What is the real meaning of Quran 9:29?

[Raymann]

9.29 "Jalal - Al-Jalalayn
Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, for, otherwise, they would have believed in the Prophet (s), and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, such as wine, nor do they practise the religion of truth, the firm one, the one that abrogated other religions, namely, the religion of Islam — from among of those who (min, ‘from’, explains [the previous] alladhīna, ‘those who’) have been given the Scripture, namely, the Jews and the Christians, until they pay the jizya tribute, the annual tax imposed them, readily (‘an yadin is a circumstantial qualifier, meaning, ‘compliantly’, or ‘by their own hands’, not delegating it [to others to pay]), being subdued, [being made] submissive and compliant to the authority of Islam."

This is the Tafsir from Al-Jalalayn, one of the most respected scholars of Islam.
I don't see any mention this is only to be applied during war.
I don't see this is only to be applied during a specific battle.
I don't see why the Taliban shouldn't be fighting Christians and Jews according to this sura until the pay Jizya or convert to Islam.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I found a short youtube video by some people in Canada. Its seven minutes, but I've bookmarked where it begins to explain the view that this passage is about a particular circumstance in which the Muslims are under threat of being conquered and does not refer to all situations. I've no idea if this view is realistic, but its there for you to see.

Spoiler: Seven minute

And here is the transcript:

Spoiler: Auto transcript auto from the source

0:01
edition of let the Koran speak my name
0:03
is Sofia
0:04
I'm your host now recently there was a
0:07
case in Toronto where a young woman was
0:09
killed and the reports of her refusal to
0:11
wear the headscarf how do we understand
0:14
that misfortune we'll be looking at that
0:15
case today we'll also be taking a look
0:18
at a hadith and also a verse from the
0:20
Quran and we'll be looking at your
0:23
questions as well trying to answer them
0:24
in the latter part of the show with me
0:26
today but it should be really from the
0:28
Islamic information center those very
0:30
welcome to on speak to the video now the
0:32
verse we're dealing with comes from
0:34
through 9 it's verse 29 and it speaks
0:37
well maybe you can tell me a little bit
0:40
about what it says well to begin with
0:42
this is the famous verse that speaks of
0:45
the jizya warm the full tax that is
0:48
levied on non-muslims who live in an
0:51
Islamic state nowadays of course the
0:52
speak of the jizya means that we're
0:54
speaking of an unpopular topic or maybe
0:56
a popular wanted something that people
0:58
have a lot of questions about given the
1:01
Gallic Aryan nature of modern societies
1:04
in which everyone is treated fair and
1:06
square across the board regardless of
1:09
creed so we can explain that and the
1:12
rest of our party well possible Avenal I
1:15
really like the yamen awfully well our
1:17
honeymoon and muhammad abu or a solo
1:20
well is deenal Haq see you know Latinos
1:22
who eat avocado soldiers Netanya Jim
1:25
wasn't our own fighter against those who
1:29
do not believe in God and the last day
1:32
and do not consider impermissible that
1:36
which God and His Messenger make
1:38
impermissible and do not subscribe to
1:41
the religion of truth from among the
1:45
people of the book until they pay the
1:49
jizya out of hand while they are
1:54
subjected so what sort of circumstances
1:56
is first speaking in okay well the worst
1:59
film occurs in chapter 9 as verse number
2:03
29 so to understand the circumstance one
2:05
has to read the verses that come before
2:07
it and the verses that come after me
2:09
chapter 9 on the whole actually was
2:12
revealed in the ninth year of of the
2:15
Hitler ninth year after the Prophet
2:17
Muhammad peace be upon him had made his
2:18
migration from Mecca to Medina
2:20
this means that he had been preaching
2:23
Islam in the region for many years and
2:25
he had saved much opposition he had gone
2:27
to battle with those who were attacking
2:29
Islam many times over and by this time
2:32
now the Muslim community was coming out
2:34
victorious and actually gaining strength
2:36
and exercising its own Dominion but
2:39
there were pockets of resistance in many
2:41
places and the Muslims had to declare
2:45
open and general war against those
2:47
pockets of resistance especially against
2:50
guerrilla fighters who might be
2:52
ambushing Muslims in a variety of areas
2:54
so when that was openly declared in this
2:58
surah in this chapter now the the people
3:01
of the book Jews and Christians more
3:04
particularly but people who had access
3:07
to religious scriptures more generally
3:09
work treated differently in that they
3:11
were given a special privilege and that
3:13
they could remain as minorities and the
3:16
Muslim community as a protected minority
3:20
with the difference that whereas Muslims
3:23
would normally pay the zakat or a
3:25
religiously obligated charity a part of
3:30
which could be used for the upkeep of
3:32
certain state institutions the
3:36
non-muslims on the other hand meaning
3:39
usual Christians and other people of the
3:41
book in this case would be allowed to
3:43
remain as a minority in a Muslim society
3:45
and they would pay instead of the
3:47
regulated religious charity they would
3:51
pay a jizya especial tax which of course
3:54
would go for funding the government
3:57
institutions especially the institution
4:00
that protects the citizens on the whole
4:02
against any sort of military onslaught
4:05
Sahara's understand and the criticisms
4:07
of the dizzier or this tax as being an
4:11
instituting unequal treatment of Muslims
4:14
and non-muslims well I think basic
4:16
criticisms the one is that in our modern
4:20
you guys are carrying societies it is
4:21
unthinkable to treat
4:23
I need one group of people differently
4:25
if you have attacks it's the same tracks
4:27
or everybody across the board because we
4:29
do not have now in our society is a
4:32
religious sort of obligation as people
4:37
pay taxes religiously but not as a
4:40
religious obligation so it's it's to be
4:44
the same for all but in an Islamic
4:46
society in our defense we would say
4:48
because this that hat was part of the
4:51
face one of the pillars of Islam you
4:53
could not accept that non-muslims would
4:55
also pay the zakat and it would be
4:56
unconscionable for you to impose on them
4:58
for them to participate in one of the
5:01
five pillars of Islam by paying the
5:02
zakat
5:03
so they they contributed the fair share
5:07
through the government resources for the
5:10
protection that they enjoyed from the
5:14
public publicly funded military
5:17
apparatus by paying a tax and that tax
5:20
was called the jizya the second
5:23
objection actually comes from the fact
5:25
that over time the figure might have
5:28
been used to emphasize the fact that
5:33
these were subjective people and the
5:36
jizya at times may have been greater
5:38
than what I must have might have paid in
5:41
in zakat is that it has very that very
5:43
few others write this differently some
5:46
would have applied the Jews year and
5:48
made it less than the usual cetera but
5:50
that will count what counts as the
5:53
negatives now one doesn't focus on the
5:55
positive but looks at the negative and
5:56
says okay if somebody uses that to
6:00
emphasize the subjective and it's the
6:04
nature of these people then that would
6:07
not not be obviously a good thing now
6:11
how do you how do you respond to the
6:13
latter part of the verse where it says
6:14
you know and they pay the jizya on our
6:17
son Jude or humiliated yes you see the
6:20
the last part of the verse actually in
6:22
in the Arabic construction is a how
6:24
construction while they are subjected
6:27
people and that'll set simply describes
6:30
the nature of the case because you are
6:33
at war with the population in general
6:34
and you're struggling
6:36
for your own survival I'm not speaking
6:38
of now and speaking about the situation
6:40
as it was at the time the Prophet
6:41
Muhammad peace be upon him so coming out
6:44
of this war situation when the Muslims
6:46
are finally able to have a state of
6:49
their own and to actually survive they
6:52
have to decide now what do we do with
6:53
the people who are battling us from all
6:56
directions so the the people of the book
7:00
who are closer to most of them in the
7:02
sense of the religious feeling
7:04
worshipping of the same God having a
7:06
shared religious history and so on or
7:08
allowed to survive as a religious
7:10
minority among the Muslims but they
7:13
could not have the state power the state
7:14
power had to be kept to guarantee it in
7:18
in the hands of the Muslims at the time
7:20
so the fact that they are a subjected
7:24
people to the Muslim state power that is
7:27
the state of affairs a marriage is
7:29
simply being described in the first as
7:32
it is it the first is not prescribing
7:35
and that you must keep them as a
7:37
subjected people the verses describing
7:41
incidents at a time all right thank you
7:43
for that good

 

[Brickjectivity]

My view is that we as non Muslims cannot really be expected to think of it this way, just as I can't expect people to ignore scriptures in my bible which seem violent to them.

For the scriptures I have which contain stories of warring to clear land I can explain all day that these scriptures are this or that, but since the bible has been published and pushed as something that laypersons ought to read I cannot expect a lot of integrated thought by laypersons on the issue. It is unfortunate that the bible is put forward as self explanatory, but it is. It is often said that good bible study is just good bible reading, but this is untrue. It isn't just good bible reading, and you do need context and cultural learning. You also need to know some things about the original languages, the laws and even archeological information about other cultures such as the Romans, Egyptians, Greeks and Babylonians. Its a thoroughly daunting and difficult thing to study, and its put onto every bookshelf as if it were self explanatory.

The Quran may have a similar problem or not. Unlike the bible, the Quran is a single book. It has chapters and a foreign culture but can't possibly be as complicated to decipher. The language is reportedly difficult, but people do learn it. I don't know how much History or culture study is required to grasp it.

