I already replied Samlee with all the Proofs, but I see this message on the top of my post:
"This message is awaiting moderator approval, and is invisible to normal visitors."
Regarding abrogation of this verse (i.e. no compulsion in religion 2:256) with the verse of Sword (i.e. to kill Mushrikeen where ever you find them 9:05) , please see Tafsir al-Kathir:
بل هي منسوخة بآية القتال، وإنه يجب أن يدعى جميع الأمم إلى الدخول في الدين الحنيف، دين الإسلام، فإن أبى أحد منهم الدخول فيه، ولم ينقد له، أو يبذل الجزية، قوتل حتى يقتل، وهذامعنى الإكراه، قال الله تعالى { سَتُدْعَوْنَ إِلَىٰ قَوْمٍ أُوْلِى بَأْسٍ شَدِيدٍ تُقَـٰتِلُونَهُمْ أَوْ يُسْلِمُونَ } [الفتح: 16] وقال تعالى: { يَٰأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ جَـٰهِدِ ٱلْكُفَّـٰرَ وَٱلْمُنَـٰفِقِينَ وَٱغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ } [التوبة: 73] وقال تعالى: { يَٰأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ قَاتِلُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ يَلُونَكُمْ مِّنَ ٱلْكُفَّارِ وَلِيَجِدُواْ فِيكُمْ غِلْظَةً وَٱعْلَمُوۤاْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ مَعَ ٱلْمُتَّقِينَ }[التوبة: 123] وفي الصحيح: " عجب ربك من قوم يقادون إلى الجنة في السلاسل " يعني: الأسارى الذين يقدم بهم بلاد الإسلام في الوثائق والأغلال والقيود والأكبال، ثم بعد ذلك يسلمون، وتصلح أعمالهم وسرائرهم، فيكونون من أهل الجنة.
link
Also see Islam q&a where once again they are telling this verse has been abrogated and presenting quranic verses and Ahadith as proof:
https://islamqa.info/en/34770
You Have Not Presented Any New Argument,You Have Just Rehashed Old Arguments
Samlee Bhai Has Already Listed Multiple Scholars But You Choose To Ignore Everyone And Focus On One Paragraph(And That Too Incomplete) of Tafsir ibn-Kathir.I Will List More
Ammaar Yasir Qadhi writes:
Specification involves one verse limiting or restricting a general ruling found in another verse, whereas naskh involves abrogating the first verse in toto (i.e., it is not applied in any circumstances or conditions). (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 233)
Shaykh Qadhi also explains that one of the conditions for naskh is that the two conflicting rulings apply to the same situation under the same circumstances, and hence there is no alternative understanding of the application of the verses. As he states:
Therefore, if one of the rulings can apply to a specific case, and the other ruling to a different case, this cannot be considered an example of naskh. (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 237)
Therefore, verse 9:5 can in no way be considered an example of naskh since it is only a ruling applied to a very specific situation and circumstances. There is a lot of confusion surrounding some verses labeled as cases of naskh because the early Muslims used to use the word naskh to refer to takhsees as well. Therefore, some Muslims failed to realize that some of these cases labeled by early Muslims as ‘naskh’ were cases of takhsees. This is why some early Muslim scholars are quoted who have classified this verse as a case of ‘naskh’. One should realize that they used the term naskh to refer to a broader range of meanings, including takhsees. As Dr. Jamal Badawi writes:
Any claim of naskh must be definitive, not based on mere opinion or speculation. It should be noted that earlier Muslims used the term naskh to refer also to takhsees or specifying and limiting the ruling than abrogating it. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi specifically addresses the confusion about verse 9:5, and after citing the different claims he concludes:
It can be seen from the examples and categories quoted that, in reality, most of these verses cannot be considered to have been abrogated in the least. Some of them merely apply to situations other than those that they were revealed for. Almost all of these ‘mansookh’ (abrogated) verses can still be said to apply when the Muslims are in a situation similar to the situation in which the verses were revealed. Thus, the ‘Verse of the Sword’ in reality does not abrogate a large number of verses; in fact, az-Zarqaanee concludes that it does not abrogate any!
