Dr. Jamal Badawi – Muslims/Non-Muslims Relations: Commonly Misunderstood Quranic Texts
Jamal Badawi – Commonly Misunderstood Quranic Texts
AI: Summary ©
The transcript discusses the historical context of the discussion, including the use of the Quran as a framework for understanding the context of the discussion, including the use of the Quran as a framework for understanding the context of the discussion, and the importance of avoiding being too friendly with non- Islam people and not being too friendly with non- Islam people. The transcript also touches on the historical context of the discussion, including the use of the Quran as a framework for understanding the context of the discussion, and the historical context of the discussion, including the use of the Quran as a framework for understanding the context of the discussion.
AI: Summary ©
Amin salatu salam ala COVID, mursaleen satana Mohamad in
All praise is due to Allah,
the sole creator sustainer and cherishes of the universe,
and may his peace and blessings be upon his last prophet and messenger, Muhammad, and upon all Prophets and Messengers who preceded him,
I greet you all, my dear brothers and sisters, with the greeting of all of the profits, from Adam, to Mohammed, peace be upon them on the greeting of peace, as salaam alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh, which means made a Peace, blessings and mercy of God law be with you on.
And I wish him the very outset, to express two things before we get to heavy stuff. First, my great thanks and appreciation for the Ottawa Muslim Association. And for all excellences who graced us with their presence this evening, and to you all,
for your kind invitation to share a few humble thoughts with you.
Secondly, I cannot help also by express
my feeling in this kind of gathering with people from various national
and religious backgrounds, coming together as brothers and sisters.
And when I was looking at one particular verse from the Quran, immediately came to mind.
The verse appears in chapter 49, verse 13. And I just the beginning with that, by way of introducing the topic.
Interesting enough, that verse does not begin by addressing Muslims.
It does not say, All Muslims are all believers. It says, Yeah, a yohannes, or mankind. That's a very inclusive address from God, to humanity through that last scripture, the Quran.
And in fact, it's interesting to notice that in the Quran,
while sometimes it addresses Muslims, especially when it comes to their particular religious duties, like prayer and fasting,
there are more than 200 verses in the Quran that begins with the address all mankind all of you, God is addressing everyone.
And that's significant.
Then it goes on. It says, We means God that's ROI. And we, we created you from a single male and a female or male and female, depending how we translate it,
which actually means that you are all one family. And if you have the same set of parents, then there is a human family diverse as it may be, but one family
then it goes on. And we made you into nations and tribes. Why? That you may get to know one another and recognize one another.
This is in full consistency with another verse in the Quran in chapter 30, verse 22,
which explains why people on earth have different languages and complexion.
And it says in the translation of meaning of the science of God, the science of His mercy, and wisdom
is the creation of heavens and earth, and the diversity of your languages and your complexion. That is a sign of the creation of Allah. My favorite analogy is like a bouquet of flower
where the white flower is beautiful in its own right.
So is the yellow, the blue, the pink, and more beautiful, are all of them together.
And then it establishes finally at the end of that verse. The soul
criterion
on the basis of which a human being can be a better human being.
It says in our kurama, command de la he is the most honored of you. And the sight of God is the one who is most righteous. Forget about colored language, even faith claims, because fifth claims are to be settled by a line the Day of Judgment. But this is the translation of true faith.
I'd like to first make a remark concerning the topic
in order to achieve world peace and mutual understanding,
it is not only enough to talk about what is agreeably
positive points, I am sure all of you hear in some degree or the other are already past Islam 101.
And initially, even when I thought of the topic, dealing with World Peace,
I had to make some kind of modification even in the last minute as I was thinking, in flying in the plane next to me,
a brother who lives here in Ottawa, Salim brothers Salim
jam. And we kept discussing the topic because I was hesitant myself as to whether I should deal also, with this broad issues of what does the term Islam come from? How does the concept of peace fused in theological and eschatological terminology and Islam, how the concept of peace is inherent in the objective the five broad objectives of Islamic law to safeguard faith, life, mind, honor and wealth,
to explain the meaning of jihad and so on and so forth.
But then I mentioned to him also, that in the last few weeks, I have been following the trend led by some people in the media, or other circles,
who seem to have been promoting antagonism at the time, when what we need more is to promote love.
We have seen lots of articles, I don't know what is your share here in Ottawa,
quoting things from the Quran out of context, and trying somehow to convince the public that hatred and harassment of Muslims is justified, because violence, dominance, and imperialism is inherent in the very scriptures of Islam. I know that might be a delicate topic. And like I said earlier, it might be a heavier stuff, then dealing with the more 101 thing that we have heard, but since you've heard that already, I thought it might be beneficial to go a little bit beyond that, because world peace and understanding can also be achieved not only positively by presenting the positive things, but by also dispelling misunderstanding and Miss quotations.
To do that, I propose to deal with the following issues. First, a brief introduction to the methodology with which we should understand
the topic, and then move on to classify the most common types of errors in understanding and interpreting the Quran, including, by the way, some interpretation by some Muslims, and then move on to dn and that's the heart of the topic was some of the commonly misquoted misrepresented or misunderstood verses in the Quran.
