Question about persecution of early Muslims, and warfare in Islam

[TG123456]

Salaam Alaikum,

This is a question for my Muslim fellow posters.

I know that when he began his ministry, Muhammad faced persecution from the Meccan pagans. I am curious to know if there were also other groups of people who were persecuting them.

In particular, is there evidence of Omani pagans playing any role in the persecution of Muhammad and his followers? If so, can you please show documentation of it?


Secondly, is it a correct understanding that, according to Islam, God forbids Muslims from attacking those who attack them, and allows war only in self-defence?

I ask because that is how I understand the verse below.

2:190
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

Would that be a correct interpretation?

 

[Woodrow LI]

Salaam Alaikum,

This is a question for my Muslim fellow posters.

I know that when he began his ministry, Muhammad faced persecution from the Meccan pagans. I am curious to know if there were also other groups of people who were persecuting them.

In particular, is there evidence of Omani pagans playing any role in the persecution of Muhammad and his followers? If so, can you please show documentation of it?


Secondly, is it a correct understanding that, according to Islam, God forbids Muslims from attacking those who attack them, and allows war only in self-defence?

I ask because that is how I understand the verse below.

2:190
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

Would that be a correct interpretation?

wa Alaikum Salaam
While it is an accurate translation, one needs to read a little further to understand what is meant by limits and transgressions.
190. And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.
191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

192. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

193. 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

While 191 - 193 give considerable insight. It is best to read additional Surah Such as Surat 9


32. They (the disbelievers, the Jews and the Christians) want to extinguish Allah's Light (with which Muhammad has been sent - Islamic Monotheism) with their mouths, but Allah will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the Kafirun (disbelievers) hate (it).

33. It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad ) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).

34. O you who believe! Verily, there are many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks who devour the wealth of mankind in falsehood, and hinder (them) from the Way of Allah (i.e. Allah's Religion of Islamic Monotheism). And those who hoard up gold and silver [Al-Kanz: the money, the Zakat of which has not been paid], and spend it not in the Way of Allah, -announce unto them a painful torment.

35. On the Day when that (Al-Kanz: money, gold and silver, etc., the Zakat of which has not been paid) will be heated in the Fire of Hell and with it will be branded their foreheads, their flanks, and their backs, (and it will be said unto them):-"This is the treasure which you hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what you used to hoard."

36. Verily, the number of months with Allah is twelve months (in a year), so was it ordained by Allah on the Day when He created the heavens and the earth; of them four are Sacred, (i.e. the 1st, the 7th, the 11th and the 12th months of the Islamic calendar). That is the right religion, so wrong not yourselves therein, and fight against the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) collectively , as they fight against you collectively. But know that Allah is with those who are Al-Muttaqun

37. The postponing (of a Sacred Month) is indeed an addition to disbelief: thereby the disbelievers are led astray, for they make it lawful one year and forbid it another year in order to adjust the number of months forbidden by Allah, and make such forbidden ones lawful. The evil of their deeds seems pleasing to them. And Allah guides not the people, who disbelieve.

38. O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e. Jihad) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.

39. If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things.

40. If you help him (Muhammad ) not (it does not matter), for Allah did indeed help him when the disbelievers drove him out, the second of two, when they (Muhammad and Abu Bakr ) were in the cave, and he said to his companion (Abu Bakr ): "Be not sad (or afraid), surely Allah is with us." Then Allah sent down His Sakinah (calmness, tranquillity, peace, etc.) upon him, and strengthened him with forces (angels) which you saw not, and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowermost, while it was the Word of Allah that became the uppermost, and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

 

[TG123456]

Thanks, WoodrowX. By limits and transgressions, these verses seem to be saying it's not OK to fight in Mecca unless the Muslims are attacked, and that fighting is better than being oppressed.

Is it then a false understanding that Islam does not allow allow aggressive warfare? I used to have the impression that Islam allows Muslims only to fight in self-defence, and I believed 2:190 teaches that. Muslims I know often have pointed to it.

Are Muslims allowed to fight only in self-defence, or are they allowed to attack those who are not attacking them?

 

[TashaN]

Are you talking about today or in the past during the time of Prophet Mohamed?