(fn. Az-Zarqaanee, v.2, pps.275-282) (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 254)
Shaykh Sami Al-Majid also states the same thing in his article:
Some people – especially some contemporary non-Muslim critics of Islam – have tried to claim that this verse abrogates the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” They argue that the generality of this statement implies that every unbeliever who refuses to accept Islam must be fought. They support their allegation by pointing out that this verse is one of the last verses to be revealed about fighting. However, this verse in no way abrogates the principle in Islamic Law that there is no compulsion in religion. It may be general in wording, but its meaning is quite specific on account of other verses of the Qur’ân that are connected with it as well as on account of a number of pertinent hadîth. (SOURCE)
Shaykh Jamal Al-Din Zarabozo also deals with this issue in his writings on the verse “There is no compulsion in religion”. He mentions the view that this verse has been abrogated as then states:
Al-Dausiri rejects this statement because of the following: A verse cannot abrogate another verse unless it completely removes the ruling of the earlier verse and there is no way to reconcile the contradictory meanings of the verses. (Zarabozo, There is No Compulsion in Religion, Al-Basheer)
This was the view of the great scholars and mufasireen (Qur’anic commentators) both classical and recent, like Ash-Shanqeeti or Ibn Jarir At-Tabari. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa also comments on this issue in his discussion on the puunishment for apostasy:
At the same time, one can say that the death penalty for apostasy – especially when it is considered as a hadd (prescribed) punishment – contradicts the Qur’anic principle [law] in Surah II, verse 256, which proclaims “No compulsion in religion.” Ibn Hazm, to avoid this criticism, claimed that this verse had been abrogated and that compulsion is allowed in religion; consequently, according to him, the punishment for apostasy does not contradict the Qur’an (fn. Muhalla, vol. XI, p. 195). However, this claim is invalid, since Qur’anic scholars have established the abrogated verses and this verse is not among them (fn. Suyuti, Itqan, vol. II, p. 22-24). Accordingly, one can say with the Encyclopaedia of Islam that “In the Qur’an the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only.”
(fn. Heffening, Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. III, p. 736 under “Murtadd”). (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51, emphasis added)
Therefore, when we discuss the merciful and loving verses of the Qur’an and we receive a claim that they have been abrogated by the specific verses concerning battle, we can dismiss such a claim as mere speculation and invalid. Peace and justice are fundamentals of the religion of Islam and can never be removed from it.
M.A.S. Abdul Haleem, Professor of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, writes:
The main clause of the sentence – “kill the polytheists” – is singled out by some non-Muslims as representing the Islamic attitude to war; even some Muslims takes this view and allege that this verse abrogated many other verses including, “There is no compulsion in religion,” (2:256) and even according to one solitary extremist, “God is forgiving and merciful.”
This far-fetched interpretation isolates and decontextualizes a small part of a sentence and of a passage which gives many reasons for the order to fight such polytheists: they continually broke their agreements and aided others against the Muslims, they started hostilities against the Muslims, barred others from becoming Muslims, expelled them from the Holy Mosque and even from their own homes. At least eight times the passage mentions the misdeeds of these people against the Muslims.
Moreover, consistent with the restriction of war elsewhere in the Quran, the immediate context of this “sword verse” exempts such polytheists who do not break their agreements and who keep peace with Muslims. It orders that those enemies seeking safe conduct should be protected and delivered to the place of safety they seek.
The whole of this context to verse 9:5, with all its restrictions, is ignored by those who simply isolate one part of a sentence to build on it their theory of violence in Islam.
(Source:
The Qur’an – English translation and parallel Arabic text. p. xxiii)
Ustadh Faraz A. Khan commenting on Quran 9:5 says,
Context of the Verse of the Sword [9:5]
…….the Verse of the Sword deals specifically with the situation of Meccan polytheists breaking peace treaties and openly declaring war on the Muslim polity. The verse, then, commands the Muslim state to take up arms and defend itself against those that breached their covenants and attacked out of treachery.
This explanation is confirmed by the most reliable Imams of Qur’anic exegesis [tafsir], including Imam Razi, Imam Jamal, Imam Zamakhshari, Imam Baydawi, Imam Nasafi, Imam Biqa`i, and others.
[Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb; Jamal, Hashiyat al-Jalalayn; Zamakhshari, Kashshaf; Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil; Nasafi, Madarik al-Tanzil; Biqa`i, Nadhm al-Durar]
The verse, therefore, can by no means be generalized to refer to all disbelievers. Such an interpretation is not confirmed by scholars of Qur’anic interpretation. It would be both contrary to the intent of the verses as well as disastrous for the security of both Muslim and non-Muslim citizens and nation-states
Islamic Scholar Muhammad Asad commentary
“5 Lit., ‘Until their term’.
