont_Believe_

you decide!

salam
all you have to say is:

let me correct you...islam is a tolerant naturally dominating religion which aims to put violence to an end.
what you are talking about is catholicism

[AbdulQahhar]

Here is the view of Mufti Ebrahim Desai:

Please read this answer on www.askimam.com, about spreading Islam throughout the world (even by fighting).

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=12128

I have a question about offensive Jihad. Does it mean that we are to attack even those non-Muslims which don't do anything against Islam just because we have to propagate Islam?

I have been reading Tafsir e Usmani for the last month or so. In it I have read that offensive Jihad (first attack) should be done by Muslims for 2 reasons. 1) For the sake of Allah (in the Way of God) 2) For the sake of subjugated people under oppression like in Kashmir, Palestine etc. Now the second reason I completely understand. But the explanation given of the first reason is "For the sake of Allah includes the propagation of Islam, the survival of Islam, the extermination of those hindrances which impede the progress and expansion of Islam." (explanation of verse 190, Surah baqara) I really don't understand this explanation. What does propagation of Islam mean here? Does it mean that we are to attack even those non-Muslims which don't do anything against Islam just because we have to propagate Islam? For example, there are many countries in the world which are not enemies of Islam in any way (at least I think so). Please explain to me against which Non-Muslims, the Muslims have to do Jihad and against which, Jihad is not allowed. JazakAllah Khair.

You should understand that we as Muslims firmly believe that the person who doesn't believe in Allah as he is required to, is a disbeliever who would be doomed to Hell eternally. Thus one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world, thus saving people from eternal damnation.

Thus what is meant by the passage in Tafsir Uthmani, is that if a country doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus saving them from the Fire of Jahannum. If the Kuffaar allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Re-read my previous post. Islam will spread as Allah Wills. Our duty is to present Islam in its original form as It was revealed and Allah choose whoever He Wills to bless him/her with Islam.

[AbdulQahhar]

..and part of presenting Islam is by spreading it as mentioned in my post. Obviously Islam will spread as Allah wills, but we have to do our duty. I think we are saying something similar but I am not sure why you have some problems with how I worded my post. One of the goals of Islam is to spread the law of Allah thoughout the earth - by legitimate means ofcourse, this is what the Sahaba sacrificed their lives for.

The thing you didn't get me is this: I'm saying that some people will not accept Islam even if you push a sword down their kuffar throats.

[sahih-baba]

first of all the word 'tolerant' has to be defined.

The meaning of tolerant taken by westerners is that everyone can practise their deen in public. This would not be the case in an Islamic state. In their eyes the dhimmi system is intolerant. So our saying that Islam is tolerant of other faiths based on the popular defnition of tolerant is a play on words.

Also, what do you mean by naturally dominating?

i think you might be confusing TOLERANCE with RESPECT.

in islam we tolerate but not respect the other religions.
naturally dominating means it will naturally dominate, given time

[sahih-baba]

if ppl say anything about islam and tolerance / spread by sword, i will just tell them straight that is the old catholic psychosis, their disease being projected on to their enemies the muslims.

and i would tell them straight, islam was spread partly by the sword which means by conquest but there were no forced conversions as in catholicism.
and that islam does not tolerate or respect polytheism and evil actions.

i would make things very clear and present islam as it is.

i would never say islam means peace either! i would say it means submission and surrender to allah without which there can be no peace.

[AbdulQahhar]

if ppl say anything about islam and tolerance / spread by sword, i will just tell them straight that is the old catholic psychosis, their disease being projected on to their enemies the muslims.

and i would tell them straight, islam was spread partly by the sword which means by conquest but there were no forced conversions as in catholicism.
and that islam does not tolerate or respect polytheism and evil actions.

i would make things very clear and present islam as it is.

i would never say islam means peace either! i would say it means submission and surrender to allah without which there can be no peace.

Actually, if I'm really precise here, Islam did spread by the sword, if we read sword as follows:

Sword -> S-Word -> Salaam Word

meaning: with peace.