Is Quran 9:5 Historical Only?

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
A % of Muslims will often quote verse 9:5 to justify why they kill non-Muslims as being a threat to Islam. However Muslim apologists disagree with the above.

Here is an article [not mine] to elaborate on the above;
Countering Islamic Propaganda: 9:5

What the Apologists Want You to Believe

With regard to verse 9:5, the strategy of most apologists is to argue that it is bound to a past historical period by the textual context based on earlier verses. While there is some truth to this, Discover the Truth [DTT] also tries to justify the eviction and slaughter (of those who would not convert to Islam).

According to DTT:

1) The 'pagan Arabs' broke a treaty (and were the first to do so)
2) The act was a 'declaration of war' on the Muslims, who were under attack
3) The response was limited to only those 'pagan Arabs' who were attacking

The Verse 9:5

Quran 9:5. Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform Salat, and give Zakat, then leave their way free.​
How They Do It: 'Adding' to the Quran

Once again, Allah's language is highly inconvenient to the modern-day apologist. When he said Mushrikun in verse 9:5 (meaning those who worship incorrectly), he really meant to say 'those who are attacking you." And when Allah said "slay them wherever you find them", he means "not necessarily wherever you find them but only where they are trying to find you." Likewise, the part about one being safe only if they adopt Islamic practices (salat and zakat) is another way of saying "until you are not being attacked."


How They Do It: Citing Contemporary Apologists and Weak Hadith
A bevy of modern-era apologists are rolled out to assure gullible readers that the verse can't possibly mean what it says. Generally, their arguments involve pulling verses from other suras and knitting them together.

Rather than waste time with this, let's just move on to what the Quran, Hadith and Sira have to say.


How They Do It: Ignoring Reliable Sources
Ibn Ishaq said that that the command to fight applied to all polytheists at Mecca, whether they had broken a treaty or not:"...the polytheists who had broken the special agreement as well as those who had a general agreement after the four months which had been given them as a fixed time" (Ishaq/Hisham 922)Ibn Kathir agrees:When it was the day to make the sacrifices, 'Ali b. Abu Talib arose and made the proclamation as ordered by the Messenger of God. He gave them a period of four months from the day of that declaration for them all to return to some place of safety, or to their own lands. Thereafter there was to be no pact or protection for any polytheists, except for any individual who had a personal agreement with the Messenger of God; that would remain in force until its expiration." After that year, no polytheist made the pilgrimage and no one circumambulated the kabaa (Ibn Kathir v.4 p. 49)This is also in the hadith (Sahih Muslim 7:3125 ). Note that the context is pilgrimage (not war) and it is the non-believers who are being threatened and in need of "safety."

Non-believers who would not leave, according to the Hadith, were killed:"The Prophet recited Suratan-Najm (103) at Mecca and prostrated while reciting it and those who were with him did the same except an old man who took a handful of small stones or earth and lifted it to his forehead and said, 'This is sufficient for me.' Later on, I saw him killed as a non-believer." (Sahih Muslim 19:173) .

How They Do It: Sleight of Hand

DTT pretends that verse 9:13 ("Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first?") refers to a violation by the polytheists that precipitates the "dissolution of obligations" in verse 9:1. In fact, it pertains to past hostilities between the Quraish and Muslims.

Ibn Kathir says that verse 13 "refers to the battle of Badr when the idolaters marched to protect their caravan." (Tafsir) It was not a breaking of any agreement subsequent to Muhammad taking control of Mecca.

DTT also says that verse 9:4 ("excepted are those with whom you made a treaty") means that the next verse is "is only aimed at those who broke the treaty, it did not affect those who abided by the treaty."

It does not mean this at all. Ibn Kathir explains that the exception applies to those pagans who had a special agreement that lasted beyond the four month term. It has nothing to do with anyone else breaking a treaty:What is correct is that those with a pact would have it last for its specified duration, even if for more than four months. Those with pacts devoid of a specified duration would have their pacts expire after four months. (Ibn Kathir v.4 p. 50)

Why They are Wrong

According to the historians, Muhammad had a general agreement with the polytheists that he would allow them to continue their religious practices after taking control of Mecca. Indeed, Sura 2 of the Quran says that keeping people back from the "sacred Mosque" is an abomination. DTT even claims elsewhere that Muhammad marched on Mecca to "free man to follow his religion without persecution."

Once in power, however, Muhammad had a change of heart and narrated verses that dissolved the agreement after the end of the sacred months (ie. the final pilgrimage). The only exception would be those who had a special agreement which lasted a few years beyond this.

