Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 9, “Repentance,” verses 6-14

According to the twentieth century Islamic scholar Muhammad Asad, verses 4 and 6 of Sura 9 belie the impression that many take from v. 5: that pagans are to be offered the choice of “conversion or death.” V. 4, however, only specifies that if non-Muslims honor the terms of their existing treaties with Muhammad and the Muslims, the Muslims will honor those treaties to the end of their term. And v. 6, according to Ibn Kathir, gives pagans “safe passage so that they may learn about the religion of Allah, so that Allah’s call will spread among His servants….In summary, those who come from a land at war with Muslims to the area of Islam, delivering a message, for business transactions, to negotiate a peace treaty, to pay the Jizyah, to offer an end to hostilities, and so forth, and request safe passage from Muslim leaders or their deputies, should be granted safe passage, as long as they remain in Muslim areas, until they go back to their land and sanctuary.” The reference here to paying the Jizyah refers to the tax specified for the People of the Book under Islamic rule in v. 29; thus the choice, at least for those who have received a written scripture (mainly Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians), is not conversion or death, but conversion, subjugation or death.

The Tafsir al-Jalalayn, As-Suyuti, and Ibn Juzayy agree with this view of v. 6. Ibn Juzayy says that it means that Muslims should “grant them security so that they can hear the Qur’an to see whether they will become Muslim or not. (then convey them to a place where they are safe) If they do not become Muslim, return him to his place.” He notes, however, that this is not a unanimous view: “This is a firm judgment in the view of some people while other people say that it is abrogated by fighting.”

The treaty that the Muslims concluded with the pagans “near the sacred Mosque” (v. 7) refers to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. In 628, Muhammad had a vision in which he performed the pilgrimage to Mecca — a pagan custom that he very much wanted to make part of Islam, but had thus far been prevented by the Quraysh control of Mecca. But at this time he directed Muslims to prepare to make the pilgrimage to Mecca, and advanced upon the city with fifteen hundred men. The Quraysh met him outside the city, and the two sides concluded a ten-year truce (hudna), the treaty of Hudaybiyya.

Some leading Muslims were unhappy with the prospect of a truce. After all, they had recently broken a Quraysh siege of Medina and were now more powerful than ever. Were they going to bargain away their military might for the sake of being able to make the pilgrimage? According to Muhammad’s first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, a furious Umar went to Abu Bakr and said, “Is he not God’s apostle, and are we not Muslims, and are they not polytheists? Then why should we agree to what is demeaning to our religion?” The two of them went to Muhammad, who attempted to reassure them: “I am God’s slave and His apostle. I will not go against His commandment and He will not make me the loser.”

But it certainly didn’t seem as if the treaty was being concluded to the Muslims’ advantage. When the time came for the agreement to be written, Muhammad called for Ali and told him to write, “In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.” But the Quraysh negotiator, Suhayl bin ‘Amr, stopped him: “I do not recognize this; but write ‘In thy name, O Allah.” Muhammad told Ali to write what Suhayl had directed.

But Suhayl was not finished. When Muhammad directed Ali to continue by writing, “This is what Muhammad, the apostle of God, has agreed with Suhayl bin ‘Amr,” he protested again. “If I witnessed that you were God’s apostle,” Suhayl told Muhammad, “I would not have fought you. Write your own name and the name of your father.” Again the Prophet of Islam, to the increasing dismay of his followers, told Ali to write the document as Suhayl wished.

In the final form of the treaty, Muhammad shocked his men by agreeing to provisions that seemed disadvantageous to the Muslims: those fleeing the Quraysh and seeking refuge with the Muslims would be returned to the Quraysh, while those fleeing the Muslims and seeking refuge with the Quraysh would not be returned to the Muslims.

Yet soon Muhammad broke the treaty. A woman of the Quraysh, Umm Kulthum, joined the Muslims in Medina; her two brothers came to Muhammad, asking that they be returned “in accordance with the agreement between him and the Quraysh at Hudaybiya.” But Muhammad refused: Allah forbade it. He gave Muhammad a new revelation: “O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine and test them: Allah knows best as to their faith: if ye ascertain that they are believers, then send them not back to the unbelievers” (60:10).

In refusing to send Umm Kulthum back to the Quraysh, Muhammad broke the treaty. Although Muslim apologists have claimed throughout history that the Quraysh broke it first, this incident came before all those by the Quraysh that Muslims point to as treaty violations. The contemporary Muslim writer Yahiya Emerick asserts that Muhammad based his case on a bit of legal hair-splitting: the treaty stipulated that the Muslims would return to the Quraysh any man who came to them, not any woman. Even if that is true, Muhammad soon – as Emerick acknowledges – began to accept men from the Quraysh as well, thus definitively breaking the treaty.

The breaking of the treaty in this way would reinforce the principle that nothing was good except what was advantageous to Islam, and nothing evil except what hindered Islam. Once the treaty was formally discarded, Islamic jurists enunciated the principle that truces in general could only be concluded on a temporary basis of up to ten years, and that they could only be entered into for the purpose of allowing weakened Muslim forces to gather strength to fight again more effectively.

