Statements by scholars dating back to the 3rd century Hirji have claimed that the following verse, which has become known as “the verse of the sword,” has abrogated, i.e. annulled, many Qur’anic verses:
When the Inviolable Months have passed away, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. Seize them, besiege them, and wait for them at every place of observation. If they repent, observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms then let them go their way. Allah is forgiving, merciful. (9.5)
The significance of these reports is the nature of the alleged abrogated verses. The latter include numerous verses that call on the Muslims to be tolerant, forgiving, and patient, and to display such positive attributes toward non-Muslims that allowed Muslims to live peacefully with various religious groups for 1,400 years. Although the alleged abrogating function of verse 9.5 has been dismissed by most scholars, it has become very popular among Muslim terrorist groups and individuals who use it to justify their atrocities.
There are a number of fundamental problems with this abrogation claim, which I will summarize here. For those who are interested in a more detailed analysis of this issue with references to primary sources and other works, there is a dedicated chapter in my book Abrogation in the Qur’an and Islamic Law.
First, only by taking 9.5 completely out of context it maybe be claimed that it has abrogated verses that command the Muslims to show tolerance to non-Muslims. To see how blatant that distortion is, I have quoted 9.5 with the verses that surround it:
A proclamation from Allah and His Messenger to people on the day of Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is clear of the polytheists, as is His Messenger. If you repent that is better for you but if you turn away then know that you are not beyond the power of Allah. And give [O Muhammad!] glad tidings of a painful chastisement to the disbelievers. (9.3) Except those of the polytheists with whom you have a treaty and they did not break its terms or aid someone against you, so abide by their treaty until their term. Allah loves the pious. (9.4) When the Inviolable Months have passed away, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. Seize them, besiege them, and wait for them at every place of observation. If they repent, observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms then let them go their way. Allah is forgiving, merciful. (9.5) If anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection [O Muhammad!], then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. (9.6) How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His Messenger for the polytheists, save those with whom you [O you who believe!] made a treaty at the Inviolable Mosque? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Surely, Allah loves the pious. (9.7) How [can there be any treaty for the others] when if they would get an advantage over you they would not honor any relation or treaty with you? They satisfy you with their mouths while their hearts refuse. Most of them are backsliders. (9.8) They have purchased with the verses of Allah a little gain, so they have turned away from His way. Surely, evil is what they do. (9.9) They do not honor any relation or treaty with a believer; these are the transgressors. (9.10) But if they repent, observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then they are your brethren in religion. We detail Our verses for the people of knowledge. (9.11) If they break their oaths after their treaty and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief. Surely, they have no binding oaths, so that they may desist. (9.12) Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths, set out to drive out the Messenger, and attacked you first? Do you fear them? Allah is more worthy of your fear, if you are believers. (9.13)
I have analysed these verses in my book Jihad in the Qur’an. The verse immediately before 9.5 commands the Muslims to honor any peace treaty they had with disbelievers. Then verse 9.6 shows that Islam does not consider a peaceful disbeliever an enemy. The Qur’an even commanded the Prophet to give protection to any polytheist who sought his help.
Verse 9.7 commands the Muslims to honor their treaty with the polytheists as long as the latter honored it. God considers this to be an act of piety: “Allah loves the pious.” He reminds the Muslims in verses 9.8-10 that the polytheists used to break their peace treaties whenever they felt they had the upper hand and that they showed a similar disregard for their relations with the Muslims. He explains that the polytheists made peace with their mouths but did not embrace it with their hearts.
Muslims were commanded to forgive the polytheists, live with them in peace if the latter honored peace, and forgive and consider them brothers if they convert to Islam (9.11). God then emphasizes that the aim of fighting the heads of disbelief is to make them desist and establish peace (9.12).
Finally, verse 9.13 urges the Muslims to fight aggression, reminding them of the background of the conflict with the disbelievers. First, it was the polytheists who broke the treaty they had with the Muslims. Second, like the Meccans who forced the Prophet to immigrate to Medina, the polytheists were trying to expel him from Medina. Third, it was the polytheists who attacked the Muslims first.
