Understanding Islamic Abrogation, Taqiyya & Kitman
I have been challenged time and again about my concepts of Islam and each time I come up against very conflicting ideas mainly because there are differences in the manifestos of the different sects of Muslims like the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Ahmadi sect on my blogs. The confusion is because the codes in each sect differs from one another. I will begin by posting part of a blog from an Ahmadi member:
"The Ahmadiyya community has not changed a single teaching of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. They have not incorporated any ‘modern thought’ into any of their teachings. There was no need. The teachings of Islam were completed at the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The message of the Promised Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was to guide all Muslims back to the original and true teachings of Islam. There is therefore no discrepancy between the message of Ahmadiyyat and the message of Islam.
You write : ….’Moderation was not accepted as it was not the teachings of Islam. It appears that Islam cannot accept the dilution of the Koran and thus any "moderate Muslims" is non-existent in Islam as they would be classified as "apostates."
Again the Promised Messiah did not alter a single word or commandment of the Holy Quran or a single instruction of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
You write that Qur'an 2:216 above, ‘represents the 6th Pillar of Islam’. As you well know Muslims are not forbidden from fighting in self defense IF they have been attacked and that is the meaning of the verse you quote. "
Distinct Ahamdiyya sect Beliefs
I have been challenged time and again about my concepts of Islam and each time I come up against very conflicting ideas mainly because there are differences in the manifestos of the different sects of Muslims like the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Ahmadi sect on my blogs. The confusion is because the codes in each sect differs from one another. I will begin by posting part of a blog from an Ahmadi member:
"The Ahmadiyya community has not changed a single teaching of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. They have not incorporated any ‘modern thought’ into any of their teachings. There was no need. The teachings of Islam were completed at the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The message of the Promised Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was to guide all Muslims back to the original and true teachings of Islam. There is therefore no discrepancy between the message of Ahmadiyyat and the message of Islam.
You write : ….’Moderation was not accepted as it was not the teachings of Islam. It appears that Islam cannot accept the dilution of the Koran and thus any "moderate Muslims" is non-existent in Islam as they would be classified as "apostates."
Again the Promised Messiah did not alter a single word or commandment of the Holy Quran or a single instruction of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
You write that Qur'an 2:216 above, ‘represents the 6th Pillar of Islam’. As you well know Muslims are not forbidden from fighting in self defense IF they have been attacked and that is the meaning of the verse you quote. "
Distinct Ahamdiyya sect Beliefs
In order to clarify a few of the differences in the codes of the Ahmadis let be attempt to highlight some of the deviations of the Ahmadi doctrines from Sunni or Shia Muslims, and hence the cause of additional confusion in discussing Islam:
(1) The founder of the "Ahmadiyya Muslim Community" a sect in 1889 (referred to as Ahmadis here), Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, declared that he was prophet of Allah, and brought Islamic prophethood to perfection as he was the law-bearing prophet and the apex of man's spiritual evolution. He postulated that new prophets can come but they must be subordinate to Muhammad and cannot exceed him in excellence nor alter his teachings or bring any new law or religion. The Sunnis and Shias and even "The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement" believe that Muhammad was the last of Allah's prophets and that no prophets new or old can come after Muhammad. On this basis, the Pakistan Government, The World Muslim League (Rabita al-Alam al-Islam), and other Islamic nations, including Indonesia, have considered the "Ahmadiyya Muslim Community" as a blasphemous sect and is "Outside the Fold of Islam."
(2) Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has also claim as the second coming of Christ, i.e. the Messiah and Mahdi. Ahmadis believe that Jesus survived his crucifixion and then went in search of the Lost Tribes of Israel and dies of old age in Kashmir under the name of Yuz Asaf and that he foretold the coming of Muhammad after him. The Ahmadis also claim that the "Messiah" and the "Imam Mahdi" are one and the same person There has been no recognition from any Christian group or Muslim group to acknowledging such a claim.
(3) The Ahmadis believe in the Greater Jihad which can be to cleanse oneself and that the Lesser Jihad is only applicable of protection and self defense of extreme religious persecution. Therefore Ahmadis reject the lesser Jihad, or militant Jihadism and do not acknowledge it. They will openly deny that ahmadis support the Lesser Jihad (militant Jihad).
All the other Muslim sects, Sunnis, Shias, accept the concept of Jihad, Greater and lesser, but Ahmadis only accept the Greater, hence discussions can be rather confused at times. This is the reason their motto is "Love nfor all, hatred for none." But militant jihad is manifest all over the globe at the moment and militant Jihad cannot be ignored or overlooked. But it is rationalized by Ahmadis.