To start with,
and the introduction, as some of you might have, might be able to see within the PowerPoint, it's
the need for objectivity and honesty when we deal with a topic like that. To me, that translates into a number one,
trying to have some sort of control on the issue of emotions. And I address that not only to non Muslims, but to Muslims as well.
Let's not emotion and feeling without evidence blind, a person from trying to see the truth as truth.
The Quran teaches self criticism. It teaches fairness and saying that I think even if it be against yourself, or your clothes skins, the Quran advocate justice even with the enemy, those who show enmity, you have also to say the word of truth and justice.
Secondly,
When we deal with the broader issue of relationship between Muslims, and non Muslim, I'm using non Muslim in a positive sense, those who are outside or not part of the Muslim community of faith, I can find any better word but I'm using it in a positive sense.
When we deal with this kind of relationship, we have to be honest and realistic also and realizing
that we're talking about at least 1400 years of interaction, some of which was surrounded by hostilities, other periods by cooperation, not only with Christians, but with Jews and others, in building a civilization, such as the house of wisdom in Baghdad, Islamic University in Spain, that was the jewel of Europe, but there have been periods of conflict. So my second precaution on the issue of objectivity
is to try and be aware of the historical legacy that could be clouded the thinking of Muslims or their friends, for that matter, we have to keep that also clear in mind.
A third and final aspect of methodology
is that when we try to understand and or promote better understanding
between Islam and other sister religions,
it is very essential to make a clear distinction in mind.
Between pure Islam, normative Islam and the opinions and the way some people interpret certain aspects of it,
there is only two there are only two primary sources of Islam no third
one is the Quran. That Muslim accept as the verbatim WORD OF GOD dictated to the last prophet Muhammad peace be upon him through engine Gabrielle.
The second is also another form of revelation known as Hadith and some scholars use the term Sunnah. But basically, it refers to the words, action and approvals of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him in his capacity as a prophet, receiving revelation only in meaning, but expressing that in his own words, so Hadith is not the word of God. But it is not the invention of the Prophet, it is something that is directed to tell people, but in his own words,
anything outside of that, and must You must have heard the term factual, which literally mean a religious opinion
or interpretation
are not infallible. They are not infallible. And there is no religious system or an institution in Islam. That says that there is, for example, similar to basic concepts about the papacy, that has the final authority as a person or religious institution to say, this is the only interpretation. This is the only opinion
which means that any person's opinion, no matter how great scholars in the past or present, are saying has to be tested, again, is the primary sources of Islam and this is the reference of all
and I do emphasize that, because it is quite easy to launch a criticism against any word faced by quoting scholars of that religion, scholars that not perfect, get 1400 years of scholarships, you get people who might have given opinion based on certain circumstances surrounding them, to quote authorities, even among Muslim scholarship in order to prove a particular point is not that definitive unless that opinion is tested again, again, is the two sources primary sources of Islam.
Now, coming to the foundation for this presentation,
the errors and I thought perhaps the most logical and easy way to classify the errors in interpreting the Quran there are many but just choose the ones that are relevant or topic,
especially in Muslim non Muslim relation first, relate to what I call errors of translation.
A lot of people quote a translation of the meaning of the Quran and say, the Quran says, No,
the Quran was not revealed in English. The Quran was revealed in Arabic and it is well known that there are always problems translating from one language to the other.
Actually, some scholars dispute whether they could be any translation of the Quran. I prefer to use the term interpretive translation of the meaning of the Quran
and
Oftentimes it reflects the translators own understanding and images. So don't quote from a translation and say the Quran say that it is the translation of the meaning of the Quran.
A second problem, or category of errors
is that when the Quran is translated, it is so profound. And there must have been good reason why God chose the Arabic language with its richness and diversity of meaning depending on the context to reveal his last book to get this profound meanings and express them.
So sometimes even people translate lexically correctly. But in terms of essence and context, it is erroneous translation. So it's not just the lexical meaning in the dictionary, there are a lot more to interpreting and understanding the Quran than going to a dictionary and finding an equivalent word, it could be erroneous, even though it's correct lexically.
The third source of problems is what I love to call that using the computer language, the cut and paste approach.
And I humbly suggest to you my motto on that.
If you use the cut and paste approach, you can prove anything you want, from any scripture you want. Anything under the earth can be proven.
And if you don't have a computer, you can buy a pair of scissors for two bucks, cut verses from the mid, they've cut it out of context, and you can prove anything, just put it together, the cut and paste approach. And I'll be giving you lots of examples of those cut and paste approach was to put it in a different language, the out of context interpretation. And there are four basic categories of out of context interpretations. One,
out of the context of the verse, some people even would not care to quote the entire verse, They clip it in the middle, and not a sometimes you caught on the one particular verse if there is no change in meaning, but clipping a verse in the middle in such a way that it gives a totally different meaning altogether. You know, there is one verse in the Quran says, don't pray, don't even come close to prayer. And some of you might say, how could it be Muslims are required to pray five times a day. But if you continue with the rest of the verse that says, Don't come to prayers when you're intoxicated, so clipping could totally even turn the meaning upside down.
The second
is that sometimes people also would quote even a phone verse from the Quran, but paying no attention to the verses immediately before or after, in the same section that did with the same subject.
In that case, you lose the context where that verse was revealed. The third
is that the Quran completes and explain itself.
