Verse 9:29

[AbbsRay]

Salaam Brother Joseph,

Do you have anything about the meaning of Verse 9:29? I have somewhat come to a conclusion, as I know there are verses that came down to the Rasool as things were occurring.
I think I saw something that included verse 9:29 when I did a search. My understanding is there were those who were not following Islam that broke a Treaty with the Rasool when they were promised they would be able to come to the Majaid to worship. When they left with the broken treaty, Allah let them wait for the sacred months and that is when Allah let them go back and just clean them out and when He sent unseen forces to help them. Was this the Trench Fight? Than the ones who were allowed to live there/stay there had to pay a certain tax whether they liked it or not? I know it starts from 9:23 to 9:29.. Can you clarify?

Shukrun

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Abbsrayray

As-salam alaykum

The linkage and theme of this surah in the main goes back to verse 9:1 regarding treaty breakers.

Please see the following illustration which I trust captures the essence of the fighting verses including verse 9:29.

http://quransmessage.com/charts%20and%20illustrations/tauba/tauba-final-copyright.jpg

I also have a supporting article below.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/surah%20tauba%20FM3.htm

I hope that helps, God willing
Joseph

[AbbsRay]

Wa Salaamun Alaykum BJ,

Thank you..

Oh gosh it would be very very good if you did the entire ayat of Surat Tauba.....

Inshallah soon..

Salaam

[Zack]

Br. Joseph,

Yes.. this is very good!! However 2 questions:

- What is the basis for a 4 month period for repentance.
- From your knowledge, are there any verses in the Qur'an where this system was not followed in waging war? As the Muhammad is not perfect, I do not consider if this happened to not bring into doubt his overall character, as the Bible presents Prophets in bothe their good and bad.

It is good to know exceptions to this so to be able to respond with clarity.

Wasalam
Daniel

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Daniel,

As-salam alaykum

Please see my responses to your questions in blue italics.

"What is the basis for a 4 month period for repentance."

The period of four months coincided with the four sacred months (9:36; 2:197), in which fighting was prohibited for believers (2:217). The proclamation was made on the first day of Hajj (9:3) and hence no fighting was allowed until the 4 months had passed away (9:5). [1]

From another possible psychological aspect, it is interesting to note from the Quran that a period of reconsideration for matters of divorce / estrangement is also given as 4 months (2:226) as is a 'similar' period for 'iddat' after which a woman can remarry (2:234).

"From your knowledge, are there any verses in the Qur'an where this system was not followed in waging war? As the Muhammad is not perfect, I do not consider if this happened to not bring into doubt his overall character, as the Bible presents Prophets in bothe their good and bad."

I do not believe from a Quran’s perspective that such a system was contravened. The Quran is absolutely clear in what conditions fighting was prescribed and why. [2]

I hope that helps, God willing.
Joseph


REFERENCES:

[1] THE 'LOST' MONTHS OF HAJJ
http://quransmessage.com/articles/the%20lost%20months%20of%20hajj%20FM3.htm
[2] A MESSAGE OF PEACE OR TO LIVE BY THE SWORD
http://quransmessage.com/articles/a%20message%20of%20peace%20or%20to%20live%20by%20the%20sword%20FM3.htm

[Wakas]

Dear brother Joseph,
salaam.

Whilst I like the idea of a flow chart to present this information, I feel you have left unexplained a rather critical and controversial component, i.e. when it says:

pagans/idolaters who are treaty breakers and transgressors
----->
those that repent, they establish the salat and pay the poor due


Can you clarify that this group, after 4 months, must convert (I assume in order to uphold salat, in your view of salat as prayer) and pay zakat, and if they do not do this they can be fought.

Thanks.

[Joseph Islam]

Wa alaikum assalam brother Wakas,

For the benefit of forum readers:

BACKGROUND:

Your original question on my Facebook Page:

Dear brother Joseph Islam - salaam. Whilst I like the idea of a flow chart to present this information, I feel you have left unexplained a rather critical and controversial component, i.e. when it says: pagans/idolaters who are treaty breakers and transgressors
-----> those that repent, they establish the salat and pay the poor due

In your view, are these pagans/idolaters forced to convert (in order to establish the salat) or not?