Second, there are verses in other places in the Qur’an commanding the Muslims to establish peace with any party that wants peace (e.g. 4.90, 8.72). The Qur’an even has clear references to the Prophet continuing to make peace with people who repeatedly violated their peace treaties with the Muslims:
Surely, the worst of beasts in Allah’s sight are those who are ungrateful as they would not believe. (8.55) Those with whom you [O Muhammad!] have made a covenant yet they break their covenant every time and do not act piously. (8.56) Therefore, should you get hold of them in war, make of them an example that would disperse [the gathering army of] those who are behind them that they may be mindful. (8.57) If you fear treachery from a people, then throw back to them [their treaty] on equal terms. Surely, Allah does not love the treacherous. (8.58) Let not those who disbelieve think that they can outstrip [Us]. Surely, they are not impregnable. (8.59) Prepare [O you who believe!] for them what you can of force and horses tethered, to frighten thereby Allah’s and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know but Allah knows. Whatever you spend in the way of Allah will be paid back to you in full and you shall not be wronged. (8.60) If they incline to peace then incline [O Muhammad!] to it, and rely on Allah. Surely, He is the Hearing, the Knowing. (8.61) If they intend to deceive you, then surely Allah is sufficient for you. It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers. (8.62)
Third, verse 9.5 is claimed to have abrogated even verses commanding the Muslims to be patient in general, not specifically when dealing with the polytheists or their enemies! This shows the false nature of the claims of abrogation involving this verse in general.
Fourth, those who argue that 9.5 has the power to override other verses ignore the fact that this verse targeted certain groups of polytheists, as they apply it to all idolaters. They make an even bigger mistake by claiming that it applies to all non-Muslims, including even the Jews and Christians. Yet the verse talks about the “mushrikīn,” which is the term the Qur’an applies to the polytheists of Arabia, whereas the Qur’an calls the Jews and Christians “Ahl al-Kitāb” or the “People of the Book.” Even when referring to Jews and Christians behaving like “mushrikīn,” the Qur’an still calls them “Ahl al-Kitāb,” as in verse 29 from the same chapter as the verse of the sword.
Fifth, in addition to the fact that scholars have disagreed on how many verses are supposed to have been abrogated by 9.5, the number of claims of abrogation by 9.5 grew over time. This clearly shows that the claims were based on the opinions of certain later scholars rather than sources that go back to the Prophet or even his Companions or the Successors.
Sixth, if 9.5 really abrogated tolerance and forgiveness for the disbelievers, it would have abrogated all of the many verses that promote such concepts. Yet even when considering all the verses that are claimed to have been abrogated by 9.5, there are still many other verses that command the Muslims to live peacefully with the disbelievers left uncovered by abrogation claims.
It should now be clear that the claim that verse 9.5 has abrogated other verses, let alone such a large number of them, is absurd. Even the title “the verse of the sword” is a late invention. While “the verse of alms” has been given this name by scholars because it talks about almsgiving and other verses have been given names after words that occur in them, the expression “the verse of the sword” is very much a misnomer because the term “sword” is not found in the verse. Even more telling is the fact that this word does not exist anywhere in the Qur’an!
Copyright © 2014 Louay Fatoohi
Blog: http://www.louayfatoohi.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/louay.fatoohi
Twitter: http://twitter.com/louayfatoohi
All Rights Reserved
Go Brother Louay, go, go, go! Just yesterday I had a Christian telling me on my facebook page that Islam is ‘hate speech’ against Judaism & Christianity. I informed him that this was not true. He continued with the same old argument of ‘verses of call to violence in the Qur’an’. I again explained how certain people interpret the verses of the Qur’an to their own whims and that is a reflection of themselves and not the entire religion. He still continued with his rant and so I told him this: “& isn’t it funny that the one’s who criticize… Read more »
Yup, a great article indeed. The problem is that angry/dissatisfied people (sometimes it is justified-I’m not doubting that) will always look to something to justify/direct their anger. Angry and dissatisfied people are manipulated by unscrupulous leaders who desire power. Whether it is religion or politics, the rhythm of the failings of mankind, across all cultures, follows a predictably depressing pattern. And the Koran, and the Verso of the Sword (even if it is misinterpreted) sadly gives fuel to these individuals. I have no doubt that true Islam is a religion of peace. But there are many who can use the… Read more »
9-5 and All of Quran is clear and evident. no need for tafseer which does more harm than good. I am arabic and i read quran daily. as Allah stated it is written in clear and easy to understand arabic. there are many verses in late medina sourate that ask “amr” meaning “farth” meaning obligation to fight non muslims and force islamisation (66-9 , 4-74, 4-76, 4-84). at this stage muslims grew powerfull versus their neighbour arabs tribes (keep this in mind for later). the best and evident proof of is the forced islamisation of many nations after the prophet’s… Read more »
