To Moderate Muslim1: Tauba, Tauba. Astaghfirullah.

Submitted by Plato (United Arab Emirates), May 11, 2007 at 03:59

Referring to Surah 9:29 you say: "No. This verse is talking about the Pagans of Mecca who were in a state of war with the Muslims. This is established in the ayat before. Second, it does say anything about Christians, Jews, Hindus or Buddhists, especially the latter two because the latter two are not Ahl al Kitab. It is reinforcing the last verse which refers to the Pagans."

So let us read what Surah 9:28-29 (Yusuf Ali) say: O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. 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.

Your readers will now read Allah calling pagans unclean, banning them from a place they considered holy for generations.9:29 hardly has any connection with 9:28 which is typical of the Koran. Allah is so incoherent in the Koran that hundreds of "scholars" had the opportunity to pontificate on what God is trying to convey in his "clear book easy to understand". And who are the 'People of the Book' if not Christians and Jews? And you are right it does not say anything about Hindus and Buddhists. You know why? Your "scholars" say that the option of paying the jiziya is only for people of the Book, the unfortunate pagans have to convert or die. And that is exactly what happened to millions of Hindus and Buddhists in ancient Afghanistan and India.

Let us take a closer look at 9:28'...And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty...' Guess what Allah is telling the Muslims. Since the pagans were banned from entering their holy place it would big loss of business for the people of Mecca. So Allah promises to enrich them soon with his bounty. And what bounty is Allah referring to? You guessed it, the bounty is nothing but the booty they would capture in their incessant gazhwas!

Another thought. If you say that these two verses are only referring to the Pagans of Mecca then since they do not exist today, these two verses can be deleted without any loss to the message being conveyed by the Koran. Also by this logic non-Meccan/Arab pagans should be allowed to enter the Kaaba. Why are they kept out now?

And if you look through the koran a goodly portion of it can be deleted as not contributing anything to the timeless message it is supposedly delivering. For instance the whole of Surah 111 can be deleted as it is just a verse cursing Abu Lahab and his wife. They are dead and gone and so should the verse too.

Moderate Muslim you also write: "No. For starters 9:4 says nothing about fighting. 9: 4 says that as Muslims have treaties with the Pagans and that they should respect these treaties until they have expired. I would like to point out that I am reading out of the Quran as I type this. You may however be refering to 9:5, which says that when the months of peace are over then the Muslims shoudl again take up arms against those who take up arms against them. For some historical context, the Muslims were ambushed by the Kuffar before the treaty expired, thus breaking the treaty."

Moderate Muslim since context is so beloved of muslims let us get some context to 9:4. Please read these verses, they put 9:4 in its true context.

(Yusuf Ali )009.003 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.

009.004 (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 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.
009.006 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.
009.007 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.
009.008 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.

In 9:3 Allah (Mohammed) unilaterally abrogates all treaty obligations with pagans, except, as 9:7 makes clear, those with whom there was a treaty made near the sacred mosque. So when the forbidden months are past Muslims are told to attack and massacre the pagans who were not part of that particular treaty. Only those who submit to islam are to be spared (9:6). I doubt very much you were reading the Koran as you were typing because you claim that the verse says Muslims should take up arms only against those who attack the Muslims. Where does the Koran say that??? In fact it says the exact opposite, its says go and attack the pagans wherever you can find them when the forbidden months are past. Which Koran are you reading Moderate Muslim Number One???

You write: "..For some historical context, the Muslims were ambushed by the Kuffar before the treaty expired, thus breaking the treaty...."

Can you cite a reliable source, even a Muslim one, for that statement?

I also notice that you cannot help but write (mutter) astaghfirullah everytime you think you have written something which could offend Allah even when you are trying to come to his defence. Why are you so superstitious and terrified of even inadvertently offending this God of yours. What kind of a tyrant is this God of yours?

"Numero Uno" you have brought up the treaty Hudaibya, which you claim is what the Koran is referring to in 9:4. Where does it say in the Koran that this is what is bering referred to? You claim later that nowhere in At Tauba is there mention of Jews and Christians. Then who are the People of the Book mentioned in 9:29? This is typical of Muslims arguments, trying to have your cake and eat it too. Hudaybia is not mentioned yet you link the treaty to it but despite people of the book being mentioned you claim there is no reference to christians and jews!

From other sources, which as dhimmi no more has shown, were manufactured hundreds of years later outside the Hijaz, Muslims believe that this treaty was broken by the pagans when a tribe, the Bani Khuza, was attacked by Bani Bakr, allied with the Quraish. On this flimsy pretext the Prophet used overwhelming force to subdue Mecca.

You then write: "If this was modern times they woudl say "not a shot was fired." The Prophet (pbuh) walked into the place where he had been born, grown up, respected, and then tormented and attacked, and did not harm those who had wronged him. I guess you were expecting a bloodbath, but the truth is that the people were not harmed."

That is not completely true, Moderate Muslim, for the Prophet had drawn up a list of people, a small one admitedly, to be executed and it included a pair of singing girls who had satired him. Why should one expect a bloodbath. The Prophet had already informed Abu Sufyan that only those who resisted would be killed. What would have happened to his credibility as a Messenger of God if he had gone about slaughtering his own relatives and the relatives of his companions. The Prophet was careful about the people he massacred. He found it easy enough to behead hundreds of Jews. All his great enemies were dead or had already become Muslims. Abu Sufyan was his father-in-law and had agreed to accept Islam. Have you forgotten that he was a Quraish himself. Remember also that the Quraish had not done him much harm, having alllowed him to preach his religion and insult their beloved idols for more than a decade.

The Prophet was a great nepotist. When his uncle was captured at Badr he insisted that he be given special treatment as compared to the other captives. When booty was distributed the Meccans who accompanied him to Medina were given bigger shares than the Ansars leading to protests. His love for his own people is what stayed his hand against the Meccans. Can you imagine what would have happened to them if they had been Jews?

You write: "Repeatedly in At-Tauba it talks about "the Desert Arabs ...".

Yes it does talk of them, for instance: 009.097-098 Yusuf Ali:" The Arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger: But Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise. Some of the desert Arabs look upon their payments as a fine, and watch for disasters for you: on them be the disaster of evil: for Allah is He That heareth and knoweth (all things)."

Allah has a very poor opinion of the poor ignorant Bedouins and even wishes disaster upon them. Quite obviously this is Mohammed's wish, as, if Allah wishes anything it would have happened. Or perhaps the disaster has happened, considering the life they have been leading the last 1400 years.

---

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".