In general, Muslims of course are allowed only to attack those who attack them. So it's only a matter of self defence.

 

[TG123456]

Are you talking about today or in the past during the time of Prophet Mohamed?

In terms of the laws of war? I am assuming the same rules that applied to Muslims during the time of Muhammad regarding warfare, apply also today, ie it is not allowed to make aggressive attacks against someone who is not harming you.

In general, Muslims of course are allowed only to attack those who attack them. So it's only a matter of self defence.

Thank you, TashaN.

I know that the Meccan pagans were persecuting Muhammad, and tortured and even killed some of his followers. Were Muhammad and the Muslims persecuted also by the Omani pagans? If so, can you document this?

 

[TashaN]

In terms of the laws of war? I am assuming the same rules that applied to Muslims during the time of Muhammad regarding warfare, apply also today, ie it is not allowed to make aggressive attacks against someone who is not harming you.

In the past during the spread of the message, if a ruler didn't allow his people to hear about Islam, in that case Muslims had to fight him/her but they were not forced to become Muslims.

Today, anyone can know about Islam if he/she want to then there is no need to do that anymore.

Thank you, TashaN.

I know that the Meccan pagans were persecuting Muhammad, and tortured and even killed some of his followers. Were Muhammad and the Muslims persecuted also by the Omani pagans? If so, can you document this?

Never heard of them. Any source which you can share?

 

[Gharib]

The only people that persecuted Muslims where those belonging to the tribe of Quraish. Mos of the early Muslims either shared the blood line or were slaves to the Quraish. No one else harmed them physically in any way.

 

[TG123456]

In the past during the spread of the message, if a ruler didn't allow his people to hear about Islam, in that case Muslims had to fight him/her but they were not forced to become Muslims.

Today, anyone can know about Islam if he/she want to then there is no need to do that anymore.

Where does it say in the Quran it is acceptable to attack people who do not want their subjects to hear of Islam?

You earlier stated that 2:190 states that Muslims allowed to attack only those who attack them, and it is about self-defence. Now you are saying that in the past, Muslims had to fight rulers who didn't want Islam to be propagated in their kingdoms. Would that not be disobedience of 2:190, which states to attack those who are attacking you?

Never heard of them. Any source which you can share?

Achaemenid (6th to 4th century BC), an Iranian dynasty, controlled and/or influenced the Omani peninsula. This influential control was most likely exerted from a coastal center such as Sohar.[1]


From the 3rd century BC to the arrival of Islam in the 7th century AD, Oman was controlled by two other Iranian dynasties, the Parthians and the Sassanids. During this period Oman's administrative name was Mazun.[1] By about 250 BC, the Parthian dynasty brought the Persian Gulf under their control and extended their influence as far as Oman. Because they needed to control the Persian Gulf trade route, the Parthians established garrisons in Oman. In the 3rd century AD, the Sassanids succeeded the Parthians and held area until the rise of Islam four centuries later. This agricultural and military contact gave people exposure to Persian culture, as reflected in certain irrigation techniques still used in Oman.[2]


Early Islamic period

Oman adopted Islam in the 7th century, during the lifetime of the prophet Muhammad. Ibadism became the dominant religious sect in Oman by the 8th century; Oman is currently the only country in the Islamic world with a majority Ibadi population. Ibadhism is known for its "moderate conservatism". One distinguishing feature of Ibadism is the choice of ruler by communal consensus and consent.

History of Oman

 

[TG123456]

The only people that persecuted Muslims where those belonging to the tribe of Quraish. Mos of the early Muslims either shared the blood line or were slaves to the Quraish. No one else harmed them physically in any way.

Thank you, Gharib. I thought as also.

I will also ask you the same question I asked of TashaN. Does Islam allow its followers to attack non-Muslims in aggressive wars, or is violence allowed only in self-defence?

What does it mean in 2:190 when the verse states "fight those who are fighting you", and "do not transgress"?

 

[TashaN]

Where does it say in the Quran it is acceptable to attack people who do not want their subjects to hear of Islam?

You earlier stated that 2:190 states that Muslims allowed to attack only those who attack them, and it is about self-defence. Now you are saying that in the past, Muslims had to fight rulers who didn't want Islam to be propagated in their kingdoms. Would that not be disobedience of 2:190, which states to attack those who are attacking you?