6 According to a pre-Islamic custom prevalent in Arabia, the months of Muharram, Rajab, Dh’l-Qa’dah and Dhu’l-Hijjah were considered ‘sacred’ in the sense that all tribal warfare had to cease during those months. It was with a view to preserving these periods of truce and thus to promoting peace among the frequently warring tribes that the Qur’an did not revoke, but rather confirmed, this ancient custom. See also 2:194 and 217
7
Read in conjunction with the preceding verses, as well as with 2:190-194, the above verse relates to warfare already in progress with people who have become guilty obligations and of aggression.
8 I.e., ‘do everything that may be necessary and advisable in warfare’. The term marsad denotes ‘any place from which it is possible to perceive the enemy and to observe his movements (Manar x, 199). 9 As I have pointed out on more than one occasion,
every verse of the Qur’an must be read and interpreted against the background of the Qur’an as a whole. The above verse, which speaks of a possible conversion to Islam on the part of ‘those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God’ with whom the believers are at war, must, therefore, be considered in conjunction with several fundamental Qur’anic ordinances. One of them,
‘There shall be no coercion in matters of faith’
(2:256), lays down categorically that any attempt at a forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited-which precludes the possibility of the Muslims demanding or expecting that a defeated enemy should embrace Islam as the price of immunity. Secondly,
Qur’an ordains ‘Fight in God’s cause against those who wage war against you; but do not commit aggression, for, verily, God does not love aggressors’ (2:190); and, ‘if they do not let you be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them: and it is against these that we have clearly empowered you [to make war]’ (4:91).
Thus, war is permissible only in self-defence (see surah 2, notes 167 and 168, with the further proviso that ’if they desist- behold, God, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace’ (2:192), and ‘if they desist, then all hostility shall cease’ (2:193). Now the enemy’s conversion to Islam- expressed in the words, ‘if they repent, and take to prayer [lit., ‘establish prayer’] and render the purifying dues [zakah]’- is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their ‘desisting from hostility’; and the reference to it in verses 5 and 11 of this surah certainly does not imply an alternative of ‘conversion or death’, as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume. Verse 4 and 6 give a further elucidation of the attitude which the believers are enjoined to adopt towards such of the unbelievers are not hostile to them. (In this connection, see also 60:8-9).”
[2]
In the Book ‘Understanding the Qur’an Themes and Style’,
Dr. Muhammad Abdel Haleem writes:
“We must also comment on another verse much referred to but notoriously misinterpreted and taken out of context – that which became labelled as the ‘Sword verse’ : “…Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, take them and besiege them and prepare for them every ambush….” [ 9:5 ]
The hostility and “bitter enmity” of the polytheists and their fitna [ persecution, 2:193 ; 8:39 ] of the Muslims grew so great that the unbelievers were determined to convert the Muslims back to paganism or finish them off. “…They would persist in fighting you until they turn you back from your religion, if they could….” [ 2:217 ]
It was these hardened polytheists in Arabia, who would accept nothing other than the expulsion of the Muslims or their reversion to paganism, and who repeatedly broke their treaties, that the Muslims were ordered to treat in the same way – to fight them or expel them….Even with such an enemy Muslims were not simply ordered to pounce on them and reciprocate by breaking the treaty themselves; instead, an ultimatum was issued, giving the enemy notice, that after the four sacred months mentioned in 9:5 above, the Muslims would wage war on them. The main clause of the sentence “kill the polytheists” is singled out by some Western scholars to represent the Islamic attitude to war; even some Muslims take this view and allege that this verse abrogated other verses on war.
This is pure fantasy, isolating and decontextualizing a small part of a sentence. The full picture is given in 9:1-15, which gives many reasons for the order to fight the polytheists.
They continuously broke their agreements and aided others against the Muslims, they started hostilities against the Muslims, barred others from becoming Muslims, “expelled” Muslims from the Holy Mosque and even from their own homes. At least eight times the passage mentions their misdeeds against the Muslims. Consistent with restrictions on war elsewhere in the Qur’an, the immediate context of this “Sword Verse” exempts such polytheists who do not break their agreements and who keep the peace with the Muslims [9:7], it orders that those enemies seeking safe conduct should be protected and delivered to the place of safety they seek [9:6]. The whole of this context to v. 5, with all its restrictions, is ignored by those who simply isolate one part of a sentence to build their theory of war in Islam on what is termed “The Sword Verse” even when the word sword does not occur anywhere in the Qur’an.” [3]
Professor Jamal A. Badawi
Common Questions and Objections
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: 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 or Ahl Al-Kitab 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, as well as 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 (peace and blessings be upon him), 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 (peace and blessings be upon him), 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(peace and blessings be upon him) 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 agreements, such as the breaking of the Treaty of Hudaybiah by the Makkans. The issue here is not religion, but rather injustice, oppression, and aggression.