There is no compulsion in the deen, the proper way has been made clear from the wrong way. Whoever rejects evil, and believes in God, then he has grasped the most solid branch that will never break. God is Hearer, Knower. [2:256]

My response:

Dear brother Wakas

Wa alaikum assalam

Firstly, it is important to distinguish that the pagans / idolaters referred to are the ones that broke treaties and transgressed. As the illustration shows, this did not apply to those pagans / idolaters that never broke treaties. Thus there are two categories.

(1) Treaty breakers and transgressors
(2) Non-Treaty breakers and fulfil obligations.

Secondly, no-one was being forced to accept Islam at 'swordpoint'. 4 months were given to category (1) for them to reconsider their position out of free will.

It is quite possible for a human being to change their perspectives and practices over a period of 4 months. After all, they were breaking treaties out of free will, showing aggression out of free will and also not giving the societal zakat which was incumbent on all citizens out of free will. [1]. Therefore, the only actions that would be acceptable proof of reformed behaviour would be ‘establishing salaat’ AND ‘paying zakat’ (9:5). Please note that simply establishing ‘salat’ would not be enough. They would also have to show reformation by paying ‘zakat’ which is a charge payable by all citizens of a society and is not a ‘religious’ matter.

041:6 (Part)-7
"...and woe to the polytheists (41:6) Who give not the 'Zakat' and who are disbelievers in the Hereafter (41:7)"

The above verse makes it absolutely clear that polytheists were not exempt from paying zakat. Therefore this obligation was not necessarily a 'religious' obligation but more a societal obligation and had always existed. This is much like our conventional tax system today which is payable by all citizens regardless of their beliefs. Even Prophet Muhammad would have been obligated to pay 'Zakat' before he received his Prophethood. [1]

Thirdly, this is not a normal situation. There is a prophet of God in their midst that is making matters clear and ‘completing proof’. Nations have been wiped out in the past when they have rejected the guidance of a messenger once the message is made clear and yet the people keep transgressing all bounds. [2]

028:059
“Nor was thy Lord the one to destroy a population until He had sent to its centre a messenger, rehearsing to them Our Signs; nor are We going to destroy a population except when its members practice iniquity (wrongdoers)”

Verses are plenty on this as you know.

Just to reiterate, please feel free to seek further clarifications or Q&As on the QM Forum where I would be happy to assist in due course.

I hope that helps, God willing
Joseph

REFERENCES

[1] WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF ZAKAT FROM THE QURAN?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/zakah%20FM3.htm
[2] ITMAM AL-HUJJAH - COMPLETION OF PROOF
http://quransmessage.com/articles/itmam%20FM3.htm

[Joseph Islam]

Dear brother Joseph,
salaam.

Whilst I like the idea of a flow chart to present this information, I feel you have left unexplained a rather critical and controversial component, i.e. when it says:

pagans/idolaters who are treaty breakers and transgressors
----->
those that repent, they establish the salat and pay the poor due

Can you clarify that this group, after 4 months, must convert (I assume in order to uphold salat, in your view of salat as prayer) and pay zakat, and if they do not do this they can be fought.

Thanks.

Dear brother Wakas,

Wa alaikum assalam

A specific group of transgressors, treaty breakers, taunters and aggressors were expected to satisfy two conditions if they were to show reformed behaviour after war had been declared against them. Even within this category, not all were to be fought, but only their leaders (9:12). ("faqatilu am-immata-l'kufri" - Fight the leaders of disbelief). This was a very specific group of transgressors.

Indication of reformed behavior was expected as thus:

• Uphold salaat - Religious obligation
• Uphold zakaat - Societal obligation

This is not a simple matter of 'conversion'.

It is important to note, other idolaters who still did not convert, verses 2:256, 109:1-6 and those in article [1] below, still applied allowing them full freedom of belief as they were non-aggressors and maintained their treaties. No-one was being forced to establish prayer. Treaty breakers, transgressors and aggressors were given a grace period to alter their treacherous ways and to accept righteous behaviour of their own volition. The exercise of 'volition' is clearly evident by the expression 'fa-in tabu' (i.e. If they repent). (9:5).  To this specific category, this included acceptance of correct religion which included establishing salaat as a Prophet of God in their midst had made the message clear to them.