Nevertheless, Ibn Kathir and others maintain that the Quraysh broke the treaty first. And verses 8-14 certainly give the impression that they did indeed break it, excoriating the pagans for selling “the signs of Allah” for a “miserable price” (v. 9) and for violating oaths they made with the Muslims (vv. 12, 13). Thus because of all their enormities, Allah exhorts the Muslims to fight them (vv. 13-14). According to Ibn Juzayy, “Allah will punish them at your hands” (v. 14) means “killing and capture. That is a promise of victory for the Muslims.” The Tafsir al-Jalalayn concurs: “Fight them, and God will chastise them, He will have them killed, at your hands and degrade them, humiliate them through capture and subjugation, and He will give you victory against them…”

Next week: How Allah will comfort the Muslims in their distress.

(Here you can find links to all the earlier "Blogging the Qur'an" segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)

| 7 Comments
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

7 Comments

Good one Robert,
If I may be so bold as to supplement a great column upcoming...

In Re: topic header quote

...the masses there seem to be in a quandry, a dilemma of sorts...
For on one hand they read:
"Victory comes only from Allah, the mighty and wise" -Ali-Imran 3:126. if memory serves me well

While also reading this:
"Lo, they who are of the devil's party will be the losers....They who are of Allah's party will be the successful ones! Al-Mujadala 58:19,22. (?)

...and:

"Allah does not guide the evil-doers" At-Tauba 9:80 (?)
(as always, recheck me on these for accuracy to make sure it's correct)

...perhaps a major dilemma brought on by those would'd LIKE to think al-qaeda is true & righteous, but reality & their koran combined suggest another, leaving them in said quandry...
and quite possibly, THE major reason said masses don't even try to follow their increacingly frantic calls for a "mass jihad"(?)

It would certainly prove a very interesting discussion in a thread of its own, but looked relevant enough to add to the study here.

Thoughts?

ugh on typos...lol
barely after 5am here & waiting for the coffee to be ready (mainly doing monday markets this morning & 3 hrs behind NY & stopped by to check morning updates here...lol)

Asad's son, Talal Asad, was one of the founders of the united front between Commie hating Islamofascists, and Cleric hating Communists. The formation can be seen in the pages of the New Left Review. That's not on my reading list.

There's an old expression - "Having your cake and eating it too".

Mohammed's version - "Signing the treaty and breaking it too".

“Fight them, and God will chastise them, He will have them killed, at your hands and degrade them, humiliate them through capture and subjugation, and He will give you victory against them…”

What a fraud. Mohammed was an able warlord who used his “Allah” sock puppet to announce strategy. His “religion of peace” has almost nothing of ‘religion’ but much to do with power and conquest, especially breaking of treaties and other deceptions. The ‘peace’ of this ROP is the kind found in the grave, or by becoming a ‘slave’ of Mohammed’s mad visions in total submission to Him, though a peaceful life is far from certain in a war cult of conquest and forced domination of everybody in the world. This is so unbelievable that one must wonder how people fell for this fraud for the past 1400 years! Can people really be that weak, or stupid, or complicit to join in the war cult for personal gain and booty? It boggles the mind.

Furthermore, this sock puppet ‘Allah’ makes lots of false promises, supposedly to sooth the vanquished and reward the victors. Reason dictates that this is nonsense:

Why would a god like ‘Allah’ need to enforce his dictates to Mohammed with violent force by his armies, unless he be a false god?
And then to sooth his soldiers when they get beaten? With what? More misery? It’s all a fraud for simple primitive people. Time to call this RWC, or ‘religious war cult’ for what it is, which rhymes with ‘water closet’, and put it to rest permanently, RIP. Let’s end the savagery this century, this nonsense FRAUD had been allowed to go on far too long.

Well, we know what this al-LAH came from-the pagan moon god LAH ("al-"=+/- "of", thus "al-LAH"= "of LAH" the pagan moon god)
...and since the so-called "messiah" is to emerge from the depths of the earth...ooops, I mean "a well", which for most of the world is a REALLY REALLY BIG CLUE something's terribly amiss with their "salvation" scam, there's only one "god" they could be fooled by...ooops, I mean referring to...
and it, sure as hell, is NOT of the God of Abraham.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/24/152943.shtml

but that aside, back to topic...looks like a LOT of the "followers" are, at the very LEAST, "troubled" as to whom to believe, since their would-be heroes are getting their asses handed to them, which suggest they are NOT even of their OWN "god", but of their "devil"...

...and they are VERY "troubled" right now.

Thank you Mr. Spencer. I am learning a lot. I like the way you put the information in the context of the time. As I am reading Asad's translation I was glad to see you referencing him. As I have read portions of other translations, sometimes it is difficult to understand the meaning. Such as "people of the book" vs. "those of earlier revelation."

You make a very complex task enjoyable.