• There are many verses in the Qur’an stating that those who coexist peacefully with Muslims are entitled to justice, compassion, and respect, irrespective of their religion (60:8-9) as long as they are peaceful with Muslims.
•
If it were true that the Qur’an instructs that any non-Muslim should be killed because of his or her religion, then what would explain the fact that religious minorities through 1,400 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.
• 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 (30:21), not murder because of theological differences.
[4]
Commentary on the Holy Quran By
Zohurul Hoque and Husein Nuri
9:5 Regarding the significance of sacred months see notes to v. 2. Many malicious critics of Islam fully exploited the outward message of the verse to project a seriously distorted picture of Islam and concluded its militant stance is the cause behind many of the hostilities in the world. Their basic analogy is how this religion, bearing a name of peace, could teach killing innocent people. The critics try to portray every Muslim is required to slay every non-Muslim wherever they may find them, at peace time or otherwise. In this context, it is important to note that nowhere in the Qur’ān, free permission was given to kill anyone anywhere. Therefore, the message of the verse must be objectively analyzed and interpreted in context of the revelation and its application must be done in circumstances similar to that necessitated the revelation.
Regardless of the name or intent of the religion, the Qur’ān, being a complete guide for every problem at personal, communal and state level, must address what should be done if fundamental rights of a community or a nation are violated due to armed aggression and appropriate collective redress cannot be established due to lack of a system to assure peace or disinterest and/or inability of a system to solve the crisis. With or without the Qur’ānic instruction, a Muslim community or a nation is expected to react exactly the same way a non-Muslim community or a nation would react if they are attacked or war is waged against them. Only difference is a non-Muslim community or a nation would defend itself against hostile aggression or war out of their instinctive or constitutional right to protect them, without having to recourse to their scriptures. Since no other scripture claims to contain ‘complete guidance’ for mankind, it is no surprise to see they do not address complex socio-political issues of war and peace. Before giving the permission to capture, wait in ambush or slay the unbelievers,
the Qur’ān made it clear to comply with peace treaty with those who are willing to uphold it (previous verse). It must be remembered that initiative for all peace treaty was made from the Muslim side, as war was not seen as an objective of Islam. It must also be remembered that in the pre-Islamic era and during the development of Islamic era, annulment of peace treaty between two hostile tribes was nothing but declaration of open war.
The Muslims were therefore, specifically instructed to fight against those tribes that annulled peace treaty. In this regard, specific notation of 2:190-193 may be made that say: and fight in the way of Allāh against those who fight with you and do not transgress. Thus, war is permissible only in self-defense, and not as an act of active aggression. While in a war Islam permits everything necessary and advisable in warfare, yet it prohibits undue aggression in war (2:190, 193; 8:39,61-62).
The malicious critics of Islam often quote the second half of the verse to imply that non-Muslims were converted into Islam with great degree of coercion. This message must be reviewed in conjunction with several other fundamental ordinances of the
Qur’ān that say: there is no compulsion in religion, the Right Path has indeed been made distinct from the wrong (2:256; also see 6:105; 10:99; 18:29; 27:92; 42:15; 73:19; 76:29). Keeping this in mind, the only way the captives in war could be prevented from reverting to hostility upon their release was to make them embrace Islam. Such conversion in Islam was purely as a war strategy and should not be viewed as general approach during peacetime or as intolerance of their faith. In every age, the hostile pastors of many Churches quoted this ruling of the verse in a much generalized sense to incite hatred towards Islam. Nowhere the verse says the captives were to be converted. Three things about the captives are stated: (a) if they repent, (b) if they keep up salāt, and (c) if they pay zakat, they should be left alone on their path. The condition of professing faith in Islam is clearly absent. Mention of salāt and zakat may have misled the critics into believing the captives were converted into Islam and then left alone.
Even before the advent of Islam, the Arabs were accustomed to performing salāt and paying zakat, just as Ibrāhīm, Ismā‘īl, Mūsā, Jesus and their disciples were mandated to perform salāt and pay zakat (19:31,55; 21:73). By sincerely expressing repentance for waging war and then by showing adherence to their form of salāt and zakat, the captives would have rightly demonstrated change in their evil intentions. [5]
The Holy Quran Arabic Text with English Translation, Commentary and comprehensive Introduction, Maulana Muhammad Ali
4a.
Only two tribes, the Bani Damarah, and the Bani Kananah, are related to have adhered to their treaties. The exception given here
makes it clear that the Muslims were not fighting with the idolaters on account of their religion, but on account of their having been untrue to their engagements.