Salam eldee, There are late verses that command the Muslims to fight and there are late verses that command them to make peace. This is why one has to understand the context of the verses. You are ignoring the fact that the early Muslims were living in a very hostile environment, so any study of that history must take this into account. You cannot look at how Muslims had to behave at the time of the Prophet and make it the required behavior regardless of circumstances. Also, you cannot say that the Qur’an commands the Muslims to force people into… Read more »
For the life of me i don’t understand why you turn away from historical and Quranic evidence. Islam spread by force (islamic conquests) until it was defeated and forced back (france in west , india, china… In east) 2-256 “No compulsion in religion” as long as non-muslims pay jizya (living in muslim umma) when it comes to spreading islam the order is clear in surat attaoubat: the penultimate Surat that superseed all others (surat an nasr is the closing and has no instructions in it) if muslim nation had the higher power, it must spread islam including by force and… Read more »
Salam Eldee, There is a huge difference between saying “non-Muslims were forced into Islam” and “non-Muslims were forced to pay a tax.” This tax is the equivalent of the zakat tax that Muslims paid. When you live in a state, you pay a tax. You talked about Islamization, and that is what I am saying is wrong. Also, what I am saying has nothing to do with contesting historical facts but it is about understanding them and their drivers. You are conflating what the Qur’an says with what some Muslims did or do. You look at certain historical events, at… Read more »
salem kheire, as i mentioned in my 1st reply, i do not rely on scholars or tafseer to understand Quran. i do my own daily reading and my own judjement. Abrogation is justified by several quranic verses, no question about that: 16-101, 13-39, 2-106 regarding surat attaoubah being one of the last if not the last surat. there is historical evidence of that. this surat is the only one that does not have bismi Allah.. at its begining because the prophet sAaws died before giving more details about it. Initial quran compilers weren’t sure if it is a surat on… Read more »
Salam, The Qur’an, like any scripture, needs to be studied directly but one cannot and must not ignore what other people have said. One can read what other scholars have said about the Qur’an with a view of copying and agreeing with them. This is not a study of the Qur’an as much as uncritical acceptance of the understanding of others of it. It is how many approach the study of the Qur’an. But even the free thinking researcher has to consult what others said, because the way they thought about things will prove extremely helpful, even though not in terms… Read more »
I see that you’re still charging :) I do not agree with your analysis. The truth of islam is that it is violent cult. All you gotta do is read medina’s surats (later surats). Theses surats are so clear and evident and makes it veryis obvious to lnow that islam not only prones but orders its spread by power when available. there is no room for debate because of self evidence on this topic. One more thing, do not assume that I don’t read about Islam’s birth teaching and propagation. It’s been 30years that I’ve doing that. I understand that… Read more »
I have no final view on whether these verses preach violence or not at this stage. However, whether in context of surrounding verses or not 9.5 commands people to kill and I cannot agree with that. It also appears that if I have no treaty with Muslims (which I don’t) and if I am a disbeliever (which I am) then I will be attacked? How can this ever be justified? What am I misunderstanding?
Tim, no book, religious or otherwise, should be read in piecemeal when trying to understand its teachings. The Qur’an justifies the killing of others in certain circumstances. No one can claim it does not. The question is under what circumstance. The accusation that is usually laid against the Qur’an is that it commands or incites the killing of non-Muslims. This conclusion can be drawn only if two things are combined: 1) reading a few verses our of context; 2) ignoring tens of verses throughout the Qur’an that promote tolerance, co-existence…etc. The kind of unfair reading that the Qur’an is subjected… Read more »
I really don’t see how this can be debated when discussing the “final word of god”. that is quran. why is there any need to use context for something that supposedly existed since the beginning? and why is the quran not make it abundantly clear for the future generations that the violence laid forth commanding muslims to kill should only be understood with historical context? why did god make his eternal word so ambiguous. why did he change his mind about fermented fruit and the like? Reading the Quran all the way through I found it undeniably erratic and making… Read more »
Dear Concerned, the answer to your question lies in human nature not the Qur’an. There is no text that God could have revealed that people would not have misinterpreted to suit their ends. This is not only about the Qur’an but all books. The Bible has not changed since Christians for centuries exercised extreme violence against non-Christians and Christians of different denominations. There is nothing in the concept of “democracy” that particularly incites violence and oppression, yet it has been abused in a way that caused untold misery to millions of people, all done under the name of spreading democracy.… Read more »
Assalamu Alaykum Dr. Fatoohi,
Can I first say thank you, I very much enjoyed reading your article and posts, your arguments and logic make total sense to me and I cannot agree more with what you have said, may Allah reward you for your efforts, and I very much look forward to purchasing and reading your books, keep up the good work.