Please remember that those that did not change their treacherous ways were not idolaters that were interested in righteous conduct or hearing the message of God. Those were covered by verse 9:6 and it is clear that they were to be afforded protection. These were ruthless transgressors who had no intention for correct beliefs or righteous behaviour and were bent on causing mayhem. It is also noteworthy that the concept of 'Kufr' from the Quran is a rejection of belief when the message has been made completely clear to one implying that they have no reason left to deny it. [2] These specific aggressors who did not repent out of their own volition had either no intention to understand the message, otherwise they would have been afforded protection (9:6), or they were 'kaffir' in the Quranic sense of rejecting the message when they had no reason left to.

Furthermore, such a declaration was for a particular period and a specific people when there was a prophet of God amidst them that made the message unequivocally clear to them with evidence. After his demise, no further prophet has ever existed, nor ever will (33:40).

I still often remain somewhat bewildered as to why these verses trouble people of today when it had a specific context and were relevant to a specific people without curtailing freedom of beliefs against those that showed no transgression or unrighteous conduct.

As I mentioned before, nations have been destroyed when God's appointed agents have been rejected. Whether God's punishment comes by way of disasters or by the hands of his faithful (8:17), they are exacted by God's will.

Please let me know if you need me to clarify further and I will respond in due course, God willing.

Regards,
Joseph


REFERENCES

[1] FORCED FAITH IS NO FAITH
http://quransmessage.com/articles/forced%20faith%20is%20no%20faith%20FM3.htm
[2] UNDERSTANDING 'KUFR' (DISBELIEF) FROM A QURANIC PERSPECTIVE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/understanding%20kufr%20FM3.htm

[Wakas]

Dear br. Joseph,
salaam.

Thanks for the reply.

Perhaps I should rephrase, I meant to clarify if a conversion took place for the option for those group (2) people, and you have kindly clarified yes.
Whether it is forced, indirectly or not, I'm not convinced yet, but I understand your explanation.

#####

To my knowledge, the alleged controversy of these verses is the quoting out of context 9:5. This is usually easily answered by simply referring to the prior verse and context, i.e. it is for treaty violation and is self-defence.
The lesser known controversy is the issue I sought clarification on, however your flow chart still needs clarifications.

Referring to the top left of your flow chart, groups 1, 2, 3.

Group 1. For example, the Arabic says "...if anyone from the polytheists seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the word of The God, then deliver him to his safety/security."

Q1: What do you understand the bold&underlined part to mean?
Q2: Is there any particular reason why you did not include it in your chart info?



Group 3: You say "those that continue to violate oaths" but the Arabic actually says "...And if they break their oaths after making them...".
Q3: How do you explain the "if"?



Thanks.

[Joseph Islam]

Wa alaikum assalam Wakas,

Group 1. For example, the Arabic says "...if anyone from the polytheists seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the word of The God, then deliver him to his safety/security."

Q1: What do you understand the bold&underlined part to mean?

Exactly what is literally stated. They are to be protected and escorted to their place of safety and not harmed.

Q2: Is there any particular reason why you did not include it in your chart info?

The chart clearly mentions 'protect them' which captures the essence of what I wanted to relay in accordance to the verse.

Group 3: You say "those that continue to violate oaths" but the Arabic actually says "...And if they break their oaths after making them...".
Q3: How do you explain the "if"?

The statement shared is not a translation of verse 9:12 (please see the illustration again). The sentiment captures the essence of the actions of transgressors which was continued hostilities and hence why they are under the tab 'Those that do not repent'. If they do not violate their oaths, then they would not be in that category and the declaration would not apply to them.

I hope that clarifies, God willing.
Joseph

[Wakas]

Dear Joseph,
salaam.
 
Thanks for the reply.
 
The reason I asked about the issue of the "if" is it needs clarification.
 
You said:
"If they do not violate their oaths, then they would not be in that category and the declaration would not apply to them."

Thus, it seems to me you are saying that 9:12 is simply a repetition and clarification of 9:5. I will explain below:


9:12
And IF they break their oaths from AFTER their treaty, AND they assail (cause damage) in your obligation/system; then you may fight the LEADERS of ungratefulness/rejection...