I'd say its probably something like a rental notice. The notice says you are late and have 5 days to pay before legal action, but the management may actually be more lenient than their notice provides. There is the wording and then there is the practical application; but I am only concerned about the legal notice. If I am notified that I am to be turned out and sued, then that is what I pay attention to.

 

[Raymann]

My view is that we as non Muslims cannot really be expected to think of it this way, just as I can't expect people to ignore scriptures in my bible which seem violent to them.

That is why I quoted a Tafsir (interpretation) of the verse from one of the most respected Islamic scholars.
This is not the verse alone but it is the interpretation and notice (as I said) it is not linked to any battle nor it implies it can only be used during a war nor can be used at one specific time, therefore this is can be used at any time.
Muslim scholars tend to associate verses to the time when they were revealed but it is not realistic that all the verses are only meant to be used to help on the current situation prophet Muhammad was at the time.
To me is like using context that is not there. The Quran tells you to do something and you think, no wait a minute I think the Quran meant to say this instead.

 

[Raymann]

I've no idea if this view is realistic, but its there for you to see.

Thanks for the video. It is the most common interpretation by scholars that this verse applies to the time of the Tabuk expedition but I do not believe it should be restricted only to this time as the verse itself doesn't mention any restriction.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That is why I quoted a Tafsir (interpretation) of the verse from one of the most respected Islamic scholars.
This is not the verse alone but it is the interpretation and notice (as I said) it is not linked to any battle nor it implies it can only be used during a war nor can be used at one specific time, therefore this is can be used at any time.
Muslim scholars tend to associate verses to the time when they were revealed but it is not realistic that all the verses are only meant to be used to help on the current situation prophet Muhammad was at the time.
To me is like using context that is not there. The Quran tells you to do something and you think, no wait a minute I think the Quran meant to say this instead.

It does matter, though, what the real intent is; and it also matters how it is interpreted. Both matter. People strongly desire to have peace in the world, and that wish colors many opinions. We wish for it to be this way or that way. We wish for a particular outcome or a particular interpretation to be so.

In the end I think the interpretation lies with the victors -- those Muslims who remain to say what it means. You mention Islamic State or ISIL (or whatever its called). That is a mixture of people and cannot give any final say about what the intent of the Quran is. Its a mixture of cultists, hoodlums, suckers, wishful teenagers, jobless people, do gooders, slaves, gullible people, fascists, deceived followers and others. It can only give us one possible interpretation. It can't resolve anything. Neither can the highly respected Tsafir. Obviously Islam can be what Isil claims. Can be if that is the final say at the end.

 

[icehorse]

As I have done before, I'd like to introduce another perspective on this category of discussion. This other perspective is that we must consider the separation of our minds from our brains. For the sake of discussion we can say our minds are roughly our consciousness and our brains are our subconsciousness. 99.9999% of the time when people discuss or debate scripture they are operating almost entirely from the mind's conscious perspective. There's nothing wrong with that, our minds discuss and debate many ideas and concepts.

But in addition, when people read scripture, it is impacting their subconscious brains. The subconscious brain learns primarily through repetition and those experiences that provoke emotional responses. I haven't done a deep study of all scripture, but from the work I have done, I feel the Quran is the most repetitive of all the most popular scripture. The BRAIN learns by pattern matching. We don't give a baby a manual on how to walk. The baby observes older people walking. everyone walks a little differently, but there are some invariants to walking, regardless of who's doing the walking. When the brain is learning through pattern matching, it knows how to spot the invariants.

All this to say that our minds might come up with various ways to apologize for scripture, but our brains aren't operating at that level. In the case of the Quran, our brains will pick up the pattern that non-believers are to be despised by Muslims.

All the best intentions in the world will not change this fact. No amount of theological expertise or agreement will change this fact.

 

[Raymann]

It does matter, though, what the real intent is; and it also matters how it is interpreted. Both matter. People strongly desire to have peace in the world, and that wish colors many opinions. We wish for it to be this way or that way. We wish for a particular outcome or a particular interpretation to be so.

I think the real idea is to understand what Allah (God) meant to say and stay away from the many human interpretations as possible.
The problem: If we take the Quran purely as it was written then there's a good chance we would be in an endless war and Muslims don't want that and nobody wants that.

 

[stvdv]

All this to say that our minds might come up with various ways to apologize for scripture, but our brains aren't operating at that level. In the case of the Quran, our brains will pick up the pattern that non-believers are to be despised by Muslims.

I am quite good in seeing verses in a positive way when they seem negative like judgmental etc. But with the Koran I am amazed how many verses need my polishing up to make it digestable for me. This almost makes me wonder "maybe the writers meant it to be the way it feels at first sight"

I prefer simple language, that all people should be able to understand, esp. if coming from God

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think the real idea is to understand what Allah (God) meant to say and stay away from the many human interpretations as possible.
The problem: If we take the Quran purely as it was written then there's a good chance we would be in an endless war and Muslims don't want that and nobody wants that.