Kind Regards
Imran
Salam brother Imran, thank you for your kind words. Some of the arguments against the alleged abrogation claims by the “verse of the sword” are technical, but the rest are simply common sense. Absurd claims such as the myth that verse 9.5 abrogated many tens of verses is refuted as much by common sense as by specialist knowledge. Regards.
Dr. Fatoohi, There should be more people like you preaching about your interpretation of peaceful islam on a worldy stage. We never see them. Unfortunately i hear that the peaceful imams who promote tolerance may be killed. Your points leave me with 2 areas of concern. 1. Are u agreeing that Quran is confusing therefore can have different interpretations? Your your interpretation for peace relies on one having to take into account all factors and contexts which are not obvious to the reader. The more obvious reading is the violent interpretation especially when islam is spreading it seems. So do… Read more »
Andrew, many thanks for your comments. There are a lot of people who preach the peaceful message of Islam, and these are far more numerous than those who talk violence. Unfortunately, it is the latter who get most of the media coverage. All Muslims, whether scholars or not, should use whatever means available to them to promote the peaceful nature of their religion. This is now one of the most important religious duties of the Muslim. Here are my answers to the questions you raise: 1) No, I do not agree that the Qur’an is confusing. It is a minority… Read more »
Dear Dr Fatoohi Sorry for the obvious typos in my previous message. I’m typing from my phone. I am an atheist so I’m only concerned about religions that I see harm in. Unfortunately it appears islam is the most harmful and violent one. I agree Christianity was bad too and that all religions can be politicised. However Christianity has allowed reform and different sects as you said previously which has allowed a form of freedom and modernisation with the times. This is only good. I respect modern day christian values although I’m not a christian. Much of the common law… Read more »
Dear Andrew, Thank you for the reply. Of course, Christianity allowed reformation and the development of different denominations. But Islam allowed that much earlier than Christianity, even though of course not to the degree we see in today’s forms of Christianity. Also, there are two major issues that we need to remember. Christianity did not change overnight. This is a process that took centuries and countless victims. Second, and most important, most Muslim violence that we are witnessing these days is not a purely religious phenomenon. It is a complex one in which religion is often the pretext. Let me… Read more »
Andrew, you “have a child in this world”. Yes, so do many Muslim parents, myself included. Especially the ones who live in say Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, they would have the same concern. On October 30 2006, 68 children were killed when CIA drones destroyed a religious school in the Bajaur area of Pakistan. On December 17, 2009 a US Navy missile slammed into a hamlet hitting a tribe in Yemen leaving 41 civilians dead, including 21 children and 12 women. In June 2014, NATO forces killed 16 civilians, including 4 children, in a drone strike targeting Taliban militants in… Read more »
George Orwell said it all-eternal war to keep the people in fear. It was written as a warning but increasingly looks as if it is being used as an instruction manual!
Dear Louay Thanks for your reply. Since this page is about the verse of the sword, I was wondering when this would apply. I am fully aware of the countless people who have died due to democracy, Christianity, disease etc…however I am concerned about the spread of Islam by application of verse of sword, and the attitude of “convert, die or pay jizia and be a 2nd class citizen”. These are the verses that are at the root of Islamic extremism, right? If I follow Islam as Muhammad intended ie the perfect word of God, the verse of the sword… Read more »
Hi Andrew, When you say you are worried about the spread of Islam by force in today’s world, I presume your focus is not on discussing the past. As for today, can you please name or refer to people you know converted to Islam by force, where their forced conversion happened, and where they currently live? Can I also ask you where you got your information about non-Muslims having to pay the jizya or die? Also, I presume you are worried about the present not discussing history, so can I ask you how many Muslim countries you are aware of… Read more »
Dear Louay, Thanks for your time. I can answer your questions. Sure. 1. Obviously I don’t know personally people who have been forcibly converted, however I hear in the news that the yazidis were being given a choice to convert or die by Isis. I think that Quran 9:29 was being applied. I don’t know how much of this has happened in the past as a result of Islamic conquest. What are your views on 9:29 then? Is there a present day context? I worry because it appears there is a reason for islam to fight non muslims until they… Read more »
Dear Marzuki, Sorry I didn’t reply top you. At first I was only concentrating on my conversation with Louay. I hope you are right and that Islamic terrorism isn’t something that we have to worry about, and that it is inflated by the media. That’s why I need to understand the root of their violent ideology and the verses that they are applying so that I can make up my mind as to whether, if left unchecked, ISIS will become a world threatening problem. That’s why I need to understand how moderate muslims like you and Louay can rebut these… Read more »