While a case may be made as to the historic limitation of the order to kill unbelievers, there is no mention in these verses or in the historical record of any violations of the treaty by the non-Muslims in Mecca at that time. Instead, the reason given is that they are polytheists (9:5 Mushrikun) and "unclean" (9:28). Likewise, the killing is to end when worship is for Allah's religion.

Muslims were in a position of power at the time, and were not under attack. Had they been, then there certainly would not have been a waiting period (ie. "after the sacred months have passed") nor is there any mention of self-defense in the Hadith or Sira. Instead, it is about the worst sort of religious bigotry. The pagans are circumventing the kabaa (engaging in their rituals). Unless they stop this and convert to Islam (ie. pay the zakat and perform salat - Islamic prayer - as 9:5 says) they are to be killed.

The introduction of violence is therefore by Muhammad, who gives non-Muslims four months to vacate Mecca or be slain "wherever they may be found." Here, then, is the double standard so ingrained in the supremacist ideology of Islam. When out of power, religious Muslims whine about equal rights. Once in power, they shut down the rights of others. Underlying it all is the threat of violence.​
Again this is a biased view from a biased Christian. It was the mushrikoon who initially waged war against Muslims. Muslims were asked to fight back. That's simple enough. But when u look at Bible you are ordered to kill all non believers just because they are not Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
Again this is a biased view from a biased Christian. It was the mushrikoon who initially waged war against Muslims. Muslims were asked to fight back. That's simple enough. But when u look at Bible you are ordered to kill all non believers just because they are not Christians.
Don't argue when you are so ignorant of the relevant and essential knowledge.
Btw, I am not a Christian - see my profile on the left of this post.

Before Muhammad's preaching, the Meccans were living harmoniously with their different religions.
In the context of Muhammad and Islam, it was Muhammad who started the tit-for-tat when he first insulted the Meccans' religion to whom he first started to preach, then the Jews and Christians who rejected his preaching.
Muhammad was warned many times by the Meccans not to insult their religions and they only took actions after Muhammad insistence to insult them.

It is Muhammad and Islamists who were aggressive, evil and violent all the way from the start to the conquest of land from Spain to India and to the present and will be in the future.

Christianity and Christian by definition do not rely on the whole Bible.
note this OP of mine.
Who is a Christian?

The central authoritative holy texts of the Christianity is the Gospels [Injeel] and that is even recognized by the Quran itself.
The Quran also recognized the OT [Torah] is for the Jews not specifically for Christianity nor Christians. Christianity relies on the OT as a reference only and not as an authoritative text.

The Gospels has an overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all -even enemies.'
Therefore if any Christians [as humans] were to commit evil and violent acts, they are not commanded by the Christian God within the Gospels.
These so-called-Christians committed those violent acts on their own free will [for the greater good or personal reasons] which has nothing to do with Christianity itself.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
2,992
2,859
Davao City
Visit site
✟226,465.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The central authoritative holy texts of the Christianity is the Gospels [Injeel] and that is even recognized by the Quran itself.
In Islam the Injil is not the gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark found in the Bible. The Injil (Singular) that is recognized in the Qur'an is the gospel that was sent directly down to Jesus.

We sent Jesus son of Mary, fulfilling the Torah that preceded him; and We gave him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah that preceded him, and guidance and counsel for the righteous. -- Qur'an 5:46

We sent in their wake Our messengers, and followed up with Jesus son of Mary, and We gave him the Gospel, and instilled in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy. -- Qur'an 57:27


The gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark found in the Bible are historical accounts of Jesus and what He said during His earthly ministry. They didn't exist during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry and therefore can't possibly be the gospel (Injil) mentioned in the Qur'an.
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
In Islam the Injil is not the gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark found in the Bible. The Injil (Singular) that is recognized in the Qur'an is the gospel that was sent directly down to Jesus.

We sent Jesus son of Mary, fulfilling the Torah that preceded him; and We gave him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah that preceded him, and guidance and counsel for the righteous. -- Qur'an 5:46

We sent in their wake Our messengers, and followed up with Jesus son of Mary, and We gave him the Gospel, and instilled in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy. -- Qur'an 57:27


The gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark found in the Bible are historical accounts of Jesus and what He said during His earthly ministry. They didn't exist during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry and therefore can't possibly be the gospel (Injil) mentioned in the Qur'an.
I agree the Injeel stated in the Quran was supposed to contain the message to be delivered by Jesus for the Christians.
That is the belief in the Quran which the Christians would not agree with. [you have condemned that as a false religion from a false god]

What the Christians believe and accept are the principles and doctrines from the gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark.
Therefore a Christian-proper has to comply with the doctrines of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark and not the injeel mentioned in the Quran.

