On Qur'an 2:193, Tafsir Al-Qurtubi

[Isaiah60]

Noble Qur'an 2:193, Madinah Period

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone).* But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

*footnote: "(V.2:193)
(A) Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Messenger said, "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people till they testify that La illallah wa Anna Muhammmad-ur-Rasul Allah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah), and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give Zakat, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives, and properties from me except for Islamic laws, and their reckoning (accounts) will be with (done by) Allah." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 1, Hadith No.24).
============================================
Tafsir Al-Qurtubi: Qur'an 2:193,

"Fight them until there is no more fitna and the deen belongs to Allah alone.
This is a command to fight every idolater in every place according to those who say that it abrogates the previous ayats. According to those who say that it does not abrogate other ayats, it means: fight those about whom Allah says, "if they fight you". The former is the more likely meaning. It is an unqualified command to fight without any precondition of hostilities being initiated by the unbelievers. The evidence for that is in the words of Allah, "and the din belongs to Allah alone." The Prophet said, " I was commanded to fight people until they say, 'There is no god but Allah.' The ayat and hadith both indicate that the reason for fighting is disbelief because Allah says, "until there is no more fitna," meaning disbelief in this case. So the goal is to abolish disbelief and that is clear.
Ibn 'Abbas, Qatada, ar-Rabi', as-Suddi and others said that fitna here means shirk and the subsequent injury to the believers caused by it. The root of fitna is testing and trial, derived from the term for testing silver when it is put in the fire to separate the impurities from the pure metal.

If they cease, there should be no enmity towards any but wrongdoers.
If they stop and become Muslim or submit by paying jizya in the case of the people of the Book. Otherwise they should be fought and they are wrongdoers and only transgress against themselves. What is done to the wrongdoers is called enmity since it is the repayment of enmity. Wrongdoing and injustice involve enmity and repayment of enmity is also called enmity. The wrongdoers are either those who initiate fighting or those who remain entrenched in disbelief and fitna."

 

[R. Hartono]

There is no use to learn religion if you only want to fight other believers, what you get is hell on earth man oh man. You should appreciate religious tolerance.

 

[Isaiah60]

I do not agree with what I posted. But as a general style of writing informative posts I added that verse with the tafsir for clarity on the issue as Tafsir Al-Qurtubi is known for his clarity on the Qur'an.
Qur'an 2:193 is about the mass extermination of over 5-billion people on earth. The verse itself is clear enough to understand, but with the classical tafsirr from Qurtubi there is no arguing it.

 

[R. Hartono]

If you spread religion by killing and intimidating, you are actually spreading hell fire and disaster and terror to people.

 

[dzheremi]

Yep...not a fan of the Qur'an or Islam more generally.

Is there something you wanted to discuss about the verse or al Qurtubi's tafsir in particular?

 

[Isaiah60]

Yep...not a fan of the Qur'an or Islam more generally.

Is there something you wanted to discuss about the verse or al Qurtubi's tafsir in particular?

I was hoping after you read it that you would accept Islam LOL!
Seriously, we have so many people who are clueless about the teachings of Islam and this particular verse tends to stand out as one of the most clear verses in the Qur'an when speaking about killing all unbelievers until none are left. Some may say, 'Oh, but you are interpreting it wrong!' But classical tafsir holds more weight in authority than the emotions of liberals. So I posted this with the intention of bringing some informative information to the forum which will get people to think. But perhaps I should have given it a better title.

 

[football5680]

I would say this isn't the best verse to use to prove this point because based on the previous verses, they can claim that this is only in self-defense regardless of what their scholars have said regarding it.

The best verse to prove this fact about Islam is Quran 9:29.

"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."

With this verse, the context completely rules out the possibility that this is somehow in self-defense and the reason for fighting is that they are unbelievers. This is also the second to last Surah of the Quran that was supposidely revealed to Muhammad which means that it abrogates anything else in the Quran that would seemingly contradict it. The only other Surah revealed later is Surah 110 which is only 3 verses and doesn't contain much substance at all.