Dear Andrew, Many thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. 1) The Yazidis have been living in Iraq and practicing their religion for centuries, well before Christianity developed its tolerance to other religions. The same applies to other believers, including Christians and Jews, who lived in Muslim countries. Then a terror group, ISIS, suddenly appeared in 2014, terrorising both Muslims and non-Muslims, including the Yazidis. This is the historical context we are talking about. ISIS could have used any verses of the Qur’an to justify what it does, but is it reasonable or fair to take this single event in… Read more »
Dear Louay, After doing my own research on the internet I have come to the following opinion (correct me if I am wrong on any of my opinions below): 1, Verse 9:29 (referred to as verse of the sword) of the Quran is one of the verses that were revealed late in the life of Muhammad when he was in Medina and had become relatively powerful. 2. Previous verses of tolerance and peace were revealed earlier when Muhammed was in Mecca when Muhammad’s believers were relatively small in number (compared to Medina). 3. As a Muslim one has to accept… Read more »
Dear Andrew, Thank you for sharing your conclusions. I respect your right to draw your own conclusions, so let me share my conclusions about this thread. In my detailed replies to you I provided you with corrective facts and alternative interpretations to what you have been suggesting. In the case of the interpretations, I supported them with facts and logic. The facts included references to history. The interpretations also cited contexts. History, context, and fact are critical components to understanding the Qur’anic text, yet these were consistently missing from your comments. I have dealt with everything you included in your… Read more »
Dear Louay, I disagree that you have already previously answered my questions with facts, logic and reference to history. You said in your previous post to me, “I will quote here from my reply above to “Concerned,” but please do read the full reply as it deals with the same question: “There is no text that God could have revealed that people would not have misinterpreted to suit their ends. This is not only about the Qur’an but all books. The Bible has not changed since Christians for centuries exercised extreme violence against non-Christians and Christians of different denominations. There… Read more »
Dear Andrew, Thank you for your reply. I will clarify further my conclusion in my last message. Please do not take any of what I said earlier or say here personally. I do not take anything you say personally. We are representing two different positions that are held by many people, so let’s look at this thread as being about those two different views. When I said you did not engage with what I said I did not mean you did not read it or cannot quote it. I meant you did not discuss my replies but kept moving on… Read more »
Dear Louay, Thanks for your reply. Thank you for giving me the verses from the Quran that you apply to justify the context. 1. I don’t know how peaceful the Christians and the Jews lived along side the Muslims in the last 1400 years, however if the Muslims practiced verse 9:29 and gave non-believers the choice of paying the jizyah, converting to Islam, or dying, one does not know whether the non-believers chose to live in peace, or whether it was because they were forced to be peaceful after paying the jizyah. In any event, I think that we can… Read more »
Dear Andrew, Your last message continues making the same mistakes you have repeating throughout this thread, while failing to engage with my points. 1) You say: “I don’t know how peaceful the Christians and the Jews lived along side the Muslims in the last 1400 years, however if the Muslims practiced verse 9:29…” You make two mistakes here. First, you talk about history that you say do not know! Second, you think you can replace knowledge of history with narratives you derive from assumptions you have. 2) You say: “I think that we can agree that the Quran teaches the Muslims that… Read more »
Salam aleykoum dr. Louay Fatoohi I’m french, sorry for my english… First of all, thank you very much for your beautiful work that I find exceptionnal. About verse 9.29, someone here said : ——- The only reasons the Quran gives for killing the unbelievers in verse 9:29 is because: a. the jews and christians believe that Allah has a son (9:30); b. they preach the above beliefs through their mouths (9:30); c. they are deluded (9:30); d. They have taken lords and monks as lords along with Allah (9:31); e. They want to extinguish Allah with their mouths (preaching) (9:32);… Read more »
Wa’alaykum al-salam brother Salik. Thank you for your kind words. Your English is actually very good. My French is non-existent! The claims made in the comment you quote about 9.29 is refutable on many grounds. I completely agree that any individual Qur’anic verse cannot be interpreted without considering all related verses, which at times exist in different chapters. In fact, I have just published an article on my blog about The “Reasons For Misinterpreting the Qur’an” in which I identify “treating the Qur’an as a collection of disconnected verses” as a major reason for the failure to interpret the Qur’anic text… Read more »