So a person might, quote, even a whole section, but it's wrong. Why? Because it overlooks the context of the whole core answer the proper methodology of understanding any topic is to bring together not only one text, not only one section, but to bring all the verses in the Quran. And whatever relevant of Hadees authentic hadith are saying of the Prophet together, and then you can understand the topic in context rather than going in all kinds of directions.
Firstly,
I will out of context historically, and this is the most serious problem with lots of quotation that many writers use to say violence is rooted in Islam.
Check the number of verses and sutras they quote from, you will find that most of them, most of them come from two suitors in the Quran, surah number eight, and nine.
And people who do not care to find out the context of these two surah historically, come up with erroneous generalization about what Islam teaches.
These were revealed in the context of conflict,
warfare between the LED Muslim community and the pagan Arabs who spared no efforts to undermine the religion committed so many atrocities against them, including murderers.
And people forget about that historical context and how to deal with people in that state of war and say that's the general relationship that should permeate relationship between Muslims and non Muslims alike.
Let me go through this cut and paste I put it in a form of myths, common statements that are erroneous, I have classified already the type of errors I leave it up to your own judgment to find
What kind of errors are there? Some would be very obvious.
First,
how many times you must have seen or read that Muslims are so offensive to those who don't follow their faith, they calling them incident, or people even referring to the text of the Quran in Arabic, and translate the word kuffaar. And that comes to that turn into incidence. To me, that's a straight error in the first place of translation.
The word incident if you check, the dictionary is quite negative and offensive.
And I wonder whether those people who are using that term are investigating hatred against Islam because they say Islam consider you as an infidel. Just go to any dictionary, and sometimes an incident is described as some who believe in something very weird or strange, or one who does not believe in God, even in the first place. This is not the translation of the term Kaffir.
Let me give you an evidence right from the Quran to see again another error, contextual error in this kind of translation, even though this is enough to say translation is wrong is enough.
But to confirm it further from the Quran,
are we to consider Jews and Christians as people who are incident in a sense that they don't believe in God, that would fly in the face of verse 46.
And the Quran in surah, 29 nine Caboose,
which says it very clearly, that when you dialogue with the people of the book, you dialogue in the best and most courteous way, but then it says what to do. And then ability on Zilla, Elena, once in a while, illa hoonah wa who come by and say to them mean to Jews and Christians,
we believe in what has been revealed to you means in its original form, and what has been revealed to us, your Lord, and ours is one and the same. And to whom we all submit, doesn't differ and tell us that for Jews and Christians, they believe in God, how could they be called influence?
Furthermore, a question that I leave you to research and find an answer.
Do you know who invented the term incident
where in the world that was invented, and against whom it was used?
You find that Muslims are away from that. It was not Muslims who introduced that term, or used it against other it was used against them. And those who try to justify the unchristian, I emphasize there is no claim on Christ or the history, nor will teach you those who abused the name, the good name of Christ.
And conducted the Crusades were the ones who referred to Muslims as impotence, and to justify
arousing the hatred of the masses. They use the term the incident Muslims. And to the big surprise when those people came to fight against infidels, they find that they have the purest form of monotheism. But this house masses sometimes are led by politicians or others in institution, not all politicians, of course, some some politicians. All right. Another
example of cut and paste
or non Muslims are disbelievers.
Alright, is that a correct term to start with? Is there a difference between the term unbeliever and disbeliever?
In my humble understanding,
an unbeliever is someone who may not be aware of something so he doesn't believe in it.
He's never known or heard. So his unbeliever is not exposed to it.
Whereas a disbeliever seem to indicate that someone has been exposed to certain truth or information. And then he deliberately rejected it. And that's why sometimes I put unused attend cafaro verb in a very active verb form, know something, but rejected. It is truth but I'm not going to accept it.
Alright, that distinction, then there is another issue.
Is it possible that a person who is from an Islamic perspective, unbeliever, an unbeliever
wouldn't be forgiven by Allah? The answer does not come in an opinion. You go to the Quran in Surah Surah 17 in a 15 American NEMA Divina heptane avasarala. Allah says in the Quran
We will not punish until we have sent a messenger. So a person who was not exposed to the message did not know about the message is not to be condemned. And it's not our job to condemn. It is left to God
to judge that person in accordance with what he knew about the truth, and whether he rejected it out of pride or whatever, or he didn't know or didn't fully understand it.
That's a misplaced. Okay, the third one?
Some non Muslim, some say all right, admittedly, not all those who did not accept Islam are disbeliever. Some are unbelievable. No, but they say what, but some people have been exposed to the message of Islam.
So at least some of them who willingly rejected it and did not accept the final prophet and final scripture, as you Muslims understand it, are to be classified as disbeliever, according to your own definition, what do you say about that? But the question here when you use the term disbeliever
this believer in what
are Jews and Christians, disbelievers in God, or revelation? The answer was given early in chapter 29, or suta, 29. In the Quran,
the Jews and Christians
or reject the basic generic teaching of god that was revealed to all of the prophets? The answer is no, in fact, the Koran say that all prophets were Muslims.
And in fact, the area that was recited earlier, were letter mutanda, 11, to Muslim, anti anti except in the state of Islam. Actually, it could also be translated don't by except in the state of submission to Allah, because that's what the genetic meaning of the term Islam means to achieve peace with God, within oneself, with the creation of God, whether humans, animals, vegetation, or ecology, through submission, willing submission to God.
