Learn tolerance from the Quran [9:29]
quran.com/9/29Posted Dec 13, 2011, 5:37 AM UTC
1623
quran.com
Hail allah.
4
I read that as "Haaye Allah!" in a desi accent. :)
2
LOL! :D
1
Let me quote from a tafsir I use frequently. It comments on vs. 29-30 together:
"In Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthur, it has been reported from the Qur'an commentator, Mujahid that these verses have been revealed about the battle of Tabuk."
Tabuk was in Madani life and therefore a later battle. These battles had a prescribed limit (Jizya) and resulted in peace treaties signed during and after the life of the Prophet (SAW).
The tafsir goes into detail and refutes your (deliberate?) misunderstandings/(misinformation?) here. Go to p. 360 of the scanned book or p. 368 of the pdf file to get the start of the lengthy explanation.
2
Oh my non-existent Allah!
Surah Tawba is a pretty terrible sura in general, but the tafsir you linked to is even worse. Have you read some of the stuff in there?
This last sentence tells us that the objective of Jihad carried out by Muslims should never be the conquest of countries like common kings or to hurt the enemy and to take vengeance as belligerent people around the world would love to do. Instead of doing anything like that ,
when it comes to fighting that they must, the driving objective should be compassion for the enemy, the empathy and the desire that they would stop doing** what was not right.**
This is absolutely disgusting. It says the Muslims should fight everyone, not to take over them, but because they believe in the wrong relgion. So much for 'no compulsion in religion'
Two signs of sincere Muslims (1) They fight disbelievers i n the way of Allah. (2) They t ake no non-Muslim a s the i r close friend to whom secrets a r e confided.
I can't make this shit up.
Also, note the 'cute' words he uses instead of 'slave'.
In t h e case of a bondman or bondwoman, thi s danger does not exist.
Also, here's the real issue...
Literally, jizyah means return or recompense. In the terminology of the Shari'ah, it refers to the amount of money taken from disbelievers in lieu of killing.
In lieu of killing.
This is blackmail, pure and simple. Give me money or I will kill you.
Thank you for giving me something absolutely disgusting to link to everytime Jihad is mentioned in /r/islam
8
There is no misunderstanding brother. I have read the text you've provided in the link and any sensible person can read that Jizya is a punishment for disbeliever (though Christians and Jews both believed in Allah), that the people of the book have to give it _ subjugated and humbled_, that it is the price for their lives and properties they have to pay to the conqueror .
You are a human being and no doubt a humane person. Just put yourself in their shoes and think about how you would feel if Christians decided your religion was a lie, conquered your country (if you live in a Muslim world), killed some of your people because they defended their country and let the others alive provided you all owe them a tribute for your lifetime. Humanely, it is just unacceptable.
I have another long and good tafseer of this aya with supportive hadiths. this tafseer is very explicit (you will especially appreciate this hadith on the next page "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"). He're the link brother. Read and judge for yourself.
Brother, we are not judging you for your faith, but the fact is there are some issues in Islam, and this you cannot deny if you're a rational person.
6
Interesting. "Reliance of the Traveler" published by Al Azhar University also contains similar troubling ideas.
Why do muslims still deny this horrific guidance as part of Islam itself?
3
Why do muslims still deny this horrific guidance as part of Islam itself?
Actually, it's not that simple (otherwise there would be no single religious person in the world). The human mind is very complex, we are far from the rational beings we think we are.
There are many reasons that keep religious people in denial as to troubling ideas in their creed, some of which are related to cognitive biases like the Halo effect, the media bias, cognitive dissonance, etc, added to this the fact that most Muslims (especially non-Arabic speakers or those who didn't have an extensive religious education) are unaware of what their religion is all about, most of us were brought up with universal values such as loving your neighbor, doing good and refraining from evil, along with the religious rituals and prohibitions, with little or no emphasis on the most controversial parts.
It is very difficult to accept the dark side of a religion you have spent your whole life following the teaching of, you'd rather live by its bright side and deny the very existence of the rest, despite its being in the holy scriptures and scholarly sources.
1
so you're saying that the Quran is not an all-time book? and is outdated because it refers to ancient battles and events?
How will an extremely religious muslim interpret this verse when he/she reads it without any tafsir? I thought the quran is a timeless book.
3
also. if everything needs tasfir, whos religion are you following? muhammad or some scholar who put together his own thoughts from his simple, falable human mind?