 

[Isaiah60]

I would say this isn't the best verse to use to prove this point because based on the previous verses, they can claim that this is only in self-defense regardless of what their scholars have said regarding it.

The best verse to prove this fact about Islam is Quran 9:29.

"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."

With this verse, the context completely rules out the possibility that this is somehow in self-defense and the reason for fighting is that they are unbelievers. This is also the second to last Surah of the Quran that was supposidely revealed to Muhammad which means that it abrogates anything else in the Quran that would seemingly contradict it. The only other Surah revealed later is Surah 110 which is only 3 verses and doesn't contain much substance at all.

Yes but the tafsir explains 2:193 the best. It means that in today's world over 5-billion people must be exterminated. The verse you cited is also a Madinah verse which is intended to abrogate all other dins (religions/worldviews of kafirs). There are many verses which are clearly violent towards unbelievers, some even worse than that, but 2:193 is something I can post which is clear context with classical tafsir explaining it in clarity. Not all tafsir scholars are as clearly worded as Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, and unfortunately the English translation of him only covers Surah 1 & 2. I doubt Bewley will finish the rest of the tafsir since it has been said that there is tafsir from him which makes eating people lawful. This I have not confirmed due to the lack of English translations out there. Though I have a friend in my FB from Iraq and he is an atheist believe it or not. He said if you think the English translations are brutal they are much worse in Arabic. But Bewley is one of the best translators and she never waters down things pertaining to jihad. Her translation of the Ash Shifa (Seerah) is absolutely brutal!! Here, I'll post it for you. Give me a couple of seconds and I'll have that up with a verse from the Qur'an supporting it

 

[Isaiah60]

Noble Qur'an 3:31,

"Say (O Muhammad to mankind): "If you (really) love Allah then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow the Quran and the Sunnah), Allah will love you and forgive you of your sins. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

84% of the Islamic Canon of Scripture is Sunnah. What I am posting for you below is Islamic Scripture. Below that I will post from the sharia the crime of disagreeing with the Sunnah and other scholarly works.


Ash Shifa (Aisha Bewley translation):

Part 4, Chapter 1, Section 1, p.376

"Habib ibn Rabi' al-Qarawi said that the school of Malik and his companions is that anyone who says anything disparaging about the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent.
Ibn ' Attab said that the Book of Sunna require that someone who intends to even slightly harm or disparage the Prophet, either by allusion or clear statement, must be killed."

Part 4, Chapter 1, Section 2, p.376

SECTION 2
The Proof of the necessity of killing anyone who curses the Prophet or finds fault with him

"The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorized as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed."

Section 2, continued..p.378

"Similarly on the Day of Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet."

Section 2, continued..pp.378-379

"Abdu'r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Az-Zubayr said, "I will." He sent az-Zubayr and he killed him.
It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.
It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent 'Ali and az-Zubayr to kill him.
Ibn Qani' related that a man came to the Prophet and said, "Messenger of Allah, I heard my father say something ugly about you, so I killed him," and that did not distress the Prophet.
Al-Mujahir ibn Umayya, the Amir of Yemen, reported to Abu Bakr that a woman there in the time of Ridda chanted curses against the Prophet, so he cut off her hand and pulled out her front teeth. When Abu Bakr heard that, he said to him, "If you had not done what you already did, I would have commanded you to kill her because the hadd regarding the Prophet is not like the hadd regarding others."
Ibn 'Abbas said that a woman from Khatma satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said, "Who will deal with her for me?" A man from her people said, "I will, Messenger of Allah." The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet, "Two goats will not lock horns over her."
Ibn 'Abbas said that a blind man has an umm walad who used to curse the Prophet. He scolded her and restrained her, but she would not be restrained. That night she began to attack and revile the Prophet, so he killed her. He told the Prophet about that and he said he has shed her blood with impunity."

