To Shakeel: Forcible conversion. Yours scholars say different

Submitted by Plato (United Arab Emirates), May 27, 2007 at 07:58

Shakeel you are in square brackets:

[The verse 10:99 is general, because Thou can be anyone, anyone who wants to force other to believe in Islam including Rasool

However 9:28 is talking about a particular time in the life of Rasool, when pagans of Quraish had a peace treaty with Muslims but they broke it. Read from 9:1]

Reading from 9:1 shows Allah telling his Rasool to unilateraly tear up covenants with anyone and everyone who are disbelievers.

009.001 YUSUFALI: A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-
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.

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...

009.006 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah....

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?....

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?....

The only hint that the pagans broke some covenant is in 9:8. To discover what this covenant was we have to fall back on unreliable hadiths and the sira. And what does one find in them? A tribe allied with the Quraish attacked a tribe allied with the Muslims and the negotiations that followed broke down and this is touted as breaking of a treaty. What was the Prophet's record on treaties?

After 1200 years of pouring through the hadiths using Ilmul Rijal has anyone come up with the real pearls of wisdom they contain. Why is it that everytime you find something inconvenient in them they are declared unreliable. Every 'scholar' has his own set of reliable ones and very few agree with each other.

This is what I had written to Moderate Muslim1iabout treaty breaking in http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/92528

>>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?

>>"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.<

Also remember that the Quraish themselves honoured their part in sending back people who escaped from Medina to Mecca. But the Rasool, with his Allah-given divine right refused to send back Muslim women who escaped from Mecca on the pretext that the treaty did not mention women specifically.

So your claim that the pagans broke any treaty does not wash. These verses only tell us that Mohammed (under Allah's umbrella) has given himself the right to break treaties with pagans. Guilt-ridden Muslim historians then cook up stories to justify the slaughters that followed. This is not very different from their claim that caravans peacefully passing miles and miles away were threatening the Prophet of Allah.

[No I am not allowed to threaten your life and compel you because 10:99 is for everyone and on the other hand 9:28 is talking about a particular event during Muhammad's life.]

So Allah after including the Prophet in 10.99 later cancels it for the Prophet so that he can go on slaughtering and converting people?

[I have already told you the purpose of Rasool's coming in this world, Rasool is sent to implement God's judgment on earth over the people to remind that Day of Judgment is true and will surely come, and wrong-doers must be punished and this Hadith was explanation to it, where Muhammad (sws) is saying, no one can save himself from me (or in other words God's judgment) unless he says, God is one and does not have any partner and Muhammad is His servant and Rasool. I hope, it is now clear on you. I have never been taught by Islam to compel others to believe in my religion.]

It is clear that you are so ashamed of the Rasool's bloody Prophethood and its effect on succeeding generations of true believers that you have deviced this concept of punishment by humiliation and death being limited to the Rasool's time. You may not have been taught to compel but your great 'scholars' don't seem to think so. Here is the well-known Pakistani scholar Maulana Maududi commenting on Surah 9:

"In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State. As the great Roman and Iranian Empires were the biggest hindrances in the way, a conflict with them was inevitable. The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State"

A nice clean statement of the imperialistic objective of Islam. Look at what he has to say about the coming generations. Parents will not be able to bring up their children in their religion. The first sentence is a charter given to Muslims, according the Maududi's interpretation, to invade neighbouring countries and force them to accept Islamic sovereignty. Your scholars have such belligerent and aggressive interpretation of the Koran.

---

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".