This is a valid question and i'll try to answer you to the best of my abilities since i'm not a scholar. As you are fully aware since you are a Christian that Moses received Torah from God at once, but when it comes to the Quran, it was revealed in stages in a span of almost 20 years or more. For instance, when God wanted to prohibit alcohol consumption, he didn't ban it right away, but in stages.

1st stage (merely stating advantages and disadvantages)*:
They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." ...... (2:219)
*Arabs at that time were so in love with wine and there are many poems about it so that's why there was no prohibition at the beginning. They were not ready for it yet. So some said we leave it because of the sins in it and some said if there is some benefits to is so we won't.

2nd stage (prohibition during prayers only)*:
O ye who believe! approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say .... (4:43)
*In this stage some of the remaining group found it difficult to give it up and some said if it's no good during the prayer so it's better to just give it up.

3rd stage (prohibition)*:
O ye who believe! intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination of Satan's handiwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. (5:90)
*in this final stage they were ready so it was just logical at this point that alcohol is to be banned entirely and everyone expected it to come sooner or later.

That's why it's important to study the context when it comes to the verses which deal with some rulings. In Jihad, it followed the same model as alcohol.

During the weakness of the few Muslims at that time in which any act of rebellion against the non-Muslims majority even in self defence might have catastrophic outcome and even annihilation of all Muslims at that critical period. That's why any act of fight even as a self defence was totally prohibited till they were later ordered to start defending themselves as the verse below shows.

Hast thou not turned thy vision to those who were told to hold back their hands (from fight) but establish regular prayers and spend in regular Charity? When (at length) the order for fighting was issued to them, behold! a section of them feared men as - or even more than - they should have feared Allah; they said: "Our Lord! why hast Thou ordered us to fight? Wouldst Thou not grant us respite to our (natural) term, near (enough)?" Say: "Short is the enjoyment of this world: the Hereafter is the best for those who do right; never will ye be dealt with unjustly in the very least!

That's why they needed a permission to even fight in self defence.
To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, Allah is Most Powerful for their aid; (22:39)

After that they didn't need any direct permission to fight in self defence so the general verse was revealed which you were talking about. Some scholars even interpreted it to mean fight even if it was not in defence but don't go beyond ethical war, which is not to kill women, children, unarmed civilians, etc.
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. (2:190)

But later when Prophet Mohamed laid down the foundation of the state in Medina and was capable to spreading the message of Islam to the others who didn't hear about it or were prohibited from hearing about it, so Allah gave him the permission to go and fight those who were nearby of where Muslims lived.

O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. (9:123)
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ يَلُونَكُمْ مِنَ الْكُفَّارِ وَلْيَجِدُوا فِيكُمْ غِلْظَةً وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ

This has a religious and political impact. The religious one was to let people know about Islam but of course forced conversion was not used and hence, there exist laws about people of the book in marriage, business, etc as you know.

When it comes to the political impact, as you know in that period, expansion was the norm and if you are not expanding then you are going to shrink by being swollen by other nations. There was no United Nations, no Security Council, no nothing. You either eat or get eaten. That's why as a necessary political measure Muslims had to engage in a fight with those surrounding them to secure their state and also show strength not to get attacked by others.

That's why there were laws of Jizyah (tax) against those who didn't want to face Muslims in battle. The intention was never to force people to convert, otherwise there would not be any laws of Jizyah and Muslims would have to crush all nations on earth. Since that was not the case, the verse stated clearly that they just had to secure their neighbourhood.

I apologize for the long answer. Some people don't like to read long posts so i usually keep it short unless it's really necessary.