Since the Gospel re Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark has the overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even ones' enemies' ALL Christians will have to comply to this ideal to the best of their ability.
If they don't then they would have sinned and will be at the mercy of God to be forgiven or be punished.
 
Upvote 0

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Don't argue when you are so ignorant of the relevant and essential knowledge.
Btw, I am not a Christian - see my profile on the left of this post.

Before Muhammad's preaching, the Meccans were living harmoniously with their different religions.
In the context of Muhammad and Islam, it was Muhammad who started the tit-for-tat when he first insulted the Meccans' religion to whom he first started to preach, then the Jews and Christians who rejected his preaching.
Muhammad was warned many times by the Meccans not to insult their religions and they only took actions after Muhammad insistence to insult them.

It is Muhammad and Islamists who were aggressive, evil and violent all the way from the start to the conquest of land from Spain to India and to the present and will be in the future.

Christianity and Christian by definition do not rely on the whole Bible.
note this OP of mine.
Who is a Christian?

The central authoritative holy texts of the Christianity is the Gospels [Injeel] and that is even recognized by the Quran itself.
The Quran also recognized the OT [Torah] is for the Jews not specifically for Christianity nor Christians. Christianity relies on the OT as a reference only and not as an authoritative text.

The Gospels has an overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all -even enemies.'
Therefore if any Christians [as humans] were to commit evil and violent acts, they are not commanded by the Christian God within the Gospels.
These so-called-Christians committed those violent acts on their own free will [for the greater good or personal reasons] which has nothing to do with Christianity itself.
U said he insulted their religion. Give proof
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
U said he insulted their religion. Give proof
The Meccans who had different religions were living harmoniously before Muhammad received his revelations.

After Muhammad had received his revelations, he started to preach to the Meccans who were polytheists and were condemned by Allah and Muhammad as idolaters whose religion is inferior to Islam.

13:16. Say (O Muhammad): Who is Lord of the heaven and the earth? Say: Allah! Say: Take ye [infidels] then (others) beside Him for protectors, which, even for themselves, have neither benefit nor hurt? Say: Is the blind man equal to the seer, or is darkness equal to light? Or assign they [infidels] unto Allah partners Who created the like of His creation so that the creation (which they made and His creation) seemed alike to them? Say: Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Almighty.

61:9. He [Allah] it is who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion [wadeeni] of truth, that He may make it [Islam] conqueror of all religion [alddeeni] however much idolaters [infidels] may be averse [deny].

25:55. Yet they [infidels] worship instead of Allah that [idols and deities] which can neither benefit them nor hurt them. The disbeliever [infidels] was ever a partisan against his Lord.​

Obviously with the above insults as inferiors and other put-downs, the Meccans naturally will be offended especially when one's religion is insulted and offended. Note there are many such verses where the idolaters in general were insulted and condemned by Islam and Muhammad.

10:15. And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them they [infidels] who look not for the meeting with Us say: Bring a Lecture other than this [Quran], or change it. Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I [Muhammad] only follow that which is inspired in me. Lo! If I disobey my Lord I fear the retribution of an awful Day.
When they Meccans were insulted is obvious they did not want to meet Muhammad the insulter.

34:43. And if Our revelations are recited unto them [infidels] in plain terms, they [infidels] say: This is naught else than a man who would turn you away from what your [infidels] fathers used to worship; and they [infidels] say: This [Quran] is naught else than an invented lie. Those [infidels] who disbelieve say of the truth when it reacheth them: This is naught else than mere magic.
The above is an indication of an insult of the Meccans' religion as inferior to the extent they must turned away from what their fathers used to worship. Thus they countered Muhammad's revelations as an invented lie.

The Meccans warned Muhammad but he insisted, thus the counter attacks between the two parties.

The final insult of the Meccans' religion is when Muhammad smashed all the idols of the Meccan except the main one in the Kabba.

Note if Muhammad had not preached his religion in an aggressive and insulting manner, there would not have been the tit-for-tat that culminate in the terrible evil and violent acts from SOME Muslims to the present.

The fact is the ideology of Islam is inherent aggressive, evil and violent in its core. That is how it started with aggression all the way from the start by SOME [not all] Muslims to the present.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0