Kill all non-Muslims ? - III

#279 by ali87 on June 30, 2003 11:32am PT
#277 by dost-mittar on June 30, 2003 7:04am PT

answer to dost-mittar by ali87

after my last post I was feeling that I might have been a bit harsh on you and was wondering if you would get irritated. I must put on record my appreciation of you on not getting inflamed time and again(even thought you I think said elsewere that are not particular about religon muslim or hindu).

My knowldge of the history as well of Quran is sketchy at the best. I have heard of Maulana Maudoodi but dont know who he is or what are his works in details and certainly not much about his personality so I reserve my opinion about him.

9.07 seems to be a fair enough insturction If you remember the extreeme proseqution of the prophet for years and later on the allegience/conversion of convience by some groups who would change sides when they felt it was to their advantage.

As I said that I have not studied in detail the context of the verses mentioned. However the general opinon about them and thus my knowledge is as follows.

(Please bear in mind im not referenceing anything right now, even the link you have given.)

The first discourse,
This is the change that came about. The context of change is that earlier the instruction was to do nothing in face of proseqution. The prophet and muslims were exhorted to be patient and bear the porseqution. Now the instruction comes that one need not tolerate the prosequtors and remain true to those who are true to you. I find it very reasonable. It is some thing which will be accepted in any situation by anybody even in present times.

The second discourse,
This of course is logical in any leadership situation. Unless you are doubting the Validity of Jihad(which takes us to a different topic)I see nothing special in it(for a non-muslim to be worried about)

The third discourse,
again this is of not much significance it is a standard practice to know about hypocrites among yourself, to rebuke the lazy among you who enjoy the benifits of being part of the community but refuse to put in their bit. Im sure this is a standard trait of any group.

1. to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam
This is usually seen in light of the frequent alliences of conviences and because of the various tirbes who after signing treaties of suppourt, attacked along with enemies or made easy the attack or enemies. Thus because of this constant yo-yo ing it was realised that the only sloution is to have stronger control over whole of Arabia(which was necesary in opinon of most muslim for this nacent group who was prosequted freqeuqenty and betrayed when in relative power.)

2. to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
This is the avowed aim of Islam, and considering the exteme proseqution of people belonging to other faiths in those regions during prophets time and later on and the reliefs offered to the minorities as well as other groups within conqured lands and often migration of minorites to muslim lands in search of protection. This is a fact that is recognised by the west and history. So much so that those entire centuries are now called dark ages because of the condtion of those regions including europe, what was then Bayzantne.(I wouldnt go in for the individual actions of muslim rulers later on in the centuries following the prophet, but treat this as a more general caseand certainly specifically true of the region bordering arabia.)

3. to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and
I think I have covered this in 1 & 2

4. to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.
Islam gives to itself the unrestricted right to propogate Islam(not to coerce) as seen by the extreeme proseqution of the muslims for years in Arabia in the early years and of the minorities such as jews and other denomational christians and other people including ethnic majorites and minorities, Also the refulsal of the kingdoms in and around the small(initial) sphere within arabia to allow other faiths to propogate freely or even survive within their areas. This is seen in this light.

The references to christian, jew, and mushric arabs are not meant to be general but are read as those described as betrayers of treaties and those who supported enemies against Muslims and those who obstructed the conveying the message of Islam and those who prosequted their faiths other than their own within their countires or rules.

The whole non-muslim world, refered to here is indeed the reality of presecution (referred to as dark ages by modern historians in light of the experience of the europeans in europe)of people for their faith. The Roman and Persian empires were Indeed mentioned not because they were just non-muslim but becasue they did not allow the word of Islam to be spread within their countries as thier policies were not to tolerate any other faith, or culture(even non religous culture)within their regions. The relif felt by the oppressed minorities as well as common people of those countries(of course this is realative)and the saftey that some notable communities like Jews and other denomination christians felt within Islamic lands is an indicator that the notion that generally the kingdoms around early Islamic arabia were indeed very vicious in their prosecution of all those who did not form the core rulign group and the reality of relif that these populaitons found under Islamic rule and the treatment and relif from proseqution the jews and christians found within islamic lands. It is important to understand the conditon of the countries around early Islamic (and if you read the history of presuction of jews and other denomination christian within Europe for more than a thouand years within Christan europe even after advent of Islam you will note the degree of problems people faced.)(These verses/explanations etc should be seen in context of the various times and locations, For instance the muslim raiders within india did not really have such a extreeme case to justify..of course people justify now because of the caste issue.. I wonder if this was the justification given then by those raiders what was the reality of India and perhaps other asian places was not so of those regions bordering arabia so these should be seen in that light.)

***********************

All that above is just an possible discourse and attempt at questions and answers.

To conclude going beyond the topic itself there are a few points to be noted which can be gleaned from this interact.

You had the question(for your own understanding or to check my understanding?.. anyway) whether muslims take the verses in the Quran literally or do they look(there actually a need to?) into the context of the verse and also in some cases the history in which it was revealed.

Second was my contention that a large number of verses explain/qualifiy each other (was it met with speticisim? by others too?) often they were revealed at different times at different situations.

You have also discovered that the verses belonging to different suras were revealed in different times and at times not in a serial order and even had verses which are in different suras were revealed interspered with each other(relative to time or relevation.)

The last conclusion (perhaps you will consider this subjective..)I would like to make is that the terms Jihad, Non-muslim, to attack Jews, christians, Mushriks and to levy Jaziya are not absolute but are to seen in actions of those mentioned people in the relevant context(this I can assure you if you do a study have been accepted by muslims in that way) of the time and also place.

A final intresting hypothesis.. Is it possible for a non-muslim country to be non-muslim accept freedom of choice(propagation of message of Islam.. not conversion per se) and not have any need to pay Jaziya(which people belive muslims understand as compulsary on all countries without any exclusion) and remain out of the fold of Islam as well as have good realtion with an Islamic(say a historical entity say a thousand years back....thus derive relevant lessons for today?) where each treats other with respect and honor?.... Well do some research on your own and find out... You will be surprised at what you find.

As you can see I had outlined the method to study and understand Islam and Islamic principles from the Quran is to do a personal study, then have an Knowledeable Introlocutor who can answer questions(a netural frame of mind is also necessary) only then it is possible to say with any definiteve claim to have studied at least the basic principles of Islam and their application as you can see with this exchange this kind of fourm is not feasible for such a exercise.

128 - 12 "Follow the Messenger who is gentle and compassionate and your greatest well-wisher, and trust in Allah, the Lord of the Universe".

Apparently those in Pakistan during the time of partion failed to take into acccount of this advice. The responsibility of the Islamic or even a muslim state(as well as others) is to protect the lives and property and honor of its citizens no matter who they are. We can see that Pakistan, i.e. its rulers(perhaps its citizens too?)have repeatedly failed in this whether it is in the immediate aftermath of Partition or the 1971 bangladesh war or the various other incidents not in the least the bombing of homes of civillians(muslims or otherwise) in Karghil or other places.

I can appereciate your patience and goodwill considering the personal experiences that you went through.