We cannot interpret the word Islam always to me, and only the community that follows Prophet Mohammed Salah said, and this is the last form of Islam. But generic Islam as the Quran indicate, has been the teaching and message of all of the prophets. We cannot say that people have the book, or disbeliever in that core message of God, or the basic moral teaching, taught by all of the prophets. What are the disbelievers then? What did they disbelieve or reject? They this believes in the finality of the mission of Prophet Muhammad and the Koran as the last revelation of Allah. But could that be regarded really as a derogatory term really, that someone does not disbelieve? Well,
every human being believes in something this believes in something based on his own conscious, we are not to hold people accountable here. So even if you say that disbelievers are right, theologically, that's fine. But in terms of ultimate consequence for that, it's not up to you or me to mistreat them in this life here. This is the function of job of God. And let us remember again, those who say yes, but many Jews and Christian know about Islam and read about Islam. But let me ask you this. How about if they read about Islam from books written by people with an agenda?
People who wrote actually to blemish the image of Islam, and they thought, with all sincerity, that this is the correct knowledge of Islam? This is Professor so and so this is Dr. So and so they didn't realize how erroneous the information is, who are we to judge whether the lady got the true picture and message of Islam and deliberately, but even if they did, it's not our function, to hold them accountable for that.
But that brings me to another system term that I find many of even my Muslim brothers and sister use it in a very generalized way.
Simply because of the lack of understanding of the origin of the term and what really it means.
A lot of Muslims might use the term catfish and confirm it translate more or less like disbelievers
as if it is really in a way, a derogatory term.
Well, there is a difference between what is right and what is wrong theologically. But again, I keep emphasizing theological correctness or incorrectness is left to Gods to judge all
but what exactly do we mean when you use the term Cooper and kefir? Literally speaking,
cough means to connect
Seal,
to commit an act of God means to conceal.
In a way, you can say that a farmer
who is putting the seed and hiding the seed concealing the seed in the ground,
is doing an act of God. I'm not suggesting that you go to this farmer and said, you're careful, because you might get a blow into notice. I'm in the literal sense it could because he captured his height he hides, he can see the seed and the ground.
But then there is an interesting area that many Western do not really reflect carefully upon.
can a person be a Muslim, and committing an act? Of course, not in the greater sense, When the answer comes in the Quran?
When it speaks in that sort of sort of three about pilgrimage, it says pilgrimage is mandatory on Muslims, who are able to do that, and anybody memorize what does it say after that woman, capoeira, for a number of aenean, and an admin, but those who if you take it literally who commit,
Allah is self sufficient, he doesn't need people. Here, coffee does not mean rejection of Islam or the Prophet, meaning being ungrateful. You're conceding your gratefulness to God, for whatever he has given you.
But of course, in the theological sense,
and that's why the Quran used the term Kaffir. to people who deliberately reject it. The truth is that a Kaffir, in fact, is someone who is concealing or covering up
his or her pure innate nature, that knows that there is a creator of this universe, and that creator must be one, to conceal the innate nature, the spiritual nature that the Quran expresses in breathing, the divine breath, and every human being, and to go against their pure nature, to worship idols or not to follow the true faith of God.
But then there is another aspect.
And my brother said, even when he was traveling, he asked me the same question said, I am confused, and people keep asking me about that question.
Can we really say that chick, which literally in Arabic means to associate, ie to associate others with the One God in His divine exclusive divine attributes? What is the difference between shirt and coffee? And people have the book
I said, Brother,
the difficulties sometimes arise even in the mind of Muslims, because the term these terms are used in a variety of meaning layers of meaning, depending on the specific context. I said, if you mean by sharing people who really worship Gods beside God, then that description does not apply to the people of the book.
And the evidence is found directly in Surah 98 Lamia Cooney Latina cafaro, Minh athlete kitabi, one mushrikeen. So it speaks about those who rejected even Islam in the ultimate sense, knowingly rejected Islam. But then it divided them into two groups, those who associate others with Allah, the pagan Arab like those who believe in more than one God as a one category. But then the same is speaks about people of the book.
People of the Book and they are quite distinct in that respect. And that's why in Islamic law, as you know, there are special affinity with them for both, or all three Abrahamic religion as normally they are referred to believe in the one and same God. They could differ theologically, how to understand God, is the Islamic monotheistic formulation, correct one or the Trinitarian formulation or anything in between, they differ. But I have yet to see a Christian or Jew who say I believe in more than one God, the same as upheld by a Muslim. They both believe in Revelation of Allah as sort of an anchor both indicated in moral teaching and responsibility in life hereafter. So, there is
some distinction also that is made there. But suppose even they deliberately rejected the Quran says no compunction and division,
another cut and paste.
This one of the most curious one, somebody writes and says the Quran uses derogatory terms against non Muslims, and it says non believers are unclean. They refer to again to the same two suitors actually to sort of 19 which deal with the state of war between Muslims and pagan Arabs, in them and Muslim Puna nudges. Again, you find a number of errors here. number of errors
They take one part of one verse
number one,
if you continue the verse, it says, they are not allowed to come to the second house after this year.