Part Four, Chapter 1, Section 5, p.387,

"Muhammad ibn Sahnun said, "Anyone who doubts a single letter which Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, brought, is a denying unbeliever."
He said that the judgement against anyone who rejects the Prophet is that he is killed.
Ahmad ibn Sulayman, Sahnun's companion, said that whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black.
Abu 'Uthman al-Haddad said something similar and said that if someone said the Prophet died before his beard began to grow or that he was in Tahart (Morocco) and not Tihama, he is killed because this constitutes denial.
Habib ibn ar-Rabi said that it is disbelief to alter his description and its details. The one who does that openly is an unbeliever. He is asked to repent. The one who conceals it is a heretic and is killed without being asked to repent."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia Law):

Reliance of the Traveller,

APOSTASY
o8.1 "When a person who has reached the age of puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed."
o8.2 "In such case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."
08.4 "There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).
Then there are things attributed to the actions of an apostate:
08.7 (7), "to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it;"

 

[Barney2.0]

Muslims are obliged to bring all nations with Shirk into the fold of Islam by any means necessary as these verses are saying.

 

[Godistruth1]

Noble Qur'an 2:193, Madinah Period

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone).* But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

*footnote: "(V.2:193)
(A) Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Messenger said, "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people till they testify that La illallah wa Anna Muhammmad-ur-Rasul Allah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah), and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give Zakat, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives, and properties from me except for Islamic laws, and their reckoning (accounts) will be with (done by) Allah." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 1, Hadith No.24).
============================================
Tafsir Al-Qurtubi: Qur'an 2:193,

"Fight them until there is no more fitna and the deen belongs to Allah alone.
This is a command to fight every idolater in every place according to those who say that it abrogates the previous ayats. According to those who say that it does not abrogate other ayats, it means: fight those about whom Allah says, "if they fight you". The former is the more likely meaning. It is an unqualified command to fight without any precondition of hostilities being initiated by the unbelievers. The evidence for that is in the words of Allah, "and the din belongs to Allah alone." The Prophet said, " I was commanded to fight people until they say, 'There is no god but Allah.' The ayat and hadith both indicate that the reason for fighting is disbelief because Allah says, "until there is no more fitna," meaning disbelief in this case. So the goal is to abolish disbelief and that is clear.
Ibn 'Abbas, Qatada, ar-Rabi', as-Suddi and others said that fitna here means shirk and the subsequent injury to the believers caused by it. The root of fitna is testing and trial, derived from the term for testing silver when it is put in the fire to separate the impurities from the pure metal.

If they cease, there should be no enmity towards any but wrongdoers.
If they stop and become Muslim or submit by paying jizya in the case of the people of the Book. Otherwise they should be fought and they are wrongdoers and only transgress against themselves. What is done to the wrongdoers is called enmity since it is the repayment of enmity. Wrongdoing and injustice involve enmity and repayment of enmity is also called enmity. The wrongdoers are either those who initiate fighting or those who remain entrenched in disbelief and fitna."

Prince of peace says:
"Do not suppose that I(Jesus) have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:34

Jesus also said
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'
Luke 19:27

 

[dzheremi]

How about you answer for your own book? Your mangling of the Holy Bible has been answered before fairly recently. (Even those specific verses; I remember because I answered your misunderstanding of Luke 19:27 at length.)

 

[Barney2.0]

Prince of peace says:
"Do not suppose that I(Jesus) have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:34

Jesus also said
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'
Luke 19:27

Even if the Bible commands killing of innocents it doesn’t do away with the swaths of violence in the Quran, your logic of the Bible has violence in it makes it ok for the Quran to have violence is a logical fallacy. In the first verse Jesus is saying that whoever accepts him will not be in peace which true, Jesus Christ does not bring peace to the people who accept him as those who accept him are bound to be persecuted and hated in this world as Jesus is saying I’ve come to bring a sword. As for the second verse Jesus Christ is pronouncing judgement over his enemies, it’s very different from what Mohammed is saying, I will fight them until they say there is no god but Allah and I am his messenger.

 

[Godistruth1]

Even if the Bible commands killing of innocents it doesn’t do away with the swaths of violence in the Quran, your logic of the Bible has violence in it makes it ok for the Quran to have violence is a logical fallacy. In the first verse Jesus is saying that whoever accepts him will not be in peace which true, Jesus Christ does not bring peace to the people who accept him as those who accept him are bound to be persecuted and hated in this world as Jesus is saying I’ve come to bring a sword. As for the second verse Jesus Christ is pronouncing judgement over his enemies, it’s very different from what Mohammed is saying, I will fight them until they say there is no god but Allah and I am his messenger.

