Abrogation and Jihad

How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just.

During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle.

Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations.

Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58]

Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth.

Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam.

According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61]

Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."[62]

Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."[63]
Modern Revisionism of Jihad

David Powers, a well-known researcher of classical Islam, agreed that 9:5 abrogates no less than 124 verses that command or imply anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. However, he says the verse is itself considered to be abrogated by the conditional clause with which it concludes: "But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way."[64] But such a condition is not magnanimous: When infidels repent and perform the Muslim prayer and pay alms, it means they have become Muslims. Once they are Muslims, there is no need to slay them. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain.

Still, no verse is more frequently cited by contemporary Muslims preachers and analysts to depict Islam as peaceful and compassionate as 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." For Sheikh Abdur Rahman, the chief justice of Pakistan, this verse is one of the most important, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.[65]

Muhammad offered this verse in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews' support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, said: "Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam."[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.[67]

This is also the case of sura 9:29, which deals with Jews and Christians. Fighting them is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the idolaters (9:5). This verse (9:29) was revealed when Muhammad was commanded to fight the Byzantines and prepared the expedition to Tabuk. Ibn Kathir declared: The order is to fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah (protection tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad because all prophets commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him even though he is the "mightiest of all messengers because it suits their desires and lusts, and because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all prophets."

Ibn Kathir continues: "This honorable verse was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book. After the pagans were defeated, the people entered God's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control."[68]

The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims.

http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam

Abrogation- this is a concept which interests me. For example, I had previous asked people their opinion on Maricon, as a foolower of Paul, he stated, as many Xians do, that Jesus is a new covenant and that he ABROGATED the law of the Old Testament. He gave two new commandments. However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is?

However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is?

"Christians" spew no hatred on anyone. Just cause one points out a "fault" in another, does that mean they hate them? Or are lovingly trying to lend a guiding hand? It is just as "wrong" to be gay as it is to lie or steal or even treat others disrespectfully and not so much in a "loving" way. And even though in the Christian faith, homosexuality is a sin, does not mean homosexuals are any less of a person, or any more "evil" of a person. This is where "Judge not, less ye be judged" plays it's part.

We may not agree with their choice, but all in all if it is a true follower of God, Jesus Christ, then they will not treat a homosexual any different then they would say, their preacher, or brothers/sisters in Christ, or anyone else for that matter.

We are all God's, regardless if we are gay, black, white, straight, tall, short, ect. We were all bought with a price. Now not saying everyone and all will have the pleasure in the glory's of Heaven, that is solely up to the discretion of God. But nevertheless, we all have our own fair chance at having a piece of that gift.

Think this "homosexual" thing has been blown way out of proportion. Especially with the increasing publicised side of homosexuality.

Think part of it is and why people frown on this, is that in our culture and or country/laws in itself, we the people make those. So with laws against homosexuality or just cultural beliefs/feelings towards the preference, those can be disputed and worked out to better "suite" anyone and everyone. But that's not the case with God's laws. He is not running a democracy so to speak. And it offends those that this conflicts with their wants.

And just for record, this is not a bash or anything specific to do with homosexuality. Just a general view of what I see.

Homosexuality is HARDWIRED,NOT a PREFERENCE!
You Guys really need to progress into the 21th Century!

Homosexuality is a preference. Yes they have more chromosomes or whatever to influence that preference. But nevertheless, it is a choice.

Being attracted to the same gender and homosexuality don't entirely mean the same thing. Being attracted to a person is not a choice, it is natural. But homosexuality in itself is the act of having sex between two or more of the same gender. That is where the choice lays.

Homosexuality is a preference. Yes they have more chromosomes or whatever to influence that preference. But nevertheless, it is a choice.

Being attracted to the same gender and homosexuality don't entirely mean the same thing. Being attracted to a person is not a choice, it is natural. But homosexuality in itself is the act of having sex between two or more of the same gender. That is where the choice lays.

Homosexuality is a preference. Yes they have more chromosomes or whatever to influence that preference. But nevertheless, it is a choice.

Being attracted to the same gender and homosexuality don't entirely mean the same thing. Being attracted to a person is not a choice, it is natural. But homosexuality in itself is the act of having sex between two or more of the same gender. That is where the choice lays.

Sorry but I have to disagree. Homosexuality IS INDEED HARDWIRED to us thanks to a compelling urge to reproduce that is so powerful that satiation comes from any form of release. EVERY SINGLE MAMMAL ON THIS PLANET HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE HOMOSEXUAL! Some of it is environment. Personally I cannot resort to Homosexuality for "release" now does it fit for my desired mating. I have to me with Females ONLY myself. Show me one single species of Mammal that does not have any homosexuality in it at all and I will commend you for doing something science has yet to do!

Some humans are more in control of themselves than others.

Please tell us none of you masturbate either! I want to call somebody a liar today!

Aye, but that is impossible. "Homosexuality", is the actual sexual action. Making any action or not making any action is purely a choice. Heck, down to even eating or breathing. You don't truly have to eat or breath, you would die, but you don't HAVE to, thus it is a choice. Same with homosexuality, they are choosing to sleep with someone of the same gender, that is their choice. REGARDLESS if they are attracted to the opposite sex or not, the action(s) committed between the two people are a choice.

And that is why God "judges" one on that action, for the action(s) committed between the two partners is a choice made. Not cause they had to.. but because they chose to.

Aye, but that is impossible. "Homosexuality", is the actual sexual action. Making any action or not making any action is purely a choice. Heck, down to even eating or breathing. You don't truly have to eat or breath, you would die, but you don't HAVE to, thus it is a choice. Same with homosexuality, they are choosing to sleep with someone of the same gender, that is their choice. REGARDLESS if they are attracted to the opposite sex or not, the action(s) committed between the two people are a choice.

And that is why God "judges" one on that action, for the action(s) committed between the two partners is a choice made. Not cause they had to.. but because they chose to.