 

[TashaN]

Achaemenid (6th to 4th century BC), an Iranian dynasty, controlled and/or influenced the Omani peninsula. This influential control was most likely exerted from a coastal center such as Sohar.[1]

From the 3rd century BC to the arrival of Islam in the 7th century AD, Oman was controlled by two other Iranian dynasties, the Parthians and the Sassanids. During this period Oman's administrative name was Mazun.[1] By about 250 BC, the Parthian dynasty brought the Persian Gulf under their control and extended their influence as far as Oman. Because they needed to control the Persian Gulf trade route, the Parthians established garrisons in Oman. In the 3rd century AD, the Sassanids succeeded the Parthians and held area until the rise of Islam four centuries later. This agricultural and military contact gave people exposure to Persian culture, as reflected in certain irrigation techniques still used in Oman.[2]

Early Islamic period

Oman adopted Islam in the 7th century, during the lifetime of the prophet Muhammad. Ibadism became the dominant religious sect in Oman by the 8th century; Oman is currently the only country in the Islamic world with a majority Ibadi population. Ibadhism is known for its "moderate conservatism". One distinguishing feature of Ibadism is the choice of ruler by communal consensus and consent.

History of Oman

I'm really sorry. I'm a bit lost here. Are you asking why they became Muslims? Can you please go direct to the main point?

 

[TG123456]

This is a valid question and i'll try to answer you to the best of my abilities since i'm not a scholar. As you are fully aware since you are a Christian that Moses received Torah from God at once,

I'm not sure whether God revealed the Torah to Moses at all, at least not what we call the Old Testament. I believe some changes were made, if the book was revealed to Moses, if there is evidence he existed.

but when it comes to the Quran, it was revealed in stages in a span of almost 20 years or more. For instance, when God wanted to prohibit alcohol consumption, he didn't ban it right away, but in stages.

1st stage (merely stating advantages and disadvantages)*:
They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." ...... (2:219)
*Arabs at that time were so in love with wine and there are many poems about it so that's why there was no prohibition at the beginning. They were not ready for it yet. So some said we leave it because of the sins in it and some said if there is some benefits to is so we won't.

2nd stage (prohibition during prayers only)*:
O ye who believe! approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say .... (4:43)
*In this stage some of the remaining group found it difficult to give it up and some said if it's no good during the prayer so it's better to just give it up.

3rd stage (prohibition)*:
O ye who believe! intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination of Satan's handiwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. (5:90)
*in this final stage they were ready so it was just logical at this point that alcohol is to be banned entirely and everyone expected it to come sooner or later.

That's why it's important to study the context when it comes to the verses which deal with some rulings. In Jihad, it followed the same model as alcohol.

OK, thank you for showing the progression.

During the weakness of the few Muslims at that time in which any act of rebellion against the non-Muslims majority even in self defence might have catastrophic outcome and even annihilation of all Muslims at that critical period. That's why any act of fight even as a self defence was totally prohibited till they were later ordered to start defending themselves as the verse below shows.

Hast thou not turned thy vision to those who were told to hold back their hands (from fight) but establish regular prayers and spend in regular Charity? When (at length) the order for fighting was issued to them, behold! a section of them feared men as - or even more than - they should have feared Allah; they said: "Our Lord! why hast Thou ordered us to fight? Wouldst Thou not grant us respite to our (natural) term, near (enough)?" Say: "Short is the enjoyment of this world: the Hereafter is the best for those who do right; never will ye be dealt with unjustly in the very least!

That's why they needed a permission to even fight in self defence.
To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, Allah is Most Powerful for their aid; (22:39)

After that they didn't need any direct permission to fight in self defence so the general verse was revealed which you were talking about. Some scholars even interpreted it to mean fight even if it was not in defence but don't go beyond ethical war, which is not to kill women, children, unarmed civilians, etc.
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. (2:190)

But later when Prophet Mohamed laid down the foundation of the state in Medina and was capable to spreading the message of Islam to the others who didn't hear about it or were prohibited from hearing about it, so Allah gave him the permission to go and fight those who were nearby of where Muslims lived.

O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. (9:123)
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ يَلُونَكُمْ مِنَ الْكُفَّارِ وَلْيَجِدُوا فِيكُمْ غِلْظَةً وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ

This has a religious and political impact. The religious one was to let people know about Islam but of course forced conversion was not used and hence, there exist laws about people of the book in marriage, business, etc as you know.

When it comes to the political impact, as you know in that period, expansion was the norm and if you are not expanding then you are going to shrink by being swollen by other nations. There was no United Nations, no Security Council, no nothing. You either eat or get eaten. That's why as a necessary political measure Muslims had to engage in a fight with those surrounding them to secure their state and also show strength not to get attacked by others.