(4) The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community also believe that "It is incumbent upon us (Ahmadis) that we should not regard non-Ahmadis as Muslims, nor should we offer prayers behind them, because according to our belief they deny one of the messengers of Allah (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the prohpet). This is a matter of faith. None has any discretion in this."
(Anwar-e-Kjilafat, p.90 by Mirza Mahmood Ahmad Qadiani.)
A very bold stance, that the Ahmadis are defying 1.2 Billion regular Muslims who have accepted the Qur'an without any question since the 7th century, until this challenge in the late 19th century by a cult leader who claimed to be a new prophet of Allah following that of the Prophet Muhammad and deviating in his acceptance of the interpretation of the Qur'an from orthodox views.
(5) Ahmadis claim that there are no contradictions in the Qur'an, In other words they do not accept the concept of 'abrogation' even when the Qur'an has recorded the Muhammad has practiced "abrogation" in his verses in the Qur'an. For abrogated verses in the Qur'an the following article substantiates abrogation: http:library.flawlesslogic.com/verses.htm
because of this it makes it difficult to discuss Islam with Ahmadis. The pacifist, tolerant message of
Abrogation and Taqiyya within the QUR'AN Illustrated
Abrogation and Taqiyya within the QUR'AN Illustrated
Sura 2.256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stand out clear from error"
proclaimed by Muhammad when he only had a small band of followers and when he was influenced by Christian doctrines of love and tolerance, and when he was surrounded in Medina by many non-Muslims, he presented Islam as a tolerant, inclusive and benign religion. But when Islam made many conversions and became powerful Muhammad's message changed. Islam now could now compel conversion by showing his brutal and violent personality. and Soon he abrogated Sura 2.256 with many Suras including
Sura 9:5 "Slay the Idolators where ever you find them, and take them, and confine them,and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush."
Sura 5:33 "Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter."
Sura 5:51 "O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Who so of you makes them his friends is one of them. Allah guides not the people of the evukdiers."
Sura 8:39 "And fight them until there is o more fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah along (in the whole world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do."
Sura 9:73 "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate."
So when an Ahmadi or a regular Muslim begins to quote Sura 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion...." it must be with tongue in cheek, or knowing full well it is obfuscation or 'Taqiyya' a lie. He is practicing taqiyya in order to mislead or confuse the unbeliever believing that we are totally ignorant or gullible. Another deceit used by Muslims is the use of Kitman which is the withholding of information for whatever reasons.
Ahmadis may believe in the abrogated Sura 2:256 is still applicable, but then how can they explain the other Suras 9:5, 5:33, 5:51 8:39, 9:73 and so on? The Ahmadis attempt to explain that it is only in defense that those Suras are applicable. But all we have to see is the Islamic Jihadism that is being executed all over the world to know that the Ahmadis are in total denial. To just listing a few today, the Jihadist attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11, the London Underground Bombing of 7/7, the Iraqi war, the Afghanistan war, the Bali bombings, the Palestinian war, the Chechnya war, and so on with details found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_in_the_Muslim_world
So the above is evidence of "Abrogation" by Muhammad, and it also shows that the Ahmadis are in fact practicing 'Taqiyya.' Is is also in all Islamic Sharia law that anyone leaving Islam is an apostate and by sharia law practiced in most Islamic nations the penalty for Apostasy in Death. So it is a fact that that Sura 2:256 is a misnomer because there is no freedom of choice of religion in Islam. Apostates received the death penalty, Unbelievers must be fought against and severely dealt with. It is only when everyone accepts Allah as the only Allah to submit to will there be peace.
ABROGATION IN THE QUR'AN
The Qur'an is unique among sacred scriptures in accepting a doctrine of abrogation in which later pronouncements of the Prophet declare null and void his earlier pronouncements. Four verses in the Qu'ran acknowledge or justify abrogation:
Qur'an 2:106 When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that God has power over all things?
Qur'an 16:101 When we replace a message with another, and God knows best what he reveals, they say: You have made it up. Yet, most of them do not know.
Qur'an 13:39 God abrogates or confirms whatsoever he will, for he has with him the Book of the Books.
Qur'am 17:86 If we pleased, we could take away what we have revealed to you. Then you will not find anyone to plead for it with us.
Rather than explain away inconsistencies in passages regulating the Muslim community, many jurists acknowledge the differences but accept that latter verses trump earlier verses. Most scholars divide the Qur'an into verses revealed by Muhammad in Mecca when his community of followers was weak and more inclined to compromise, and those revealed in Medina, where Muhammad's strength grew.
