![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||
|
![]() |
In March 2006, a twenty-two-year-old Iranian student named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove an SUV onto the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, deliberately trying to kill people and succeeding in injuring nine. After the incident, he seemed singularly pleased with himself, smiling and waving to crowds after a court appearance at which he explained that he was “thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah.” Later he wrote six letters to the Daily Tar Heel, the student newspaper of the University of North Carolina, explaining why he did it. In one of them, he gives a list of “Qur’an Notes Relevant to 3/3/06 Attack.”
These include “Instructions and guidelines for fighting and killing in the cause of Allah.” Under “Reasons for fighting in the cause of Allah,” he cited verses 14 and 15 of sura 9, explaining that fight was “to release anger and rage from Allah’s followers’ hearts.” And indeed, in those verses Allah promises that as he punishes the unbelievers at the hands of the believers and covers them with shame, he will “heal the breasts of believers, and still the indignation of their hearts.” Ibn Juzayy and the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, however, focus on the portion of the verse that says that “Allah turns to anyone He wills.” Ibn Juzayy explains: “Allah will turn to some of those unbelievers and so that they become Muslims.” That decision, as we have seen, is all Allah’s. Allah will not leave bereft those who “strive with might and main” (v. 16). The word used here is jahadu (جَاهَدُواْ), a form of “jihad,” as it is rendered here.
Then verses 17-22 declare that the idolaters or polytheists (mushrikeena, ْمُشْرِكِينَ, from mushrik, polytheist) are not worthy to take care of the Sacred Mosque in Mecca – although at the time of the revelation of this sura the pagans still control that mosque. They control it, but as comments Ibn Juzayy, “they do not have either the right or the duty to do so. They inhabit them through forceful occupation and injustice.” They have no right to the mosque because, according to Ibn Kathir and, indeed, generalized Islamic tradition, Abraham himself built it as a shrine to Allah.
Verses 23-28 tell the believers to separate from and fight the unbelievers. The believers should cut ties even with their own families if they are not Muslims (verses 23-24). Says Ibn Kathir: “Allah commands shunning the disbelievers, even if they are one’s parents or children, and prohibits taking them as supporters if they choose disbelief instead of faith.” Ibn Juzayy notes that v. 24, with its warning that one should value nothing in this life higher than Allah, is “a threat to anyone who prefers his family, property or home to emigration and jihad.” “Emigration” refers to the move to Medina which at that time was incumbent upon all true believers.
Verses 25 and 26 refer to the Battle of Hunayn, which took place after Muhammad conquered Mecca. Once he was the master of Mecca, there was one additional great obstacle between him and mastery of all Arabia. Malik ibn ‘Awf, a member of the Hawazin tribe of the city of Ta’if, south of Mecca, began to assemble a force to fight the Muslims. The people of Ta’if had rejected Muhammad and treated him shabbily when he presented his prophetic claim to them ten years earlier. They were historic rivals of the Quraysh, and viewed the conversion of the latter to Islam with disdain. Malik assembled a force and marched out to face the Muslims; Muhammad, according to Ibn Ishaq, met him with an army 12,000 strong, and said, in an echo of v. 25 (“your great numbers delighted you”), “We shall not be worsted today for want of numbers.”
The two forces met at a wadi – a dry riverbed — called Hunayn, near Mecca. Malik and his men had arrived first and taken up positions that gave them an immense tactical advantage. The Muslims, despite their superior numbers, were routed. As they broke ranks and fled, Muhammad called out: “Where are you going, men? Come to me. I am God’s apostle. I am Muhammad the son of ‘Abdullah.” Some of the Muslims did take heart, and gradually the tide began to turn – although with tremendous loss of life on both sides.
The Muslims eventually prevailed, wiping out the last major force that stood between the Prophet of Islam and mastery of Arabia. After the battle Muhammad received another revelation explaining that the Muslims had won because of supernatural help (v. 26). With Malik defeated, the Muslims later conquered Ta’if with little resistance. On his way into the city, Muhammad stopped under a tree, and, finding the property to his liking, sent word to the owner: “Either come out or we will destroy your wall.” But the owner refused to appear before Muhammad, so the Muslims indeed destroyed his property. Endeavoring, however, to win the tribesmen of Ta’if to Islam, Muhammad was lenient toward them. In his distribution of the booty, he also favored some of the recent converts among the Quraysh, hoping to cement their allegiance to Islam. His favoritism, however, led to grumbling. One Muslim approached him boldly: “Muhammad, I’ve seen what you have done today…I don’t think you have been just.”