That's why there were laws of Jizyah (tax) against those who didn't want to face Muslims in battle. The intention was never to force people to convert, otherwise there would not be any laws of Jizyah and Muslims would have to crush all nations on earth. Since that was not the case, the verse stated clearly that they just had to secure their neighbourhood.

I apologize for the long answer. Some people don't like to read long posts so i usually keep it short unless it's really necessary.

No apologies necessary, and thank you for the answer.

In other words, you seem to be saying that Islam does allow aggressive warfare against non-Muslims, even if they are doing nothing to harm Muslims. It is allowed to attack them, and they are given the choice between converting to Islam or paying a tax, or being attacked.

There are laws of war against killing civilians, but it is allowed to attack others, even if they are doing nothing to harm you.


I hear what you are saying about the situation in the 7th century, but I'm not sure if I morally agree with the "eat or be eaten" stance. Yes, it would be advantageous for fending off further attack to take more territory, but is it moral to attack people who are not attacking you?

BTW Isn't that how almost every empire started off, by being small and surrounded by enemies that were ready to attack it? The Soviet Union's expansion into Eastern Europe and the horrors that followed against people who refused to submit to its ideology also was justified on the grounds that there were enemies around who were intent on attacking.... and that was not a false assessment. The Western countries sent in their armies to defend the "White" Army against the Red Army.


Also, would attacking your non-Muslim neighbours and fighting them until they either accept Islam or submit to Muslim rule or die not be a form of compulsion of religion?

Imagine for a second I give your family the choice of converting to Christianity, or paying me a set amount of money a month for protection, or that I attack them - but be sure to only assault your male adult relatives and spare the women, kids, and elderly. Wouldn't that be compulsion in religion? I'm not really offering you the choice to practice your religion freely- if you keep your religion, you must pay me money so I don't hurt you.

Jesus taught love for enemies and turning the other cheek, and as Christians we believe He practiced it and that His disciples did also. People have used non-violent struggle effectively to end the British rule in India and discrimination against African Americans in the South, as well as to topple several communist regimes. As you will probably point out, many so-called 'Christians' have done and continue to do terrible things in His Name.

I hope I am not coming across as rude or aggressive, if I am, please accept my apologies. I also do not at all mind long answers. LOL I write very long ones myself.

 

[TG123456]

I'm really sorry. I'm a bit lost here. Are you asking why they became Muslims? Can you please go direct to the main point?

Sorry, I am trying to ascertain if there is any record of them attacking Muhammad or his people. I'm not aware of any, I was wondering if you were.

 

[TashaN]

You said:
(Jesus taught love for enemies and turning the other cheek, and as Christians we believe He practiced it and that His disciples did also.)

Before commenting further, i actually need your help here because i'm quite puzzled. The reason is because i'm pretty sure that Jesus Christ himself was involved in Jihad and even was commanding his desciples to do so. He told them how to fight and defend themselves from enemies, not by giving the other cheek but rather by using real weapons.

I hope you will correct me because it been a while since the last time i read the holy bible so forgive me if i was wrong. But if as you said earlier you don't believe in the holy bible to be the word of God then no need to answer because your information about Jesus might come from sources other than the bible.

 

[TG123456]

You said:
(Jesus taught love for enemies and turning the other cheek, and as Christians we believe He practiced it and that His disciples did also.)

Before commenting further, i actually need your help here because i'm quite puzzled. The reason is because i'm pretty sure that Jesus Christ himself was involved in Jihad and even was commanding his desciples to do so. He told them how to fight and defend themselves from enemies, not by giving the other cheek but rather by using real weapons.

I hope you will correct me because it been a while since the last time i read the holy bible so forgive me if i was wrong. But if as you said earlier you don't believe in the holy bible to be the word of God then no need to answer because your information about Jesus might come from sources other than the bible.

Salaam Alaikum, TashaN.

I don't believe the Bible is perfect like I used to believe, but I still do believe that when it comes to information about Jesus, the Gospels are the best sources that exist. Even if only for the reason that they were written earliest. The only piece of work I am aware of that comes close to their date of composition is the Gospel of Thomas, and if you read some of the things Jesus is alleged to have said according to it (women have to become men to enter heaven, there being many gods), you would probably also reject its authenticity.