I published on my blog an article entitled “Qur’anophobia: The Core Truth of Islamophobia“. The article explains that the ultimate target of Islamophobia is the Qur’an. I therefore call for the use of the new concept and term of “Qur’anophobia” when exposing and debating Islamophobia. “Qur’anophobia” denotes “prejudice against, hatred towards, and fear of the Qur’an”. It is becoming increasingly common that an increasing number of non-Muslims who rightly condemn the terrorism committed by Muslims will never be satisfied with the majority of Muslims equally condemning such atrocities and misinterpretations of Islamic sources. Islamophobes want Muslims to accept their argument that the problem lies… Read more »
The verse immediately before 9.5 commands the Muslims to honor any peace treaty they had with disbelievers. What ? How can this be viewed as an extraordinary thing ? Any part inside a peace treaty is, by default, expected to honor the treaty. The context is very clear. Leave then live WHILE the treaty is in vigor. After that, kill then. Verse 9.7 commands the Muslims to honor their treaty with the polytheists as long as the latter honored it. God considers this to be an act of piety. Oh, really ? The names that comes to me are “honesty”… Read more »
Marcos, 1) It is extraordinary when one keeps honouring treaties with enemies who kept breaking them. The Muslims wanted peace but their enemies where using treaties tactically. Your quote has taken the statement out of context. 2) You may have your own definition of piety. In the Qur’an, following God’s commands is an act of piety. When a Muslim gives to charity because God commanded him to do so, it is an act of piety, in addition to be about generosity and helping the needy. There are people who do not believe in God but give to charity in exactly… Read more »
This ayah in baqarah, as well as it’s abrogation by 9.5 (Ayah of the Sword) is probably the ayah that is of central importance in Islam today. It seems to be the basis/justification given for udwaan/mufsid/musrif behaviors by some Muslims. Imaam Ibn Kathir provided hadith that 2.109 was abrogated by 9.5- end of story. It happened and it became the reality and part of the heritage of Muslims. The point that is missing here is that the Jews were engaging in udwaan towards the Muslims- through their hypocrisy, and the mushrik through their open udwaan. Understanding the abrogation of 2.109… Read more »
Dear Abu Fatima, I have already dealt in considerable detail in the article and in my follow-up comments with the assumptions you make, so I am not going to repeat myself. But I would like to pick one statement you make: “Imaam Ibn Kathir provided hadith that 2.109 was abrogated by 9.5- end of story.” This statement exemplifies much of the problems that Muslims have had since they slavishly surrendered “‘aql (reason) to “naql (tradition)”. It reflects intellectual laziness, unjustified submission to past scholars, and ignorance of the history of Hadith. Apart from confirming clear statements in the Qur’an, there is… Read more »
Salaam aleikum! The whole thread of discussion has been very interesting to read in the light of how the world looks today (Nov 14, 2015). My view on religion in general is summed up in “what’s the fuzz about, really?” Let people believe and worship whatever deity the want as long as they do not force anyone else to to that. In this view the three “brother religions”(Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have failed throughout history and many of the other big religions out there have also failed in this. I for one hope that one day, however distant, the peoples of… Read more »
Dear Patrik, Salamu ‘alaikum. Thank you for the comment. It is true that today we have yet more terrible atrocities, this time in Paris, and it is also true that we should all condemn them. They may have made the world look different for those directly affected, but the world has not changed a bit for many peoples who have been experiencing all kinds of violence, oppression, torture, murder, and even genocide. Today’s world is exactly as yesterday’s for the Rohigya people, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, Syrians, and many others. The world is becoming smaller and smaller as communication, transport, and… Read more »
Dear Dr. Fatoohi, Context: 52 year old uneducated white guy atheist. As Andrew stated last year, “There should be more people like you preaching about your interpretation of a peaceful Islam on a worldly stage. We never see them”. However, I did grow tired of you and Andrew sparring over interpretation of the Qur’an. It matters not what yours, Andrews, or my interpretation of the Qur’an is. What matters is the Islamic States’ interpretation. For that matter, any extremists’ interpretation of the Qur’an should be of concern to everyone. If you, Dr. Fatoohi, are not In agreement with the actions… Read more »
Dear Tim, Thank you for taking the time to read this rather long thread and for posting your thought. I appreciate your openness. What ISIS and indeed other terrorist groups have been doing is not about Islam. Islam is only the means and propaganda cover they use. I always cite the example “democracy” as an equivalent subject of abuse. You would not find a politician justifying wars they start on the basis of securing oil supplies, selling arms, or any selfish national interest that conflicts with the interest of the state at the receiving end of this “war of democratisation.” I have… Read more »