The Prophet of Islam was incredulous. “If justice is not to be found with me then where will you find it?” Indeed, for Islam Muhammad’s words and deeds are the highest pattern of conduct, forming the only absolute standard: anything sanctioned by the example of the Prophet is good.
According to Ibn Juzayy, the promise that “Allah will turn to whomever he wills” (v. 27) means that “the tribe of Hawazin who had fought the Muslims at Hunayn became Muslim.”
The unbelievers are unclean, and thus must not enter the Sacred Mosque (v. 28). Shi’ites in particular regard this as a matter of ritual purity. The Ayatollah Sistani, whom many observers have identified as a beacon of democratic hope for Iraq, likely does not envision a state in which unbelievers have equal rights with believers, since he puts non-Muslims on the level of other impure things:
The following ten things are essentially najis [impure, unclean]:1. Urine
2. Faeces
3. Semen
4. Dead body
5. Blood
6. Dog
7. Pig
8. Kafir [unbeliever]
9. Alcoholic liquors
10. The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat
This idea is based on v. 28. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the polytheists are “impure because of their inward foulness,” and As-Suyuti adds that some say “they are actually impure so that they must do ghusl [the full ablution] if they become Muslim and one must do wudu’ [the partial ablution] after shaking hands with them.” As-Suyuti also notes that this verse forbids unbelievers to enter the Sacred Mosque in Mecca, although he points out that “Abu Hanifa says that People of the Book are not prevented because it is specific to idolaters.” Because of Muhammad’s prohibition on non-Muslims in Arabia, it is unlikely that a member of the People of the Book would be able to enter Mecca today.
Next week: The command to fight against and subjugate Jews and Christians.
(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.)
Posted by Robert at November 26, 2007 6:05 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Re: “Instructions and guidelines for fighting and killing in the cause of Allah”
Franz Rosenzweig saw such things coming...
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6040
Posted by: Frank....Allah hates Muslims, he causes their death, their poverty and their miseries....
Posted by: exsgtbrownexsgtbrown-
There may be a terrible truth in what you say. I recently read a from-the-mind-not-from-the-emotions comment by Dietrich Bonhoeffer that made me halt. Bonhoeffer speculated that God hates systems that attempt to impose a perfect world on earth by ideology or religion (Communism, fascism, Islam, etc.). I thought to myself: he's thinking on how inhuman they become in their controls over humans. God hates them because they cripple humanity. God loves us in our human weakness, in the recognition of our sinful nature. He loves our human nature because He made it.
The president of Pakistan may have had a presentiment of God's hate for the Islamic system when he recently said he feared "national suicide" for his country. It may be a nuclear suicide. The Indian (former Hindu) people of that region had their indigenous culture destroyed by Islamic invaders centuries ago and may suffer a further holocaust in our time. Islam is devoid of the Golden Rule and brings inhuman behavior with it.
Posted by: Frank"Malik ibn ‘Awf, a member of the Hawazin tribe of the city of Ta’if, south of Mecca, began to assemble a force to fight the Muslims. The people of Ta’if had rejected Muhammad and treated him shabbily when he presented his prophetic claim to them ten years earlier. They were historic rivals of the Quraysh, and viewed the conversion of the latter to Islam with disdain. Malik assembled a force and marched out to face the Muslims;..."
There are lessons here. If there is one thing I have learned from my lessons from Robert, et al, is a silent mantra that I repeat when I hear about "truces" and "suspend militias for six months" and "dropped imam lawsuits" and "lessening of violence in Baghdad". These are all good things, but false conclusions are drawn, as if the hero will now get the girl and the credits will roll.
Here's what I say: "They are waiting..."