My information about Jesus comes from the Bible, and, during His ministry on earth, He never commanded His disciples to wage war or be involved in Jihad. Jesus did tell the disciples to turn the other cheek when struck and to love their enemies. LOL I would recommend reading Matthew 5 for directions on how Jesus commanded enemies to be treated.

Jesus did tell His disciples to buy swords, yes, but it is not explained why or how they were to be used. However, when Peter attacked one of the men who came to arrest Jesus, Jesus rebuked him and healed the man (Luke 22:47-53). The story is also mentioned in Matthew 26, though the part about the man being healed wasn't recorded there. What is absent from anywhere in the New Testament is any record of Jesus' disciples waging war or using violence, even in self-defence.

Centuries later, the church came up with what is called the "Just War Theory"... more or less making permissible what Jesus banned, "under the right circumstances".

It is true that God ordered His followers to wage war and even perpetrate genocide according to the Old Testament and Christians do believe that Jesus is God, however, we are to live by the teachings He gave us when He came down in human form and these are the teachings that now apply and will to the End Times.

Hope that was helpful, at least a bit.


What does it mean that there is no compulsion in religion? According to Islam, can people be attacked aggressively only because they refuse to become Muslims?


Masalaam and nice talking to you.

 

[TashaN]

Walikum alsalam,

Before going any further into the Quran, since you mentioned how Jesus taught his disciples to turn the other cheek, I hope you won't mind me asking about how Jesus reacted toward his enemies since you know in Islam we believe in him to be the Messiah as well. If you are not comfortable to answer my questions about him please let me know.

Jesus did tell His disciples to buy swords, yes, but it is not explained why or how they were to be used.

They came to him running after purchasing the swords:
". . . Lord, behold, here are two swords." And he said unto them, "It is enough". Luke 22:38

Enough for what exactly?

"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?" And they said, "Nothing" Then said he unto them, "But now, he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he that hath no swords, let him sell his garment and buy one!" Luke 22:35-36

It was something urgent as the reader will notice from the context. What do you think swords were being used for at that time? if someone was poor and had to sell his garment in order to buy swords, so definitely it was to be used to fight for his life, not for decoration.

 

[Gharib]

Thank you, Gharib. I thought as also.

What does it mean in 2:190 when the verse states "fight those who are fighting you", and "do not transgress"?

The following is from the commentary of Ibn Kathir, a well known and highly regarded Muslim historian and commentator of the Qur'an.

Allah said: "..but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors."
This Ayah means, `Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions.

Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah),
"Includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.''
This is also the opinion of Ibn Abbas, Umar bin Abdul-Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others.

Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said:
"Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods), commit treachery, mutilate (the dead), or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship."

It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn Umar said,
"A woman was found dead during one of the Prophet's battles and the Prophet then forbade killing women and children.''
There are many other Hadiths on this subject.

As for war being aggressive, I do not know. Have not looked into it.

 

[TG123456]

Walikum alsalam,

Peace be upon you also.

Before going any further into the Quran, since you mentioned how Jesus taught his disciples to turn the other cheek, I hope you won't mind me asking about how Jesus reacted toward his enemies since you know in Islam we believe in him to be the Messiah as well. If you are not comfortable to answer my questions about him please let me know.

I will answer any questions you may ask to the best of my ability, please don't worry. I

They came to him running after purchasing the swords:
". . . Lord, behold, here are two swords." And he said unto them, "It is enough". Luke 22:38

Enough for what exactly?

"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?" And they said, "Nothing" Then said he unto them, "But now, he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he that hath no swords, let him sell his garment and buy one!" Luke 22:35-36

It was something urgent as the reader will notice from the context. What do you think swords were being used for at that time? if someone was poor and had to sell his garment in order to buy swords, so definitely it was to be used to fight for his life, not for decoration.

You make some great points, and the purpose of the swords is a mystery. Perhaps to fight off wild animals?

If we look at just these two verses, it would seem that Jesus is telling His disciples to buy swords for self-defence or who knows, even offence- but then when we week reading the same Gospel where it is mentioned, as soon as one of Christ's disciples used his sword to lop off the ear of one of the people coming to arrest Jesus, Jesus rebuked Him. In fact, He not only rebuked the disciple, but also healed the servant!