3
exactly
2
During the lifetime of the Prophet, there were 19 companions who attained sufficient knowledge to issue fatwas, even as new verses of the Quran were being revealed. Today's mainstream scholars take from those fatwas and apply the rules of islamic sciences to make decisions and rulings. Most scholars who are authors are practicing muslims and well-respected amongst their peers, so they can be trusted with dispensing knowledge. If I follow my own desires and whims, then I'm not following Islam. The system of Islamic scholarship and taqlid, takes my human desires out of religion.
2
...so you're saying that the Quran is not an all-time book...
No.
A muslim, regardless of status, is bound by Shariah to have the proper knowledge before emabarking upon an activity or getting involved in anything. Ignorance of the laws will not be an excuse for any muslim. Period.
1
Read your own comment again. If you don't see the trouble with it, then I'm sorry for you.
2
You need to point out what trouble you have with what I said.
3
I will do just that after you answer me this:
Do you think that quranic verse promotes inter-faith tolerance?
3
Study the life of the Prophet (SAW). It was full of examples of inter-faith dialog and understanding. His life was the embodiment of the Quran. The above mentioned verses 9:29 refer, as some commentators say, to the battle of Tabuk. My advise to you is to study the tafseer of Quran to get the meanings before you arrive at erroneous conclusions.
2
That's the nice part about being a Muslim once: you know all the self-deceiving mental-gymnastics that are needed in order to justify such evil.
Any Muslim reading this post is guaranteed to have one, and only one, excuse for this: "You're taking the verse out of context, it was actually referring to the various battles between opposing tribes and early Muslims".
The reason why there's such a guarantee is that the verse is actually amazingly clear and to the point: Attack the unbelievers, Jews and Christians (read the verse that comes after this one). There's absolutely no doubt in this. It can't be a misinterpretation of "old Arabic" or some similar lame excuse. It's quite obvious.
A modern Muslim would have to make this excuse in order to make sense of that fact that the majority of people on this planet are a combination of non-believers, Jews and Christians.
But things get uncomfortable real quick when Mr. Modern Muslim thinks about how human beings always, and without exception, tend to take quotes from books and writings out of context. Why would Allah not know this ahead of time? Surely he knew that people like Osama bin Laden and others will take this lovely verse as an order to kill all who reject Islam.
When Mr. Modern Muslim gets too uncomfortable, he simply chooses to run away from this anxiety by quickly thinking about the positive side of Islam; giving to the poor, being kind to neighbors and friends, the sense of community during Ramadan and Eid perhaps, etc. "Yeah, Islam is good and Allah is great, what was I thinking!". The cycle repeats every time a rational objection to the religion makes its way into Mr. Muslim's head.
Sometimes, just sometimes, Mr. Muslim is courageous enough to entertain the objection in his head - despite the tremendous discomfort. In these cases, Mr. Muslim won't be Mr. Muslim for long.
Good points.
But I have another problem with verses like this one. When a muslim says, that this verse was referring to a specific war at the time of mohammed, doesn't he acknowledge, that the quran is not "timeless" ? This raises far more questions than it answers. How do we know, what parts of quran are still obligatory for us? Which parts don't matter anymore?
Also, thinking about the conclusion that the quran has verses which are only for the people who lived at the lifetime of mohammed: doesn't it seem to be too local? Too restricted to the time and place mohammed lived? Just think about a deity who created EVERYTHING, the whole fucking universe, with everything in it; all the complexity and all the beauty. And then, he cares about a war on a small planet in the milky way, started by some great apes, 600 CE? And he doesn't hesitate to put this event in his holy book, because it is sooo important (despite the fact that it will be obsolete right after the war).
It seems so plausible :/
good point. The Quran is timeless. But the command is not timeless. The reason why it is considered timeless is because it is the speech of Allah. If Allah is timeless, then his speech is timeless, hence the Quran is timeless.
There are lessons and stories in the Quran to be taken, and those are relevant in every era of time.
Two other possbilities remain:
I've read the Tafseer (interpretation) of this verse just last weekend. There is absolutely no doubt about it in the context Ibn Katheer related in his Tafseer : Christians, Jews and heathens must be treated as second-class citizens.
In this case, Mr. Muslim is just accepting some parts of Islam and rejecting other parts. Mr. Muslim either is not a Muslim anymore (since you have to agree with everything) or is doublethinking. In either cases he is inconsistent with logic or with religion.