Avoiding human interpretations seems impossible. How does a human avoid that? I think there is a strong chance that the world will be in endless warfare anyway, with or without such interpretation.

I don't think you need to worry about endless warfare except from those who want to claim they are the harbingers of true Islam -- so from cults basically. Cults don't recognize other similar groups and cut themselves off and declare themselves to be authorities. Once a person believes he has the absolute pristine Islam and the truth then he may begin to think about pushing his opinions as if they are God's.

 

[icehorse]

Avoiding human interpretations seems impossible. How does a human avoid that? I think there is a strong chance that the world will be in endless warfare anyway, with or without such interpretation.

I don't think you need to worry about endless warfare except from those who want to claim they are the harbingers of true Islam -- so from cults basically. Cults don't recognize other similar groups and cut themselves off and declare themselves to be authorities. Once a person believes he has the absolute pristine Islam and the truth then he may begin to think about pushing his opinions as if they are God's.

This subconscious message for Muslims to - at best - distrust non-believers is problem even if it never comes to violence. It's a divisive message

 

[Brickjectivity]

This subconscious message for Muslims to - at best - distrust non-believers is problem even if it never comes to violence. It's a divisive message

It does seem like the entrance to an exclusive night club.

 

[stvdv]

This subconscious message for Muslims to - at best - distrust non-believers is problem even if it never comes to violence. It's a divisive message

IF a follower of a (non) Faith claims or even thinks "my way is the highway" he says my way is superior and implies that your way is inferior. This by itself is "the highway to `Hell`". As it is verbal/mental violence (violent words can be even more damaging than violent actions).

It lacks respect and therefore it's devoid of Love. Hence just say "for me my (non) Faith works" and stay away from imposing on others, pretending you know what's best for others, what others should believe.

"Do (not do) unto others what you (do not) want to be done unto you" is the easiest way to know this is true, as nobody likes it if others tell them their feelings and/or beliefs suck

Note: Religious people as well as Atheists can make this mistake in their enthusiasm about their own Faith or lack thereof

 

[Muffled]

9.29 "Jalal - Al-Jalalayn
Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, for, otherwise, they would have believed in the Prophet (s), and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, such as wine, nor do they practise the religion of truth, the firm one, the one that abrogated other religions, namely, the religion of Islam — from among of those who (min, ‘from’, explains [the previous] alladhīna, ‘those who’) have been given the Scripture, namely, the Jews and the Christians, until they pay the jizya tribute, the annual tax imposed them, readily (‘an yadin is a circumstantial qualifier, meaning, ‘compliantly’, or ‘by their own hands’, not delegating it [to others to pay]), being subdued, [being made] submissive and compliant to the authority of Islam."

This is the Tafsir from Al-Jalalayn, one of the most respected scholars of Islam.
I don't see any mention this is only to be applied during war.
I don't see this is only to be applied during a specific battle.
I don't see why the Taliban shouldn't be fighting Christians and Jews according to this sura until the pay Jizya or convert to Islam.

I believe if he were right Islam would be a religion of the devil.

 

[Muffled]

Thanks for the video. It is the most common interpretation by scholars that this verse applies to the time of the Tabuk expedition but I do not believe it should be restricted only to this time as the verse itself doesn't mention any restriction.

I believe therein lies the problem. The verse lacks local context. So my point of view is that one has to look at the rest of the Qu'ran for context to either support or limit this verse.

 

[Muffled]

I think the real idea is to understand what Allah (God) meant to say and stay away from the many human interpretations as possible.
The problem: If we take the Quran purely as it was written then there's a good chance we would be in an endless war and Muslims don't want that and nobody wants that.

I believe Jesus in Isaiah is called the Prince of Peace.

 

[Raymann]

I believe therein lies the problem. The verse lacks local context. So my point of view is that one has to look at the rest of the Qu'ran for context to either support or limit this verse.

See, "context" is often an EXCUSE to soften the real meaning and give the text the so-called "scholar" desired meaning.
The verse is very bold and clear, no need for further interpretation unless some people don't like the meaning.
Let's agree that for most of the Quran the theme is "fight only those who fight you".
All of a sudden nobody is fighting you and Mohammed's troops decide to go for the offensive (historically this is what really happened).
So what is the excuse now to attack who hasn't attacked you?
Verse 9:29 from the Quran is the perfect excuse that arrived exactly at the time when Islam expanded and conquered new lands.
You need to be blind no to see it.
Is Allah that bad of a communicator that you need to find always "context" to correct what he clearly told you to do?
I'm not bying, I see what I see and read what I read.