Khaled: More complaints about mis-quotes of Koranic verses? Sad. Part II

Submitted by Plato (India), Jul 7, 2008 at 08:11

One question, so-called analysts and scholars of Islam are unable to answer is why if the Koran is such an easy message to understand, as the Koran repeatedly claims, thousands of scholars have struggled to get across its message and failed miserably. Analysts and scholars of Islam keep multiplying.

>>

The Islamic expert has this about 47:4 which he claims has been maliciously mistranslated: 'So we now see some grievous mistakes made in the poor translation quoted. 1. The verse makes NO mention whatsoever of "killing and wounding" 2. "Thus are you commanded by God to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam " is a complete addition to the verse and is not found anywhere in the Qur'an! 3. That verse does not use the word Jihad at all It is very clear that the context of this verse is in battle, and when in battle the defenders of humanity should attack the unjust oppressors until they are subdued. Professor Shahul Hameed comments on verse 47:4 by saying:

The context of this verse was when the Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence. After thirteen years of endurance and patience, the prophet and his companions had to leave their home town of Makkah and to emigrate to Madinah. When the people of Madinah had welcomed him there and he was accepted as a leader there, the Makkans became unhappy. They wanted to eliminate Muhammad and his religion; and so they sent their army to root out Islam. And the crucial battle took place in Badr. It was just before this that Muhammad received the revelation from God to fight:<<

This analyst has picked out a poor translation and keeps wailing that this is some kind of standard practice used to defame Islam.

But the words in italics clearly show the dishonesty of this ‘analyst'. He claims the context of the verse is when the Muslims were fighting for their existence. Once in Madina the Muslims proved to be the aggressors on almost every occasion. Starting with Nakhla and leading to Badr the Prophet kept sending raiders to harass Meccan caravans. Badr was the result of the prophet trying to loot Abu Sufyan's caravan (Ibn Ishaq, The great expedition to Badr, Page 289, from the Life of Muhammad, translated Guillaume). This analyst as the gall to claim that it was the Meccans who were the aggressors at Badr. Just making a statement that Meccans were trying to eliminate Muhammad will not do. He should have given some references to show how the Meccans were responsible for Badr.

He also claims that the Meccans wanted to eliminate Muhammad and his religion after revealing that he had preached his religion in Mecca for 13 years. And what kind of preaching? He abused and mocked the sacred beliefs of the Meccans. How come they tolerated his mocking their religion for 13 years? How many minutes will anyone mocking Muhammad and his god last now in Muslim Mecca?

Here is another expert on 4:88-89

>>In response to a question on verses 4:88-89, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi quotes the verses in their full context and then asks the following:

Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the "terrorist". These verses are not a permission for "terrorism" but they are a warning against the "terrorists." But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized.<<

He also blithely says that the Muslims were under constant terrorist attacks in Madina. Any references from the shahi hadith or sira? Nary a one. Typical of Muslims arguments. Accuse others of arguing without evidence but provide none for their own case.

009.001 - 004
YUSUFALI: A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- : Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.
And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

009.005-008
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.
How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.

Having presented the verse in context, we can analyze it properly. Dr. Maher Hathout gives an explanation on the historical context of the verse:

This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Qur'an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur'an but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6).

Existing Peace Treaties remained valid until the End of Their Term

This is an exception regulating the longest extent of time for those who have a general treaty - with out time mentioned - to four months. They would have four months to travel the lands in search of sanctuary for themselves wherever they wish. Those whose treaty mentioned a specifec limited term, then the longest it would extend was to the point of its agreed upon termination date. Hadiths in this regard preceeded. So anyone who had a treaty with Allah's Messenger , it lasted until its specific termination date. However, those in this category were required to refrain from breaking the terms of the agreement with Muslims and from helping non-Muslims against Muslims. This is the type whose peace agreement with Muslims was carried out to its end. Allah encouraged honoring such peace treaties, saying,( http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20744)

Ibn Kathir, one of the most respected commentators says about these verses that treaties without time mentioned would lapse after four months and then Allah's (i.e Muhammad's) threat to attack and kill them would be carried out if they did not find sanctuary elsewhere.

Take a look at 9:4 which says that treaties are not dissolved with pagans with whom Muslims had a treaty and to honour it until the end of the term. And going by Ibn kathir's tafsir the Muslims are free to attack them after this period.

Allah says that He and His apostle cannot possibly in league (i.e. have a treaty) with pagans and in the next breath says it is okay to be in league with the ones they signed a treaty with near the sacred mosque. How can any reader make sense out of this except by referring to some hadith or sira?? Even then would it make any real sense? Does this have anything to do with poor translation??

>>With regards to the narration, only part of it has been quoted, and the full text reads:

And the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay zakat, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah.

This narration lists some of the pillars of Islam that Muslims must adhere to. The fighting being ordained here refers to the enforcement of laws and regulations within an Islamic state. (Bukhari)<<

This commentator is again being dishonest. The first thing ordered is that people should be fought until they say no deity is worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad is his messenger. He simply ignores this. Following this dictate of Muhammad would mean everyone should become Muslims.

This person even finds justification for the ridda wars in this hadith:

>>We find that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), many hypocrites who had pretended to be Muslim began to turn away and leave their religious duties, one example was Zakat (the charity tax).

They wanted to compromise the commands of God. It was then that Abu Bakr, the First Caliph and the Caliph of that time, cited this narration to make it clear that a compromise would not be tolerated and he would fight them until they agreed to follow Islam in full. <<

A clear case of compulsion to follow Islam is hidden under words like hypocrites, agreeing to follow Islam in full, and religious duties.

Regards

Plato

The mis-translation: So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle, smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by God to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam. Qur'an 47:4

The preferred translation: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in battle, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost. 47:4

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".