Oh second house, there must be historical context.
What is the historical context is that the pagan Arabs
desecrated the Kaaba, the house of Abraham, the house of monotheism, by placing the items in and around it.
And as such, it would not be possible after Muslims. Islam became the predominant religion
in Arabia, or at least in hedges at the time,
that people who worship Allah come to circumambulate around the Kaaba and the pagan Arabs also bring the items. It doesn't make any sense. Kaaba has to be restored to its pure monotheistic nature.
But there is another form of uncleanliness but not physical, that many of those pagan Arabs used to go around the Kaaba, totally naked,
which is indecent. So when the Quran used that term, then it uses in the context of we might say, not really physical uncleanliness that you have to ask yourself if somebody touched you. It talked about this, but more importantly, is the mistranslation of the Quran. Because the essays and mushy Khun mushriks and we have seen before the foreign made distinction between Muslims, like pagan Arabs worship idols and multiple Gods versus People of the Book, so the area does not have anything to do with just a Christian it is related to that historical context and this particular situation in Arabia.
Okay.
No,
cut and paste number six.
probably heard that, I think it should be nine, five.
Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, ambush them
and wait for them in every corner.
probably heard that right. The Quran teaches aggressiveness. And this is known as the verse of the sword. And it tells Muslims go and kill an unbeliever kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. Of course, you can take it in that sense from that one half verse, then every Muslim would be obligated to carry either a gun or sword or machine gun or whatever. Just to go out with any non Muslim you find. Just before I'm tell you that thing that you're doing that in the name of God,
you know, something when I was studying in the early 60s, mid 60s in at Indiana University. At the time, there was a big debate in the United States about prayers in the school.
And the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of United States. Justice Douglas, I think his name at the time, you know, he made a statement. And he said, if we allow every person to do prayers in the school, the beginning of the school, then the Muslims, misspelled Of course, Muslims, then the Muslims would recite the first verse in the Quran, the first chapter in the Quran that tells him to go and kill the unbeliever wherever you find them. I think he got his number wrong, as well as his understanding, also wrong.
Now, what does the verse really speaks about and what is the context? That's what we need to look at it? First of all,
what is the historical context again, that appear in the same sort of nine one of these two suitors about that conflict with pagan Arabs?
If you read even the remaining part of the verse,
okay.
It says
Mr. Aquino Heiser was a tomato tomahto do the home cook numbers in taboo what a farmer salata, altos, Dakota, for Hulu Sevilla, that if they desist
from the wrongs especially, of course, if they are guided, and the stuff that facilities guided Islam, it says leave them alone. So if the command really was to kill them, because they are unbelievers, then there should be no chance to give in to them because if they stop, then leave them. Leave them alone.
But that's not all historically, about whom does this apply about Jews, Christian and everybody who's not a Muslim? Or does it deal specifically in historical context with the pagan Arabs who tortured Muslims and as you know, Muslims were tortured to death
like the father of American Yes, I'd like to my Yeah, the mother of Muslims were tortured even today.
They were exempt from MCE they were fought again is in wave after wave. And whenever they were treated with them, like the Treaty of a bear, they were the ones who broke the treaty and killed the allies of Muslims. So when you get into the battlefield for people who betrayed and killed them, torture,
and recover unsaved, kill them, whatever you find them, does it mean kill every other person or kill the aggressors, who are carrying arms against you, and the battlefield.
Not only various of the verse, but I urge you go back there is nothing hidden, go and get any translation even of the meaning of the Quran.
And put it not in the context of one verse, the context of the section, as I said earlier, and the relevant section here is the verses before and after from the beginning of the surah. I do not wish to spend too much time on that because you can take lots of analysis and that but basically, that context, to speak about people who started aggressive or hostilities against you, or whom by the hour, they are the ones who started aggression and persecution against you in the first place. Even in the middle of this very strong verses about the warfare.
In the middle of that it speaks about non Muslims who did not betray the treaty with Muslim and say for these people, complete the term for them.
The same section is speak about those who betrayed the treaty, and it says if they have power over you, if they prevail over you, they will never even consider any bonds, family, familial bonds, when they persecute or kill, you just read that you find lots of indication that it is quite specific, and not even generalized. Even in the middle of all these verses, one of the most noble things in the Quran. It says if one of the unbelievers mean does not anyone, the one who's fighting mean and mushrikeen, the Arab pagans,
Baraka General, security protection, even in the battlefield, and he says, All right, I seek your protection, you should give him protection. You know why? The Quran say, so that he may have an opportunity to listen to the word of Allah. So if the purpose is to cut as many heads as possible, kill and destroy, then there is no need, because he's still unbeliever. But even the slightest sign of peacefulness of readiness to communicate, it says you should take him to a safe place. You never take advantage of that. What could be more noble, even in verses dealing with war? One, following things that I'd like to add here also, is that if indeed that logic has any foundation whatsoever in
the totality
of the Quranic context, not just the verse or section, then it doesn't have any meaning at all because it runs squarely against various places in the Quran, including that famous one that be no compulsion in religion, you don't kill someone because of not accepting them. That's why if they Tamia, Rahim, Allah, the great scholar of Islam,
he discussed that issue is the fight against those unbelievers because of their lack of faith or refusal to accept this them or beside him or because of their aggression. And he concluded that it is because of aggression, anytime he did not come up with that from his own mind and inshallah and saw you as we go on a specific indication in the Quran, that the purpose, or the reason for fighting is not their disbelief and Islam, but because of their aggression.
