Today Robert Spencer Q-Blogs verse 29 of Sura 9.
- YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
- PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
- SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
This verse is very troubling because it appears to command Muslims to fight against and subjugate Jews, Christians, as well as polytheists or followers of other religions. It explicates the underlying
supremacist tone that can be found throughout the entire Qur’an. Supremacy, even over other, so-called, ‘people of the Book.’ The understanding of this Sura in a historical context (as opposed to viewing it as a foundation on which to justify on going violence) is crucial if Islam is to improve it’s reputation.
Robert Spencer explains that
According to As-Sawi, Ibn Juzayy, and many others, “this ayat was revealed when the Messenger of Allah was commanded to fight the Byzantines. When it was sent down, the Messenger of Allah prepared for the expedition to Tabuk.” Ibn Kathir agrees: “Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination.” This was a raid Muhammad attempted against the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) garrison at Tabuk in northern Arabia in 631, but the Byzantine force moved away before Muhammad got there, and did not engage the Muslims in battle. Still, it was his first attempt to take on the great Christian empire that the Muslims would chip away at for centuries and ultimately destroy.
Now, we must keep in mind that this is in no way an attempt to revive any bigoted sentiments or for a revival of the Crusades. Spencer is a scholar and, even though some find him offensive, all of his analyses that I’ve read have been factually correct. He’s not a ‘neo-con’ and he is blogging the Qur’an for propaganda purposes. In-fact, he’s been studying Islamic theology, politics and tradition since 1980.
The jizya is the tax that Muslim extracted as payment from non-Muslims. However, women and children are technically not supposed to be taxed according to Islamic law. In reality though, Spencer sites Bat Ye’or,
Armenian, Syriac, and Jewish sources provide abundant proof that the jizya was exacted from children, widows, orphans, and even the dead. A considerable number of extant documents, preserved over the centuries, testify to the persistence and endurance of these measures. In Aleppo in 1683, French Consul Chevalier Laurent d’Arvieux noted that ten-year-old Christian children paid the jizya. Here again, one finds the disparity and contradiction between the ideal in the theory and the reality of the facts. (The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, pp. 78-9).
We’ve all heard that Christians and Jews didn’t have it that bad while subjugated by their Muslim masters, whether under Umayyad or Ottoman rule. However, one of the reasons that the Muslim conquerors did not forcefully convert or exterminate Christian or Jewish subjects, is because while they remained non-Muslims they would have to pay the jizya. Thus, from an economic view, it was more profitable to allow infidels to remain second class citizens as Christians or Jews.
(Book cover created here: You can make banners, buttons, forum avatars, comic strips, logos, blog pics, ect.)
Filed under: Religion/Ideology, Terrorism , Infidels, Qur'an, Spencer, Ye'or
“Still, it was his first attempt to take on the great Christian empire that the Muslims would chip away at for centuries and ultimately destroy.”
No, actually that was the Battle of Mu’tah, which was fought the year before.
“Thus, from an economic view, it was more profitable to allow infidels to remain second class citizens as Christians or Jews.”
Indeed, when mass conversions finally did begin, the reduction in tax revenue was so severe that it (arguably) led to the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate.
I thought that Battle of Mutah was an attack on Arabs who were monophysite Christians?
Yeah, but the Arabs were under the protection of the Romans, who sent in an army and defeated the Muslim force.
By the way, that sign generator’s a pretty cool site. I just used it to create the image for a link on my site to The Management of Savagery: http://tinyurl.com/37dlub
Linky no worky.
Regarding the Ghassanids, the books I have say that they were hired by the Romans to protect trade routes and also to fight against the Persians. When Spencer says “it was his first attempt to take on the great Christian empire” he may mean it was the first attack directed specifically against the Roman Empire. I’ll send him an email.
Yes, it was the first Muslim-initiated, um, incident. However, hostilities began at Mu’tah.
Here’s a different link: http://tinyurl.com/2wft8v
You are all wastig your time. No one knows who God/Allah/Jehovah//////is. All you have is a belief system created by yourselves
[...] refer back to Qur’anic verses. I, myself, have blogged about Spencer’s Q-Blog, here, here and [...]