Classical scholars argued that anyone who studied the Qur'an without having mastered the doctrine of abrogation would be "deficient." Those who do not accept abrogation fall outside the mainstream and, perhaps, even the religion itself. The Ahmadiyah sect, for example, today concentrated in Pakistan, consistently rejects abrogation because it undercuts the notion that the Qur'an is free from errors. Many Muslims consider Ahmadis, who also see their founder as a prophet, to be apostates.
Because the Qur'an is not organized chronologically, there has been a whole subset of theological study to determine which verses abrogate and which are abrogated. Muslim scholars base their understanding of theology not only upon the Qur'an but also upon hadiths, accounts of the Prophet Muhammad's life. One hadith in particular addresses abrogation. It cites Abu al-A‘la bin al-Shikhkhir, considered by theologians to be a reliable source of knowledge about the Prophet's life, as saying, that "the Messenger of God abrogated some of his commands by others, just as the Qur'an abrogates some part of it with the other." Muhammad accepted that God would invalidate previous revelation, often making ordinances stricter.
Abrogation occurs not only within the Qur'an, but also by the Qur'an toward earlier revelations, such as those passed on by Jesus or Moses. Sura 2:106 refers to commandments sent to prophets before Muhammad. ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali, commentator and translator of the Qur'an, interpreted the verse to mean that God's message is the same across time, but its form may differ according to the exigencies of time. ‘Abd al-Majid Daryabadi, a Pakistani Qur'an commentator, suggested, however, that the laws might differ across time but that there should be no shame in the same lawgiver replacing temporary laws with permanent ones.
Also cause for discussion among scholars is the question of whether God withdrew revelations from the memory of Muhammad and his followers, causing such revelations to disappear like some of those mentioned in the Qur'an about which little is known today.
This leads to the classical theological dispute about whether such interpretations dilute the idea that the Qur'an is eternal. Those who discount or downplay abrogation interpret the verses revealed by Muhammad in Mecca to address spirituality and see those revealed later in Medina not as abrogation but rather expanding context to understand the whole.
http://www.meforum.org/article/1754#_ftnref10
Abrogation and Jihad
Abrogation and Jihad
How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just.
During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle.
Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations.
Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58]
Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth.
Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam.
According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61]
Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."[62]
Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."[63]
Modern Revisionism of Jihad
David Powers, a well-known researcher of classical Islam, agreed that 9:5 abrogates no less than 124 verses that command or imply anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. However, he says the verse is itself considered to be abrogated by the conditional clause with which it concludes: "But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way."[64] But such a condition is not magnanimous: When infidels repent and perform the Muslim prayer and pay alms, it means they have become Muslims. Once they are Muslims, there is no need to slay them. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain.
Still, no verse is more frequently cited by contemporary Muslims preachers and analysts to depict Islam as peaceful and compassionate as 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." For Sheikh Abdur Rahman, the chief justice of Pakistan, this verse is one of the most important, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.[65]
Muhammad offered this verse in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews' support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, said: "Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam."[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.[67]
This is also the case of sura 9:29, which deals with Jews and Christians. Fighting them is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the idolaters (9:5). This verse (9:29) was revealed when Muhammad was commanded to fight the Byzantines and prepared the expedition to Tabuk. Ibn Kathir declared: The order is to fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah (protection tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad because all prophets commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him even though he is the "mightiest of all messengers because it suits their desires and lusts, and because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all prophets."
Ibn Kathir continues: "This honorable verse was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book. After the pagans were defeated, the people entered God's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control."[68]
Conclusions
The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims.
David Bukay is a lecturer in the school of political science at the University of Haifa.
http://www.meforum.org/article/1754#_ftnref10
Ahmadis may believe in the abrogated Sura 2:256 is still applicable, but then how can they explain the other Suras 9:5, 5:33, 5:51 8:39, 9:73 and so on? The Ahmadis attempt to explain that it is only in defense that those Suras are applicable. But all we have to see is the Islamic Jihadism that is being executed all over the world to know that the Ahmadis are in total denial. To just listing a few today, the Jihadist attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11, the London Underground Bombing of 7/7, the Iraqi war, the Afghanistan war, the Bali bombings, the Palestinian war, the Chechnya war, and so on with details found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_in_the_Muslim_world
So the above is evidence of "Abrogation" by Muhammad, and it also shows that the Ahmadis are in fact practicing 'Taqiyya.' Is is also in all Islamic Sharia law that anyone leaving Islam is an apostate and by sharia law practiced in most Islamic nations the penalty for Apostasy in Death. So it is a fact that that Sura 2:256 is a misnomer because there is no freedom of choice of religion in Islam. Apostates received the death penalty, Unbelievers must be fought against and severely dealt with. It is only when everyone accepts Allah as the only Allah to submit to will there be peace.