There is one more point before moving to the next one.
Some people say yeah, but but that those verses in the Quran that speak about courteous dialogue and cordial relationship with non Muslims, has all been abrogated by what they call the verse of the sword by that verse in chapter nine.
There is no evidence from the Quran that this has been abrogating other verses.
And while some scholars and that's why I said earlier don't quote me as scholars, scholars could be wrong also, more discerning scholars rejected this idea that some writers in the past said that this verse precluded all the other verses, it is totally erroneous, and there is no evidence and it is well known in the methodology of a sword. That's not the methodology of Islamic law.
That something that is definitive cannot be rejected on the basis of something which is probabilistic.
The Quran is clear.
The verses in the Quran that speak about good treatment of non Muslims in spite of the rejection of Islam or
Numerous and clear cut for someone to make a claim that one verse
abrogated all of that that's an opinion and an opinion cannot supersede the clear text of the Quran.
Photo cannot by the mere claim like this. And the proper understanding as many discerning scholar has found out that there is not no obligation here. The verse about the sword is applicable in a situation when people are trying to finish you have to destroy you. Yes, you can fight them. And the verses about inviting people as the Quran says in wisdom and beautiful exhortation applies, applied in the past, and apply today and will apply tomorrow for anyone who speaks fully communicating with Muslims without compunction. So each verse has its own scope of application not that one abrogated or replaced the other this is a myth. Common as it may be, it's a myth.
Seven
Muslims are required to fight all non Muslims until they accept Islam.
And again, to familiarize you with those who know Arabic, they refer to it as in the Quran, that you will use the term had way akuna deanwood illa fire them and that there is no more fitna or has come to that word of persecution, and religion belongs to Allah. And another ayah in Surah, eight and fan, which uses the term even stronger way akuna, Dino kulu, hula and all the lesson belongs to Allah. And you know how some people interpret that to mean that religion belongs to Allah that means Islam becomes the only religion dominates over all. Is that interpretation? Correct. Let's go back to the words used in this verse was 1301 hatherleigh takuna fitna that appeared in Surah, two in
verse 193.
The word fitna here means religious persecution. That means fire those aggressive people, until there is no more religious persecution and historically we know it.
They used to punish people even who remained back in Mecca if they discovered that they accepted Islam and harass them.
So you have to in a deal in the lead does not mean Islam is imposed on everyone else. But it means that people have the freedom religion belongs to God, not to the rules and dictates of rulers and people can choose a religion, whether it's Islam or other ways.
But there is even another aspect to keep the consistency of the methodology we mentioned earlier. What is the context of the Quran? The context is freedom to choose a religion, no compulsion in religion, how come the Quran says no compulsion and then say is fight then until there's only Islam? What What sense does that mean?
Moving on.
Continuing with this seven,
seventh issue.
Sometimes we get too slow. And then when I press
OK, the remainders of the diverse legacy Hata lacunae fitna that there is no more
pressure or persecution.
So actually, the section really deals with unprovoked aggression, which I promise to come back to, you know, that verse in the book that's a very important one, chapter two verse 191.
Well 32 he sebelah he Latina yakata Luna wala Tata in Nevada bonati. fight in the way of God.
Some people could only hear and stop. la sala fight in the way of God, if you continue those who fight again and believe me I have seen literature sent to me and questions. How come your currencies fight in the way of God the Quran teaches aggression and fight. I said, Brother, complete the verse. fight in the way of God, those who fight against you, but commit no aggression or transgression. Allah doesn't love those who transgress it, but they say but the Quran say that you fight even the People of the Book until they pay the pantex jizya. While they are subdued, and some even people say humiliated.
You get a number of errors here.
First, what is the historical context? Does it say that Muslims are obligated to fight it all. People have the book in the world
until they come under the rule of Islam, and they pay the poll tax and be humiliated or subdued. The historical context is well known and
That's totally ignored by people who write about these issues. The historical context is that Islam was in great danger. And the Muslim community, the putting the national community was in great danger, both from within the hypocrites, as well as elements that were hostile to Muslims, even in the Arabian Peninsula. Some of the tribes in Medina that betrayed Muslim and cooperated with the enemies at the time of war, which we call today high treason, and harass Muslim and undermine their religion, by all means they can
the tribes in the northern parts of Arabia because of their proximity to Byzantine Empire, some of them were accepted Christianity, especially the Knights are assassin. And these people showed a great deal of aggressiveness and antagonism towards Muslims, to the point that he committed an act that is regarded today as an act of war. They killed the messengers sent by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him to peacefully invite them to Islam. So when the area and the suta is dealing, again, it's surah, nine, in that context of enmity, the Byzantines who gathered a huge army in tabuk, which is now in the northern part of Saudi Arabia, to wait white
with, or to remove Islam totally from existence. This is the circumstances where the necessity to defend that community from those great danger would be to fight to subdue them to stop the possibility of attack against the Muslim community. But then, there is a big misconception about the question of jizya. Some people think that jizya is punishment for a person who does not accept this, then the peltex, or at best a bribe, that when you become a Muslim, you will not pay the jizya. They're mistaken on both grounds. In fact, if a Muslim, non Muslim, under the route of Islam accepts them, he will have greater financial obligations, because he would be required to pay soccer, he
would be required to play soccer to fit according to the Hadith of the Prophet Sal, and he would be required to pay additional soccer even if needed, or taxes and voluntary soccer, so that he's not escaping, you'd be paying more even. And then some people miss translate the Quran also, and yet when they think and yet it means humiliated, on the contrary, as Imam chef explained, and yet it means ability, in the Arabic language yet, like this a little earlier for your managers, yet actually a symbol of ability. That means, as Muslim scholars interpreted that you cannot impose jizya on a woman, a child, an old man, a person whose food it must be able to pay that full tax. But
what is the purpose of politics then, in Islamic law, all citizens, Muslims, or non Muslims alike are entitled to state services to Social Security. And they're not obligated to serve in the Muslim army, obligated? Because it might contradict their feelings, because there is a religious connotation. So there's defense benefits also involved in that.
