Muslim Spain and al-Jihad fi Sabeel Allah and poor scholarship

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Aug 13, 2017 at 12:25

Dr Pipes

Dario Fernandez-Morera in his book "Myth of The Andalusian Paradise" challenges the claim by historians of Islam in Spain that it was convivencia (and Muslims Jews and Christians all singing Kumbaya and every one is equal and happy)

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Andalusian-Paradise-Christians-Medieval/dp/1610170954/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1502639915&sr=1-1&keywords=the+myth+of+andalusian+paradise

He proves that Muslim Spain was in fact: precaria coexistencia (precarious coexistence) He also explains how scholarship on the subject has been engaged in "Group Think" (this is the way I will describe the way he views such scholarship) and the "what really happened" is the least of the concerns of many historians of Muslim Spain

What is most interesting in the book is on page 22 where he reports the following

"For example Richard Hitchcock professor emeritus of Arab and Islamic studies at Britain's university of Exter challenges "the traditional interpretation ....that the invasion (al-Futuh al-Islamiyya of Spain) was impelled by belief in the notion of jihad in the sense of holy war" Hitchcock notes that " the meaning of the word jihad is striving or exertion" He cites approvingly the comments of one famous 20th century translator of the Qur'an Maulvi Muhammad Ali who wrote that "it shows an utter ignorance of the Arabic language to interpret the reference to jihad in surah (sic) chapter 9 of the Qur'an "as meaning top fight with sword" Ali added that "the greatest jihad that a Muslim can carry out is one by means of the Qur'an not with the sword"

We have several problems here:

1. Muhammad Ali was an Ahmadi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_(writer)

And members of al-Ahmadiyya are regarded by Sunni Muslims as kuffar and not real Muslims

2. He was Indian and he seems to know better Arabic than Ibn Manzur who tells us in his Lisan al-Arab that the word jihad is about fighting in the cause of Allah and here is what Ibn Mazur wrote about the root J-H-D and the word al-Jihad and that jihad means holy war

http://wiki.dorar-aliraq.net/lisan-alarab/%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%AF

3. And the revered Ibn Kathir must be a liar or ignorant of the Arabic language because he calls Q9:5 Ayat al-Sayf or the sword verse and the "Islam Taslam" Hadith must be a lie and therefore the letters of Muhammad to the kings of the Greeks and the Persians and al-Muqawqas of Egypt and the Negus of Ethiopia must be all lies and forgeries

4. But most damaging to his case is that he is alluding to Q25:52 so one more times for the readers and see my post

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/240199

And this is Q25:52

فلا تطع الكافرين وجاهدهم به جهادا كبيرا

Or

1. فلا تطع means So do not obey

2. الكافرين means the unbelievers

3. وجاهدهم means and declare Jihad

4. به means with it (Notice that the author of the Qur'an does not tell us what is really the "it" but this did not stop the translators at Sahih International from adding the word Qur'an which is not in the text)

5. جهادا كبيرا means (the declared jihad is) a big jihad

If we turn to Ibn Manzur's Lisan al-Arab the word jihad here should be read as holy war

Or: So do not obey the unbelievers and declare jihad (against them) with it (and it is) a big jihad

Notice that:

1. The word Qur'an is not in the Quranic text

2. The so called al-jihad al-akbar is not in the text

3. The author of the Qur'an does not define the "it" in the text

4. The word jihad here can only mean holy war

The most important word must be به or with it

Now here is a link to almost all translations by Muslims (most of them are non Arabic speaking Indians including Muhammad Ali and notice that his translation of the verse is not approved because he is not regarded as Muslim and he is an Ahmadi or kafir)

http://islamawakened.com/quran/25/52/default.htm

Also notice that the translators don't even seem to agree or know what the verse is saying

Now if we turn to al-Qurtubi he tells us the following:about it al-Qurtubi does not know and he defines the above "it" as

1. القران The Qur'an

2. Or الاسلام or Islam

3. Or السيف or THE SWORD because what the word jihad means is holy war

Then he wrote that "this sura is Meccan and it was written before the order to fight"

Notice that this is not a unique case where a Medina verse (al-Mufasereen tell us that the word Jihad would make a verse a Medina verse) would be inserted for unknown reasons in a Meccan Sura and case in point is Q53:32 (Ali Dashti) which is a long and violent verse that has nothing in common with the text of Surat al-Nijm (Qur'an 53)

The moral of the story is an English Prof of Arabic and Islam seems to be promoting either a liar or a so called scholar of Islam who does not know his Arabic and Jihad after 1400 years of Islamic wars and invasions becomes some bogus "inner struggle"

---

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".