Swaths of violence in Qur'an. You made a mistake by saying that.
Someone analysed the Bible and Quran to see which is more violent
See what Jesus has to say in OT:
10. 2 Kings 2:23-24
He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!” When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. (NRSV)

9. Exodus 32:27-29
Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."(NIV)

8. 2 Chronicles 25:12
The sons of Judah also captured 10,000 alive and brought them to the top of the cliff and threw them down from the top of the cliff, so that they were all dashed to pieces.(NASB)

7. Judges 12:5-6
Then the Gileadites took the fords of the Jordan against the Ephraimites. Whenever one of the fugitives of Ephraim said, “Let me go over,” the men of Gilead would say to him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” When he said, “No” they said to him, “Then say Shibboleth” and he said, “Sibboleth,” for he could not pronounce it right. Then they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand of the Ephraimites fell at that time. (NRSV)

6. 1 Kings 20:28-30
Then a man of God came and spoke to the king of Israel, and said, “Thus says the LORD: 'Because the Syrians have said, “The LORD is God of the hills, but He is not God of the valleys,” therefore I will deliver all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know that I am the LORD.’” And they encamped opposite each other for seven days.

So it was that on the seventh day the battle was joined; and the children of Israel killed one hundred thousand foot soldiers of the Syrians in one day. But the rest fled to Aphek, into the city; then a wall fell on twenty-seven thousand of the men who were left. (NKJV)

5. Joshua 8:24-26
When the Israelite army finished chasing and killing all the men of Ai in the open fields, they went back and finished off everyone inside. So the entire population of Ai, including men and women, was wiped out that day—12,000 in all. For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed. (NLT)

4. Deuteronomy 2:32-34
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, unto battle at Jahaz. And Jehovah our God delivered him up before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed every inhabited city, with the women and the little ones; we left none remaining. (ASV)

3. Deuteronomy 3:3-6
So the LORD our God delivered Og also, king of Bashan, with all his people into our hand, and we smote them until no survivor was left. We captured all his cities at that time; there was not a city which we did not take from them: sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and bars, besides a great many unwalled towns. We utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city. (NASB)

2. 1 Samuel 15:3,8
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' " … He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.(NIV)

1. Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. (NRSV)

 

[Godistruth1]

How about you answer for your own book? Your mangling of the Holy Bible has been answered before fairly recently. (Even those specific verses; I remember because I answered your misunderstanding of Luke 19:27 at length.)

I did not accept the interpretation. They were all assumptions & the justification provided had no link to bible.

 

[Barney2.0]

Swaths of violence in Qur'an. You made a mistake by saying that.
Someone analysed the Bible and Quran to see which is more violent
See what Jesus has to say in OT:
10. 2 Kings 2:23-24
He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!” When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. (NRSV)

9. Exodus 32:27-29
Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."(NIV)

8. 2 Chronicles 25:12
The sons of Judah also captured 10,000 alive and brought them to the top of the cliff and threw them down from the top of the cliff, so that they were all dashed to pieces.(NASB)

7. Judges 12:5-6
Then the Gileadites took the fords of the Jordan against the Ephraimites. Whenever one of the fugitives of Ephraim said, “Let me go over,” the men of Gilead would say to him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” When he said, “No” they said to him, “Then say Shibboleth” and he said, “Sibboleth,” for he could not pronounce it right. Then they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand of the Ephraimites fell at that time. (NRSV)

6. 1 Kings 20:28-30
Then a man of God came and spoke to the king of Israel, and said, “Thus says the LORD: 'Because the Syrians have said, “The LORD is God of the hills, but He is not God of the valleys,” therefore I will deliver all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know that I am the LORD.’” And they encamped opposite each other for seven days.