Some people might say, why isn't the secular system better?
Why did didn't Muslims in the past, say to non Muslim you face equally with your Muslim brothers and sisters, but they missed one point, people think of the care only as pets in the secular sense. Whereas for the Muslim, and for those who know about Islam, living with Muslim among non Muslims, that the record is not just the attacks, it has a religious connotation. And you must have heard about the Pillars of Islam, one of which is charity. Actually, it is more respect of the religious sensitivities to say don't play soccer, which is religious pay the equivalent pages. And by the way, some scholars like Dr. Abdul Karim zaten, an excellent book about the rights of non Muslims and the
Islamic State, they made it clear that this is a this is not a religious duty on Muslim to have jizya. If in the judgment of an Islamic government that you want to apply another system, it is not really a must. And then finally, the biggest misunderstanding why home saw rune.
They don't understand that the words of Iran actually in Arabic could yes mean humiliated but has another important meaning referred to by mmcf as one of the great scholars of Islam. So Iran here means accepting the authority of the Islamic State. But let me ask you that question. When you make your tax return before April 1, and when you pay tax to the Canadian government, you have the same Sahar.
You're admitting the authority of Canadian government to impose tax on you, don't you? The same thing sounds rude that means accepting the legitimacy of the Islamic government under his protection.
They are living.
Okay, very quickly couple of more
flights constantly against your neighbors.
For TB Latina do Nakamura and let them find firmness in you. I don't want to repeat much historical context appear in the same Surah Surah. Number nine, about those who represented threats to the Muslim community. And there is another historical evidence, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, even when he moved to Medina migrated to matey and as a powerful following, who were willing to sacrifice whenever he marched towards any neighboring tribes to make sure that they will not conspire with his arch enemies, the Mexican
and whenever they offer to live in peace with Muslims, and not to help in any fight or attack against Medina, he accepted that from them, and he led them this is known in hits them access to more data.
And more data, right, we live in peace, find no claim on you.
All right. And then I'd like to add one final comment, if any of these petitions in the forum
were to be interpreted as Muslims being obligated to fight against all those who do not accept Islam.
That means that 20%
of the world's Muslim population must be in constant fighting and bloodshed, with the whole the rest of the world, which is certainly not the message of Islam. That's why Sheikh Mohammed has already said it's an interesting, it's an idiocy to interpret that Muslim have to be in constant fighting of others. And by the way, let me add one comment before moving to one of the last two, that some people say but doesn't the Quran say that Allah sent His messenger, Bill hood, our Deen and half paleos Hara who Allah de nicoli? Well, okay. But Allah is the one who sent His messenger Muhammad peace be upon him with the guidance and the religion of trust so that it may prevail over old ways
of life or religion. And this isn't that
a green light for Muslims to be dominant, probably read that in the papers. The answer here is that they don't understand what mean your hair?
What does it mean your hair? Oh, I think that was coming actually. Is it your head? Oh, in a sense of political, that Muslim have the sole political power and the word hegemony?
You have here zero in terms of military power and subjugation? Or is there another more profound meaning of prevailing that is consistent with the totality of the message of the Quran, that means the truth of Islam would be manifest and known. You have to reveal the truth of Islam that was given to the Prophet.
One final one, because I jumped one actually, that was coming in everything just gets a bit spontaneous. But this is basically the last one. You must have heard that? How many times you heard that the Quran teaches hostility, especially towards Jews and Christians, regardless of aggression?
Because the Quran says they say, don't take Jews and Christians furfuryl just by show of hands, how many of you heard that sometimes? By show of hands? Don't be shy? That's quite common, is it?
Okay, let's see what problems are there in that
the original Arabic term in the Quran and again, the Quran is not in English, was not revealed in English. It did not say for those who know Arabic letters.
But
and then the Arabic language there is a difference between us the means friends, and Alia, which means protectors, people that you have to alliance with them to protect you. Does that offend a Jew or Christian when you simply say that Muslims should look for their own security and protection to each other as people who share the same faith shouldn't be offensive to anyone, people of various religions also, or other ideologies even seek mutual protection. But that doesn't mean be hostile, and don't have friendship. But then there is more than that.