ABROGATION IN THE QUR'AN
The Qur'an is unique among sacred scriptures in accepting a doctrine of abrogation in which later pronouncements of the Prophet declare null and void his earlier pronouncements. Four verses in the Qu'ran acknowledge or justify abrogation:
Qur'an 2:106 When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that God has power over all things?
Qur'an 16:101 When we replace a message with another, and God knows best what he reveals, they say: You have made it up. Yet, most of them do not know.
Qur'an 13:39 God abrogates or confirms whatsoever he will, for he has with him the Book of the Books.
Qur'am 17:86 If we pleased, we could take away what we have revealed to you. Then you will not find anyone to plead for it with us.
Rather than explain away inconsistencies in passages regulating the Muslim community, many jurists acknowledge the differences but accept that latter verses trump earlier verses. Most scholars divide the Qur'an into verses revealed by Muhammad in Mecca when his community of followers was weak and more inclined to compromise, and those revealed in Medina, where Muhammad's strength grew.
Classical scholars argued that anyone who studied the Qur'an without having mastered the doctrine of abrogation would be "deficient." Those who do not accept abrogation fall outside the mainstream and, perhaps, even the religion itself. The Ahmadiyah sect, for example, today concentrated in Pakistan, consistently rejects abrogation because it undercuts the notion that the Qur'an is free from errors. Many Muslims consider Ahmadis, who also see their founder as a prophet, to be apostates.
Because the Qur'an is not organized chronologically, there has been a whole subset of theological study to determine which verses abrogate and which are abrogated. Muslim scholars base their understanding of theology not only upon the Qur'an but also upon hadiths, accounts of the Prophet Muhammad's life. One hadith in particular addresses abrogation. It cites Abu al-A‘la bin al-Shikhkhir, considered by theologians to be a reliable source of knowledge about the Prophet's life, as saying, that "the Messenger of God abrogated some of his commands by others, just as the Qur'an abrogates some part of it with the other." Muhammad accepted that God would invalidate previous revelation, often making ordinances stricter.
Abrogation occurs not only within the Qur'an, but also by the Qur'an toward earlier revelations, such as those passed on by Jesus or Moses. Sura 2:106 refers to commandments sent to prophets before Muhammad. ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali, commentator and translator of the Qur'an, interpreted the verse to mean that God's message is the same across time, but its form may differ according to the exigencies of time. ‘Abd al-Majid Daryabadi, a Pakistani Qur'an commentator, suggested, however, that the laws might differ across time but that there should be no shame in the same lawgiver replacing temporary laws with permanent ones.
Also cause for discussion among scholars is the question of whether God withdrew revelations from the memory of Muhammad and his followers, causing such revelations to disappear like some of those mentioned in the Qur'an about which little is known today.
This leads to the classical theological dispute about whether such interpretations dilute the idea that the Qur'an is eternal. Those who discount or downplay abrogation interpret the verses revealed by Muhammad in Mecca to address spirituality and see those revealed later in Medina not as abrogation but rather expanding context to understand the whole.
http://www.meforum.org/article/1754#_ftnref10
Abrogation and Jihad
Abrogation and Jihad
How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just.
During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle.
Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations.
Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58]
Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth.
Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam.
According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61]
Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."[62]
Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."[63]
Modern Revisionism of Jihad
David Powers, a well-known researcher of classical Islam, agreed that 9:5 abrogates no less than 124 verses that command or imply anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. However, he says the verse is itself considered to be abrogated by the conditional clause with which it concludes: "But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way."[64] But such a condition is not magnanimous: When infidels repent and perform the Muslim prayer and pay alms, it means they have become Muslims. Once they are Muslims, there is no need to slay them. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain.
Still, no verse is more frequently cited by contemporary Muslims preachers and analysts to depict Islam as peaceful and compassionate as 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." For Sheikh Abdur Rahman, the chief justice of Pakistan, this verse is one of the most important, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.[65]
Muhammad offered this verse in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews' support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, said: "Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam."[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.[67]
This is also the case of sura 9:29, which deals with Jews and Christians. Fighting them is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the idolaters (9:5). This verse (9:29) was revealed when Muhammad was commanded to fight the Byzantines and prepared the expedition to Tabuk. Ibn Kathir declared: The order is to fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah (protection tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad because all prophets commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him even though he is the "mightiest of all messengers because it suits their desires and lusts, and because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all prophets."
Ibn Kathir continues: "This honorable verse was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book. After the pagans were defeated, the people entered God's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control."[68]
Conclusions
The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims.
David Bukay is a lecturer in the school of political science at the University of Haifa.
http://www.meforum.org/article/1754#_ftnref10
posted by elle aka mbplee at 5:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home