If the swords were meant to be used violently towards other people, what better time than when Christ was being arrested? As we continue reading the Bible, we read in the Book of Acts that the early church was persecuted but again, there is no mention of any of the disciples or people in the early church using weapons to defend themselves.

Can you please answer my question about there being no compulsion in religion? Is that verse abrogated later, or does it remain?

 

[TG123456]

The following is from the commentary of Ibn Kathir, a well known and highly regarded Muslim historian and commentator of the Qur'an.

Allah said: "..but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors."
This Ayah means, `Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions.

Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah),
"Includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.''
This is also the opinion of Ibn Abbas, Umar bin Abdul-Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others.

Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said:
"Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods), commit treachery, mutilate (the dead), or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship."

It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn Umar said,
"A woman was found dead during one of the Prophet's battles and the Prophet then forbade killing women and children.''
There are many other Hadiths on this subject.

As for war being aggressive, I do not know. Have not looked into it.

The following is from the commentary of Ibn Kathir, a well known and highly regarded Muslim historian and commentator of the Qur'an.

Allah said: "..but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors."
This Ayah means, `Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions.

Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah),
"Includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.''
This is also the opinion of Ibn Abbas, Umar bin Abdul-Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others.

Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said:
"Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods), commit treachery, mutilate (the dead), or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship."

It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn Umar said,
"A woman was found dead during one of the Prophet's battles and the Prophet then forbade killing women and children.''
There are many other Hadiths on this subject.

As for war being aggressive, I do not know. Have not looked into it.

Salaam Alaikum, Gharib.

Thank you for bringing up Tafsir Ibn Qathir, and pointing out what it means to "transgress" - ie killing women and children, committing treachery, killing people in homes of worship.

According to Ibn Qathir's commentary, it is only lawful for Muslims to fight those who are fighting them.

Abu Ja`far Ar-Razi said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah commented on what Allah said:

﴿وَقَـتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَـتِلُونَكُمْ﴾

(And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you,)

Abu Al-`Aliyah said, "This was the first Ayah about fighting that was revealed in Al-Madinah. Ever since it was revealed, Allah's Messenger used to fight only those who fought him and avoid non-combatants. Later, Surat Bara'ah (chapter 9 in the Qur'an) was revealed.'' `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said similarly, then he said that this was later abrogated by the Ayah:

﴿فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ﴾

(then kill them wherever you find them) (9:5).

However, this statement is not plausible, because Allah's statement:

﴿الَّذِينَ يُقَـتِلُونَكُمْ﴾

(...those who fight you) applies only to fighting the enemies who are engaged in fighting Islam and its people. So the Ayah means, `Fight those who fight you', just as Allah said (in another Ayah):

﴿وَقَاتِلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ كَآفَّةً كَمَا يُقَـتِلُونَكُمْ كَآفَّةً﴾

(...and fight against the Mushrikin collectively as they fight against you collectively.) (9:36)

This is why Allah said later in the Ayah:

﴿وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُمْ مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ﴾

(And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.) meaning, `Your energy should be spent on fighting them, just as their energy is spent on fighting you, and on expelling them from the areas from which they have expelled you, as a law of equality in punishment.'

Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir - The Command to fight Those Who fight Muslims and killing Them wherever They are found

It seems that the verse states it is OK for Muslims only to fight those who are fighting them. An aggressive war against someone who is not fighting Muslims would not be acceptable, according to this verse.

 

[Gharib]

@ TG123456

The commentary of some verses only serves to inform the reasons behind it's revelation. There are verses which are very plain and clear and can be understood without any commentary, such as 'offer prayers and pay the zakah (tax)' etc etc. What's not clear is how to pray and how much tax to give.

The same applies to the verses which you have mentioned and so too in general to your initial question. It is very plain, 'fight those who fight you(ie, defend yourself)'. However, to understand the proper ruling and proper law in the matter of war, it is the science of Fiqh which deals with deriving laws and not the science of commentary. There are maybe hundreds of verses and hadith which speak of war from which scholars of Fiqh derive a ruling. The commentary only gives a brief historical look.