5a. The clear exception of the last verse shows that by the idolaters here are meant,
not all idolaters or polytheistswherever they may be found in the world, not even all idolaters of Arabia, but
only those idolaters tribes of Arabia assembled at the pilgrimage who had first made agreements with the Muslims and then violated them.
5b. The exception here has given rise to much misconception. It is thought that it offers to the disbelievers the alternative of the sword or the Qur’an. Nothing is farther from the truth.
The injunction contained in the first part of the verse establishes the fact that the whole verse relates to certain idolatrous Arab tribes who had broken their engagements with the Muslims, and who had now been apprised of a similar repudiation by the Muslims. The order to kill them and to make them prisoners and to besiege them and ambush them amounts clearly to an order to fight against them, as it is in war only that all these things are made lawful.
They had so often broken their word that they could no more be trusted. Yet, if they joined the brotherhood of Islam, and there was an absolute change in their condition, the punishment which they otherwise deserved could be remitted.
It was a case of forgiving a guilty people who had repented. It should also be noted that a mere confession of the faith is not required; what is required is an absolute change, so that the old crimes are all abandoned. Therefore, along with the confession of the faith, it Is required that they should keep up the prayer and pay the poor-rate. The subject is further clarified in the next verse and the following section.
6a.
This verse leaves no doubt that the Prophet was never ordered to kill anyone one account of his religion. “You shall give a safe-conduct that he may return home again securely in case he shall not think fit to embrace Islam” (Sale).
7a. So long as the idolaters were true to their agreements,
the Muslims were required to be true to them. Just as in the case of war,
the Muslims were not allowed to fight until the enemy had first attacked, so, in the case of repudiation of agreements,
it was the enemy who first repudiated the agreement.
10a. Note the repeated assertions of the Qur’an that the disbelievers were not to be fought against for their disbelief but for their being first in starting war or repudiation agreements. No remedy was left for the covert mischief if these people, except that the agreements should be overtly repudiated and a period put to all their mischief.
[6]
The Holy Qur’an Arabic Text with English Translation and short Commentary, Malik Ghulam Farid
1155A. ‘The forbidden months’ are the four months of Dhu’l-Qa’dah, Dhu’l-Hijjah, Muharram and Rajab, the first three being the months of the Greater Pilgrimage, while in the last the Arabs generally performed the lesser pilgrimage or ‘Ummah (2:195 & 2:218). The term Ashur Al-Hurum does not signify ‘sacred months’ but ‘forbidden months’ and refers to the four months mentioned in 9:2 above. In these months the above-mentioned idolaters were granted protection to travel through the land and see for themselves whether Islam had not triumphed and whether the word of God had not been fulfilled. At the end of this period, during which all hostilities were to remain suspended,
war was resumed against such avowed enemies of Islam as had themselves started hostilities and had repeatedly broken their plighted word. The reason for this ultimatum is given in vv. 9:8-13. As for those idolaters who had not been guilty of faithlessness and treachery, they were to be protected (9:4, 7).
1156. Those idolaters who had fought with the Muslims and not yet asked for a fresh treaty with them.
1157. Even those enemies of Islam at whose hands Muslims had suffered very grievous losses were to be forgiven if they repented and accepted Islam of their own free will. In fact, there was a large number of men among the idolaters who, in their heart of hearts, had been convinced of Islam, but who, either pride or fear of persecution or other considerations, had refrained from open confession of faith. This verse assured such people that if anyone of them declared his faith in Islam even during the war, his confession would not be taken as hypocritical or as having been to save his skin.
1158.
The verse clearly establishes the fact that war with idolaters was not undertaken in order to force them to embrace Islam, because, according to it, even when a state of war existed, idolaters were to be permitted to come to the Muslims’ camp or headquarters if they desired to investigate the truth. Then, after the truth had been preached to them and they had been acquainted with the teachings of Islam, they were to be safely conducted to their place of security, if they did not feel inclined to embrace to the new faith. In the face of such clear teachings, it is the height of injustice to accuse Islam of intolerance or o using or conniving at force; for its propagation.
1159.
The verse shows that war was permissible only against such non-Muslims as had repeatedly violated most solemn covenants and had attacked Muslims treacherously. As for the rest, Muslims had been bidden to observe their engagements with them strictly and faithfully. Like 9:4, this verse describes the observance of covenants and treaties as an act of piety and righteousness which is pleasing to God. The Qur’an repeatedly and most emphatically exhorts Muslims to be faithful to their treaties.
[7]