In the previous verses, e.g. 9:5 it said "...fight the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them, and surround them, and stand against them at every point..." but now it says "fight the leaders of kfr/rejection".
In your view, with regard to this, is 9:12 a clarification of 9:5, i.e. is it only 'leaders of kfr/rejection' that can be fought? Yes/No.

[Joseph Islam]

In the previous verses, e.g. 9:5 it said "...fight the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them, and surround them, and stand against them at every point..." but now it says "fight the leaders of kfr/rejection".
In your view, with regard to this, is 9:12 a clarification of 9:5, i.e. is it only 'leaders of kfr/rejection' that can be fought? Yes/No.

Dear brother Wakas,

As-salam alaykum

Yes, verse 9:12 is explicit in what it states. That is why it was quoted in the illustration.

However, the purpose of any battle fought against injustice is to overcome a tyrant leadership and by proxy, their supporters who fight to protect such leaders and propagate their oppression.

Therefore, it makes sense to strike at the heart of the problem that would have been those that renegade on their treaties that they signed and the leaders responsible for causing tumult and oppression. 

Furthermore, if you note the very first verse 9:1, a declaration of immunity is made with those whom an agreement was made. Such agreements are not usually made with individual members of society but rather between the leaders of a community who in turn by proxy remain responsible for the actions of their communities. 'Imams' in its classical definition are entities that are followed, modelled against and set patterns of behaviour.  The idea of such warfare was to end cruel leadership bent on causing fasaad (corruption).

Similarly, it would have arguably been the leadership (with the prophet at the helm) who would have signed treaties with others. Those believers that supported the prophet would be expected to fight after the declaration was made.  But the main target of the oppressors would have been the prophet as he was representative of his community. This is confirmed by the verse next verse, 9:13, which states:

009:013
"What! Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and were determined to drive out / to cause the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first? Do you fear them? But God is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers."

Similarly, when the Quran speaks about fighting the 'leaders' of disbelief, the inference is the target (i.e. leadership) and by proxy, those that support the leadership by causing tumult and oppression and fight for them.

I hope that clarifies, God willing
Joseph

[Hamzeh]

Asalamu alaykum

I was reading that surah a few days ago. As a layman reading it I still got some what of the point. But now I read this I can relate much more and have a better understanding.

Jazak Allah khair brother Joseph for the clear explaination. It helped very much.

Thank you

Salam

[Wakas]

salaam brother Joseph,

Thanks for the clarifications. I found your interpretation interesting.
 
As I said before, the common controversy about these verses (i.e. 9:5) is very easy to clear up in my opinion. A simple citing of context resolves the issue.
 
However, when the verses are analysed further, e.g. in an interpretation like yours, this clarity fades, in my view. For example, in your interpretation:
 
1) a claim is made that the verses are for that time only and this is apparently clear. I assume by this you also mean that if a similar set of circumstances were to arise in future, then what is discussed in these verses cannot be done etc.
 
2) a conversion takes place in one of the options and this is only mentioned indirectly. To my knowledge this is the only example of its kind in Quran.
 
3) 9:12 clarifies 9:5, yet you take it as leaders as well as those who support them can be fought. Albeit you said it yourself, 9:12 is explicit in what it states. I guess since you say it is only for those at the time, we wouldn't get a situation where a believer is unsure whether they can attack non-leaders or not, bearing in mind we are talking about fighting/killing here, i.e. the most serious of issues, thus to transgress a command of God with regard to this issue would have severe consequences.
 
 
Please note, I am not saying the interpretation is impossible. All I am saying is the clarity with which it is derived is not what readers, or at least I, would expect. It's been a long time since I studied chapter 9, perhaps I will re-visit it in future.

[Student]

Salaam Brother Wakas,

You raised some interesting questions and it appears you're not fully satisfied with the chart, relevant articles and forum explanation for the allegedly controversial ayah, and you seems to disagree as you said:

A simple citing of context resolves the issue.

I would like to know what is that context and your explanation of the context?

The thread is old and I hope you get notified and spare some time to address my inquisitiveness as I believe debates and discussion on this verse is not fading anytime soon not at least for the next 4 years