If you look at the sections, again, following the same are the types of mistakes. If you look at the very same section, you find that it is with the hypocrites,
who when Islam was still trying to stand on its own feet, in the midst of danger.
They go and make alliance with the pagan Arabs in Mecca, but they remain part of the Muslim community. And as the Quran says, you have to do an auction to see if another era they say all right, if Muslims when we say oh, we have part of your community, and if the unbelievers win and the word they say, you know we were your friends with supplying you with all kinds of encouragement. So the Quran contains that kind of hypocrisy and it is in that context that says don't take
Jews and Christians, as Leah, or others for that matter. If you look further in the same surah you find that it speaks also about people who ridiculed. Muslims.
Say don't take them out there because they ridicule you. And when you stand for prayers, the muck at you, when you stand that the tequila Deena, Deena kombucha, when whenever, don't take those who took your religion for mockery as earlier. So talk about state of hostility as well. But then there is something even very interesting. If you go to the context of the Quran, the broader context of the Quran, how come
it can be interpreted as you don't take them as friends, whereas this crucial citation in the Quran, remember surah number 60, verses eight and nine, you know what it says, Allah does not forbid you, or restrain you, or Muslim with respect to those who did not fight you because of your religion to undermine your Islam, or drive you out of your home oppressing you that you should deal with them in kindness and justice, for God loves those who do good.
What does it say basically, in a few words, if any non Muslims living with you, and by the way, it doesn't apply only to Jews and Christians, or if any non Muslim is living with you, as a neighbor, not fighting you because of your Islam that mean peaceful with you, not oppressing you. He's entitled he and she is entitled to that kind of, but there is something more surprising that translations of the Quran could not convey
the original word about the relationship with this peaceful neighbors and friends and colleagues is the Arabic term supper room comes from spells like bi AR, and you know what is the term better?
How is defined in Arabic?
Allah de Rosa has the highest degree of good character in dealing with people.
When the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam used that term, you know, he used it in the relationship between the person and who gets parents exactly mother and father. What is the relationship between the person and his parents? It is more than translation of justice more than kindness, there is respect There is even an element of love, especially the love of good for humanity. How could this be reconciled, if we neglect that totality of the context of the Quran, but then there is something very interesting. The verse that I cited earlier from Surah 29, about the etiquette of dialogue with the people of the book. It's a bit late, he asked him courteous way, how
would you be courteous if you're hateful to the person and is not your friend, but something even more illogical in this cut and paste job?
In Islam? If you take the idea that Islam says, chop the head of someone who's not a Muslim, the same Islam teaches also that Muslim men there are certain forms of interfaith marriage. So a Muslim man, for example, will be allowed to marry a Christian wife. How should he treat his wife Surah 30. a a 21 in the Quran describes marital relationship between husband and wife, as one that is based on peace, love, and compassion,
peace, love and compassion. So if we take that cut and paste meaning of the verse, shot the heads of non Muslims, the Muslim then would go to his wife who is not a Muslim, and says, honey, my book teaches me to live in peace with you. I love you, I have to be kind to you. But the other verse says I have to chop off your head.
Okay, I discussed this issue of meaning Kyocera, who had a dinner currently. So let me come to some very quick conclusion.
You might say that the whole presentation was based largely on quotation that come, like I say, from the two sewers
that deal with the hostilities against Muslims not generalization.
But what is more important here, that there is a basic principle rule, it's not only a rule of Islamic exegesis. It is a sensible rule for anyone. You've opened the Bible and study it, for example, or any scripture for that matter. You find the what are the predominant themes? Where do you get dozens and dozens and dozens of verses? But then when you get to something that does not seem to go with that, Now which one should be understood in the light of which
Do we understand the entirety of the Quran and its message in the light of these few quotations, I know admitted that I spent so much time on this few quotations
and say that the Quran is aggressive teaches violence teaches lack of consideration for the rights of others. What is the broad picture? The broad picture? Where do you find hundreds if not, dozens of verses in the Quran are very clear
that the message of the Quran is a message of peace and I did make that in the introductory point.
Secondly, the the basic assumption in the Quran when it deals with relationship between Muslims and others is the acceptance of plurality in society.
And the Quran Chapter 1011 and four I believe also certain said you find numerous references that are made there that says something like this If God wanted you would have made all people believers. In another it says well i'm sure Arabic Allah Allah nessa
if Allah who wanted who would have made all people one nation,
no, no dispute everybody's the same. Everybody believe in the same thing. But then some is where there can be a blue or come FEMA attack, established called Hydra, but Allah assisting you in what he has given you. So race with one another in goodness, theological correctness or a correctness, it's not your job, communicate, care, discuss courteously as the foreign say, live in peace, but leave the theater to be settled. You carry arms only to respond to hostilities and destructive attitude.
Then there is that special place of Jews and Christians that was referred to earlier. And finally, the emphasis after all, is profound. And perfused in the Quran, about human brotherhood. And again, I end with the same verse we started with all mankind. We created you from a single pair of a male and female made you into nations and tribes to make that you may get to know and recognize one another. The best of you the most honored the view in the sight of God is one who is most righteous, let us all compete in this righteousness. Let us communicate with love with compassion with understanding with all other religious communities and invited on to also coexist in peace and
mutual respect with Muslims as salam aleikum wa rahmatullah.