V. COMMON QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIONS
QUESTION 1:
How do you explain verses in the Qur’an that encourage killing non-Muslims wherever they are found [9:5] and others that allow fighting against Jews, Christians and other neighboring non-Muslims [9:29, 123]?
ANSWER:
A) To begin with, the verse [9:5] has nothing to do with the people of the book [Jews and Christians], who are distinguished from other non-Muslims. The Qur’anic text [98:1] makes a clear distinction between the people of the book “Ahl al-Kitaab” and the idolatrous people “Al- Mushrikeen”, the term used in 9:5. Furthermore, all these and similar verses have been sometimes misconstrued and taken out of their textual and historical context. They have been taken out of their textual context by ignoring the verses before and after the quoted ones, and also by ignoring other verses in the Qur’an, which relate to the same issues and thus shed light on their true meanings. They have also been taken out of the historical context that could explain why they were revealed and how they should be applied. All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet [P], whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, or by some Christians. Most, however, apply to the Makkans and other idolatrous Arabs aggressors. Some of the antagonists tortured, and in certain cases killed, Muslims because of their faith, for example the killing of Sumayyah and her husband Yasir. Some killed the memorizers of the Qur’an who were simply on their way to preach its message of Allah’s oneness in a peaceful manner. Some of them killed the messengers sent by the Prophet [P], which is equivalent in today’s international law to killing the ambassador of another country, an act of war. Some of them gathered armies, like the Christians in Tabuk, in order to attack Muslims. Some of them wrote letters to their local governors to go and kill the Prophet Muhammad [P] unless he recanted his claim of prophethood, as was the case with the Emperor of Persia. Some betrayed peace treaties and killed unsuspecting peaceful people, without provocation, contrary to the agreement, such as the breaking of the treaty of Hudaybiah by the Makkans. The issue here is not religion, but rather injustice, oppression and aggression.
B) There are many verses in the Qur’an stating that one who coexists peacefully with Muslims is entitled to justice, compassion and respect, irrespective of their religion [60:8-9] as long as they are peaceful with Muslims.
C) If it were true that the Qur’an instructs that any non-Muslim should be killed because of his/her religion, then what would explain the fact that religious minorities through 1400 years of Muslim history not only survived, but also thrived and found freedom to practice their faiths under Muslim rule? Clearly, Muslims as a people were not perfect, yet there were times when they had enough power to eliminate almost all non-Muslims under their rule. The historical record shows that they did not abuse this power. The restraint they showed seems to be influenced in the first place by the Qur’anic injunctions against coercion in religion.
D) The Qur’an allows a Muslim man to get married to a Christian or Jewish woman. If it were true that the Qur’an demands killing non-Muslims, how could it permit a Muslim man to marry such women? Marriage is the closest human relationship and is described in the Qur’an as a relationship characterized by peace, love and compassion [See: Qur’an 30:21], not murder because of theological differences.
QUESTION 2:
Is Islam imperialistic? Are there verses in the Qur’an stating that Islam is the religion of truth, and therefore it must prevail over all other religions? [9:33, 48:28 and 61:9]
ANSWER:
A) True Islam practiced according to its original sources, the Qur’an and sunnah, is not imperialistic at all. Some Muslim rulers throughout history may have deviated from its teachings in some degree or the other. Their actions, however, is not to be equated with normative Islam. Some jurists even gave opinions that seemed to have justified these actions. Such interpretations may have been influenced by the kind of world in which they lived which is vastly different from ours today. None of these scholars claimed infallibility or finality of their interpretations. Yet, whether such interpretations were valid for their times and specific circumstances or whether they were contrary to the overall text and spirit of Islam, the fact remains that interpretation of the primary sources of Islam is an endeavor which is not frozen in time. Historically, those who espoused such arguments may have erred in understanding some parts of the Qur’an. They may have failed to understand how those parts fit into the total picture of the teachings of the Qur’an teachings on the relationship between Muslims and others.
B) History bears testimony that Islam spread much faster during the periods of peace not war. Even in periods when Muslims did not “prevail”, economically, socially, militarily or politically, Islam continued to spread. The same phenomenon can be seen in our time which is a time of great suffering and persecution of Muslims in many parts of the world. Even some of those who attacked Islam and Muslims and committed horrible massacres of Muslims, such as the Mongols and the Crusaders, ultimately accepted Islam themselves. It is rather interesting to see the conqueror accepting the faith of the conquered rather than the reverse. Clear historical and geographical facts show that Islam has spread more by peaceful means than by force. A look at the map of the Muslim world today shows that the bulk of Muslims live in countries where there was no fighting, not even defensive fighting. An example is, Indonesia, with nearly 200 million Muslims. Thomas Arnold, a former Christian missionary in India, in his famous book Preaching of Islam, indicated that while there have been certain periods where Muslim rulers have diverted from this tolerance, it was the fault of the rulers, but it may not be attributed to Islamic teachings. He concludes that the two primary reasons for the spread of Islam all over the world were the merchants and the Sufis [mystics], two groups of people who went out, worked with humanity and gently invited others to the path of Allah. 24
C) If it were true that Islam allows use of force to convert people, then how did religious minorities thrive in regions under Muslim rule. It is also worth asking why did the Qur’an and sunnah explicitly dictate regulations and rights for the protection of non-Muslim minorities living under the rule of Islam, if other religions are to be eliminated so that Islam may “prevail”. The Prophet [P] even said that if a Muslims hurts a dhimmi or covenanted person, i.e. a non-Muslim living under the rule of Islam, or commits any injustice to him, then on the Day of Judgment the Prophet [P] will be the advocate on behalf of the non-Muslim against the Muslim. What is the sense of these prescriptions and advice, if those people had to accept Islam or be killed? Why does the Qur’an repeatedly speak about peaceful dialogue with non-Muslims [e.g. 29:46] if they have to be killed in the first place? If indeed Islam insists on the use of force for conversion, then why did people, when no longer under Muslim rule, not revert back to their previous faiths?
D) It is true that three verses in the Qur’an [9:33, 48:28 and 61:9] state that Allah sent forth His messenger [Muhammad] with the message of guidance and the religion of truth, so that it may “prevail” over all religions. What does prevail mean in this context? Must we limit our understanding of the word prevail to the narrow context of military or political power? There have been many tyrannical empires throughout history that prevailed, economically, politically or militarily, at one time or another. Their dominance was impermanent. This is a very superficial and temporary type of prevailing. Real prevailing is the prevailing of the truth and belief in the One True God and all that that implies. In fact, a better translation of the original Qur’anic Arabic term “li-yuzhirahu” is “ to proclaim it”, rather than “to make it prevail”. This was the translation adopted by Abullah Yusuf Ali.