The Ta'if leader above, having rejected the call to Islam TEN years earlier, knew that he must still raise a force to fight it off yet again. It was not a constant attack on his city, a seige lasting ten years. He knew he had to come out and confront Mohammed before his city was attacked from without and within. He lost, we are told, but look at the timeframes involved. The West would have forgotten about something that happened ten years ago.
Do not forget this lesson. A period of "peace" is just a period of regrouping, a time to learn Western weaknesses. There are many Muslims in Iraq, for example, trying to live normal lives and create proper city and provincial governments. They are to be applauded. But they will be undermined the second the opportunity arises.
Posted by: winoceros...he will “heal the breasts of believers, and still the indignation of their hearts.”
Just what the hell do Muslims have to be indignant about?
Posted by: IsabellathecrusaderIsabella - you asked about the source of Muslim indignation.
From the perspective of a Christian - and perhaps, practising Jews will concur with this, and even Buddhists and Hindus - I suspect that the rage that drives many (of course, not all) Muslims, is not merely their own, not merely human. It is the cold rage of the Evil One, the Adversary, the Father of Lies - rage that rejects and wants to destroy all light and life, everything which lives and grows, everything which it cannot absorb, which defies its control. Perhaps a substantial number of Muslims are ridden - obsessed, oppressed, some of them outright possessed - by an alien spiritual force that hates humanity. Get a lot of people like that all in one place and you've got a truly scary gestalt.
Hindus who've posted here at times have said they can tell the difference between Muslim Indians and Hindu Indians (even if dressed similarly?) at a glance - is it just something about the body language? Or are Hindus seeing what we Westerners aren't usually trained to see - the spiritual reality, the demon riding the person? Our Muslim poster 'Naseem' used to talk about something called 'the red mist' and people made fun of her. Perhaps we shouldn't. Perhaps it's real - what some call an 'aura'.
The suicide murderers, the Mohammed Attas...perceptive people are repulsed by them, spiritual warning bells go off.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmyThe comments on this post at Hot Air are getting hot to say the least. Mr. Spencer, some of us understand what you are doing and I want to thank you again for what I am learning.
Do you ever get tired of rehashing the same ground with people who are unwilling or unable to learn?
The Taif episodes has not been well studied by the scholars. Prior to 9-11, I downloaded several fatwahs from the Chechen website, qoqaz.net. The Taif revenge incident was central to their creation of an islamic justification for indiscriminate killing of innocents, in the "cause of allah."
The Taif crusade occurred after the phony prophet had concocted his "night journey" to hell and heaven, by means of a winged donkey. While he peddled that tall tale to local Meccan bandits whose interest was in getting gullible allies for the booty war, Taif residents rejected the baloney and threw Muhammed out of town (allah and gabriel must have been on another planet at the time). After that issue, Muhammed chose to commence a protracted war campaign, which would begin by gathering forces in Medina.
When he had power, Muhammed returned to Taif en masse. However, rather than immediately conquering the city - or allowing a surrender - he ordered indiscriminate use of "ballistic" weapons of some kind, and burned many to death. He then allowed wholesale looting and rape of sex booty.
Few Western academics will impute improper motives on Muhammed. Why? Because most are white and political correctitude dictates respect for persons of color. Karen Armstrong refers to Muhammed as a "prophet," not because she believes that the murdering pedophile has the credentials, but because Arabs are a designated victim group, oppressed by white racists.
It is plan and obvious that the Koran - other than colored historical accounts - is a concoction, created to provide an opportunity, given the means of a large terror force, to act out Muhammed's revenge, lust and booty motives. Islam is ideological pyramid building, with the same human costs.
Muslim - abd-allah (slave of allah)
Posted by: supercargo"The comments are getting hot"...said dentalque.
One of the fascinating things about reading through jihadwatch archives, and also of the Quran blog so far, is when one begins to get a feel for the Disruptors who periodically appear.
Not standard-issue internet trolls. These things are something else again.
Is anyone at all surprised that, over in HotAir, a major Disruption was launched in the comments, when Robert really got going on the most notorious section of the Quran, surah 9, the one that Muslims least want Infidels to pay attention to?
PS - Frank - thanks for that link, the article about Rosenzweig's Star of Redemption. I just went across and read it. Fascinating.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)