So it was that on the seventh day the battle was joined; and the children of Israel killed one hundred thousand foot soldiers of the Syrians in one day. But the rest fled to Aphek, into the city; then a wall fell on twenty-seven thousand of the men who were left. (NKJV)

5. Joshua 8:24-26
When the Israelite army finished chasing and killing all the men of Ai in the open fields, they went back and finished off everyone inside. So the entire population of Ai, including men and women, was wiped out that day—12,000 in all. For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed. (NLT)

4. Deuteronomy 2:32-34
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, unto battle at Jahaz. And Jehovah our God delivered him up before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed every inhabited city, with the women and the little ones; we left none remaining. (ASV)

3. Deuteronomy 3:3-6
So the LORD our God delivered Og also, king of Bashan, with all his people into our hand, and we smote them until no survivor was left. We captured all his cities at that time; there was not a city which we did not take from them: sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and bars, besides a great many unwalled towns. We utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city. (NASB)

2. 1 Samuel 15:3,8
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' " … He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.(NIV)

1. Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. (NRSV)

There’s still a big difference, the Quran is way more evil and violent then the Bible, the violence in the Bible is descriptive while the Quranic violence is prescriptive, so the Quran is still by nature more violent then the Bible in general. Analyzing both the Bible and Quran will see the Bible describing graphic violent acts in war while the Quran commands violence and war. There’s still a very large difference between the two in which the Quran comes out as more violent as it commands violence.

 

[football5680]

Yes but the tafsir explains 2:193 the best. It means that in today's world over 5-billion people must be exterminated. The verse you cited is also a Madinah verse which is intended to abrogate all other dins (religions/worldviews of kafirs). There are many verses which are clearly violent towards unbelievers, some even worse than that, but 2:193 is something I can post which is clear context with classical tafsir explaining it in clarity. Not all tafsir scholars are as clearly worded as Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, and unfortunately the English translation of him only covers Surah 1 & 2. I doubt Bewley will finish the rest of the tafsir since it has been said that there is tafsir from him which makes eating people lawful. This I have not confirmed due to the lack of English translations out there. Though I have a friend in my FB from Iraq and he is an atheist believe it or not. He said if you think the English translations are brutal they are much worse in Arabic. But Bewley is one of the best translators and she never waters down things pertaining to jihad. Her translation of the Ash Shifa (Seerah) is absolutely brutal!! Here, I'll post it for you. Give me a couple of seconds and I'll have that up with a verse from the Qur'an supporting it

I agree with your interpretation and what Al-Qurtubi said but Muslims in the west are quick to throw their scholars under the bus if it allows them to escape an uncomfortable truth about Islam.

With this verse, an argument can actually be made that this is referring to fighting in self-defense which is why I would prefer using what is in Surah 9. Verse 190 says "Fight those who fight you." Verse 191 says "Expel them from where they expelled you." Verse 192 says "If they cease, then allah is forgiving and merciful," and then this verse is revealed. So based on the context, the case for self-defense is easy to make even if it happens to be the incorrect interpretation. There is also evidence in the hadith of some of the salaf (first 3 generations of Muslims), saying that this verse was abrogated by surah 9 which means that they interpreted it as fighting in self-defense, while acknowledging that surah 9 is fighting offensively and without any provocation other than the fact that they are unbelievers. Surah 9 is also the last surah with any real substance so it also overrules any other evidence that contradicts.

 

[dzheremi]

I did not accept the interpretation. They were all assumptions & the justification provided had no link to bible.

It's not a matter of what you accept or don't accept. The point is that when the Bible is brought up, we answer from it and from other Christian writings; we do not simply point to the Qur'an and say "Oh yeah?! Look what your book says!", as though that addresses the criticism.

It would be very good if you could do the same, because what you are choosing to do instead is obvious deflection. Can you defend your book or not?

 

[dzheremi]

Swaths of violence in Qur'an. You made a mistake by saying that.
Someone analysed the Bible and Quran to see which is more violent

The way that this so-called 'analysis' was done is incredibly laughable. That's probably why it's an individual's blog post, rather than being published by any place with peer review. It is contextless, and entirely subjective (based around the author's own grouping of words according to their emotional categorization). To quote one of the commenters on the original blog post:

Caesar Szwebs says:
February 10, 2016 at 7:57 am

I would like to oppose against the title ”text analysis” since it insults the meaning of the word ”analysis”. I am a classical philologist and I can be only shocked by the used methodology. The words should be understood it its contextual, phraseological and historical frame, since their meaning can be far from the same as we perceive it today at first sight. Even such concrete phenomena as numbers can mean something different than their immediate appearance in the sentence.
By the way, statistical (phraseological) counting of the words has been already done for most ancient texts. There are thousands of frequency lexicons and analyses (professional ones) describing how often different words appear and in which context.
I suggest you can use your method on more modern texts so everybody can see its false results. For instance comparing Gandhi’s papers on satyagraha with Martin Luther’s and Nelson Mandela’s speeches. I suggest frequency of words as “disobedience”, “fear”, “killing”, “death” etc. Your conclusion would be for sure the prioritized list of negative feelings misconnecting the peaceful movements with villains threating society.​

In other words, we cannot just go by the presence of a particular word in a given text. We have to look at what it means in the context of the text itself.

A better analysis could even look at the grammatical mood of the verbs themselves, as "Kill!" (jussive; used when issuing a command) would be far different for the purposes of the supposed point of the analysis (to see which text is 'more violent') than the indicative "kill" (expressing a statement of fact, like "in order to make sure a given bacteria will not harm you, you have to kill it" or some such; only a fool or someone who was trying to deliberately mislead would read that as equivalent to a command to kill).

Of course, that would require that the person doing the analysis actually know something about the language, which is apparently too much to ask from someone claiming to do an analysis of the texts in question...hence why the analysis he presents is essentially worthless.

So, yeah...not a very convincing analysis at all.

 

[Isaiah60]

I agree with your interpretation and what Al-Qurtubi said but Muslims in the west are quick to throw their scholars under the bus if it allows them to escape an uncomfortable truth about Islam.

With this verse, an argument can actually be made that this is referring to fighting in self-defense which is why I would prefer using what is in Surah 9. Verse 190 says "Fight those who fight you." Verse 191 says "Expel them from where they expelled you." Verse 192 says "If they cease, then allah is forgiving and merciful," and then this verse is revealed. So based on the context, the case for self-defense is easy to make even if it happens to be the incorrect interpretation. There is also evidence in the hadith of some of the salaf (first 3 generations of Muslims), saying that this verse was abrogated by surah 9 which means that they interpreted it as fighting in self-defense, while acknowledging that surah 9 is fighting offensively and without any provocation other than the fact that they are unbelievers. Surah 9 is also the last surah with any real substance so it also overrules any other evidence that contradicts.

Again, the word used in 2:193, which also applies to 190-192--is fitnah. The word fitnah is disbelief. Qurtubi made it clear that fitna is unbelief. So a disbeliever is fighting Islam by being believers. So lets look at the most reputable English Qur'an in existence--the Muhsin Khan--and see again what it says:

Noble Qur'an 2:193, Madinah Period

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone).* But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Fight until there is no more...Fitnah (disbelief). But if they cease (fighting) and become Muslims, then let there be no transgression. What some American muslim says has no weight against the Saudi line. Living in denial is what liberals do. But none of their reputable muslims books support their delusions.

Also, everything that Muhammad said and did is for all times and for all places, as he is believed by muslims to be the prophet of the world. So all acts he did while alive are acts that are Sunnah and to be repeated by future generations of muslims. If a muslim says that fighting disbelievers was just a localized event limited to 7th century Arabia then such a muslim is saying Muhammad was the prophet of Arabia and not the world. So all actions of Muhammad, being of the sunnah, are for all times and in all places and not just for Arabia.

If Muhammad was just the prophet of Arabia then a good question to ask is why there are 54 Islamic states? Why do muslims commit terrorism in countries outside Arabia if Muhammad was just the prophet of Arabia?

So these question could be challenged to a muslim who wants to deny his own scholars. Nowhere in any of the Islamic beliefs does it say that Nancy Pelosi and other progressives have more authority over doctrinal matters of Islam than Muhammad and his companions.