The incredibly bloody Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam

[wiseone2]

Beacuse my Grand Father on both maternal and paternal sides loved the religion they follow. And remembered there grand fathers also loved it.
If there was anything Forcefull about it for which any of my grandfathers had resisted. I would not have been a muslim.
BTW i am a rajpuit and i know my Ancestors right uptill the name when our line accepted Islam from Hinduism. Inspired by a Muslim Saint not by force. I know where you are going.
Love of the religion is the only thing that adheres the followers.
I saw my parents following this faith. They taught me. When i got indipendent and adult i started readung about it and practice it.

Forcefull conversion is a myth that only idiots can believe in.

You are a Muslim because you are born in a Muslim family. If you were born in a Jewish family you would be a Jew. Ditto with Christian and Hinduism

 

[Shah Khalid]

Brother, please note:

1) Islam q&a is official Saudi Mufti Al-Munjid's website.

Islam q&a Has Been Banned By Saudia And The Mufti You Mentioned Does Not Have Authorization to Give Fatwas.Most Mainstream Scholars Oppose IS and Al Qaeda.Opposing Them Does Not Increase His Credibility

3) Here is the Quranic Verse, which revealed in 9th Hijri and final orders were to kill all the polytheists if they don't accept Islam.

[al-Tawbah 9:5]
“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”​

It Is Very Disappointing That You Quoted A Single Verse Without Proper Context.Why Did You Not Quote The Nest 2 Verses

9:5-7 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

Dr. Maher Hathout gives an explanation on the historical context of the verse:

This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Qur'an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur'an but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6). (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, pp.52-53, emphasis added)

Therefore, this verse once again refers to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general situations. The command of the verse was only to be applied in the event of a battle. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:

The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party show no sign of desisting from their treacherous design by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes - between Faith and Unfaith. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary, emphasis added)

If the pagans would not cease their hostilities towards the Muslims, then they were to be fought, especially since they were living in the land of an Islamic state. Dr. Zakir Naik writes concerning this verse:

This verse is quoted during a battle. ...We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war. ...Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur'an says, "Kill the Mushriqs (pagans) where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur'an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don't be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says: "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge." [Al-Qur'an 9:6]
The Qur'an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don't just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security? This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur'an to promote peace in the world. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Dr. Naik makes some very interesting observations about the verse. Indeed, it is truly amazing how Islam-haters will ignore God's infinite mercy in their attempt to malign Islam. God has always given human beings a way out of any suffering, and has only ordained fighting as a last resort. Muslim scholars have written much commentary on these Qur'anic verses explaining the historical context in such great detail so that there may be no misconceptions. We have quoted extensively from various commentators on these verses and there is no need to repeat the same material again. We will provide one more commentary before moving on. Professor Shahul Hameed writes on verse 9:5:

This is a verse taken from Surah At-Tawba. This chapter of the Qur’an was revealed in the context when the newly organized Muslim society in Madinah was engaged in defending themselves against the pagan aggressors. The major question dealt with here is, as to how the Muslims should treat those who break an existing treaty at will. The first clause in the verse refers to the time-honored Arab custom of a period of warning and waiting given to the offenders, after a clear violation. That is, they will be given four months’ time to repair the damage done or make peace. But if nothing happens after the expiry of these forbidden months, what should be done? This is what the present verse says. According to this verse, fighting must be resumed until one of the two things happens: Either the enemy should be vanquished by relentless fighting. That is what is meant by {then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]}; or they should repent, establish prayers and pay zakah, etc. This is one of those verses of the Qur’an which are likely to be misunderstood, if quoted out of context. We must understand that this fighting was against a people who forced the Prophet and his companions to leave not only their own homes but all their property and even their hometown of Makkah to Madinah. Once the Muslims were organized into a community in those lawless times, the rules to be followed by the Muslims were clearly laid down, even in the matter of war. Since Islam is a comprehensive system, no human activity could be ignored. And given the nature of mankind, we cannot imagine a situation where fighting is completely ruled out either. As can be seen, the above injunctions on fighting is not on an individual level, but only in the case of a society that strives to flourish and thrive as a nation. But even here the norms are clear: fighting is only in self defence or for the establishment of justice; and always fighting is the last option. And no one is allowed to transgress the limits set by God. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Ibn al-`Arabi, in his commentary on the Qur’an, writes:

It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you. (Ahkam al-Qurâan: 2/456, emphasis added)

Shaykh Sami al-Majid also makes some very interesting points in his discussion on this verse:

If we look at the verses in Sûrah al-Tawbah immediately before and after the one under discussion, the context of the verse becomes clear. A few verses before the one we are discussing, Allah says: “There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 1-2]
In these verses we see that the pagans were granted a four month amnesty with an indication that when the four months were over, fighting would resume. However, a following verse exempts some of them from the resumption of hostilities. It reads:
“Except for those pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 4]
So when Allah says: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” we must know that it is not general, since the verse above has qualified it to refer to the pagan Arabs who were actually at war with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who broke their covenants of peace. This is further emphasized a few verses later where Allah says:
“Will you not fight people who broke their covenants and plotted to expel the Messenger and attacked you first?” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 13]

 

[Aramagedon]

We must conquer anatolia again to keep your mouth closed forever. Earn/Persia is the oldest country in the world. Put it in your gypsy Turkified head.

DNA of Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Ararats, Jews:

Don't talk bullshit.
At that time there was no Iranic peoples.
The state of Iran is not even 100 years old.

edit

You can say Persians exist at the time.
But kurds are also no persians.

 

[Dai Toruko]

We must conquer anatolia again to keep your mouth closed forever. Earn/Persia is the oldest country in the world. Put it in your gypsy Turkified head.

DNA of Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Ararats, Jews:

Tell me with which weapons you will conquer Anatolia?!
Your technology resembles the backwoods.

(Irony on) Your soldiers seem to be well trained.(Irony off)

DNA of Iran:

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

We must conquer anatolia again to keep your mouth closed forever. Earn/Persia is the oldest country in the world. Put it in your gypsy Turkified head.

DNA of Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Ararats, Jews:

Vay Iranli Vay!!!!! How come not use little bit of that to get rid of the CIA installed Molla regime as a starter!!!! Living in the 21st century under a Molla regime is simply unacceptable!!! Most of the Iranian folks I know have left the Din all together because of these Mollas!!!!

 

[Sina-1]

It is also a convenient term for Persian nationalists to try to suppress any ethnic peculiarity demands within Iran. Otherwise, it doesn't need a lot of intelligence to realize that Baluch and Kurds have a thousand difference than an average Isfahani or Yazdi Persian.

I love it that you always try to swing it to be "persian suppressing" issue. Tell me how are the evil Persians suppressing its minorities, please elaborate with some scientific study if possible.

ps. you SA-friends say that Iran is ruled by arabs and this joker turk claims turks are ruling Iran. How the hell are persians doing all the suppressing btw?

 

[M. Sarmad]

'The Religion of Martyrs' was converted to 'Institutionalized Religion of Mourning' for political ends .... Safavids have caused irreversible damage to the Religion of the progeny of Muhammad.

 

[Aramagedon]

One cell from me is 10000 times more worthy than you because Persians ruled you for 1700 years.
Medes empire
Achaemenid empire
Parthian empire
Sassanian empire

Anyway Turkmens are fully different from Iranian Azeris.

O, C , Q are Turkish/Mongolian/Chinese dnas.

Tell me with which weapons you will conquer Anatolia?!
Your technology resembles the backwoods.

(Irony on) Your soldiers seem to be well trained.(Irony off)

DNA of Iran:

 

[veg]

Islam q&a Has Been Banned By Saudia And The Mufti You Mentioned Does Not Have Authorization to Give Fatwas.Most Mainstream Scholars Oppose IS and Al Qaeda.Opposing Them Does Not Increase His Credibility



It Is Very Disappointing That You Quoted A Single Verse Without Proper Context.Why Did You Not Quote The Nest 2 Verses

9:5-7 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

Dr. Maher Hathout gives an explanation on the historical context of the verse:

This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Qur'an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur'an but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6). (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, pp.52-53, emphasis added)

Therefore, this verse once again refers to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general situations. The command of the verse was only to be applied in the event of a battle. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:

The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party show no sign of desisting from their treacherous design by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes - between Faith and Unfaith. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary, emphasis added)

If the pagans would not cease their hostilities towards the Muslims, then they were to be fought, especially since they were living in the land of an Islamic state. Dr. Zakir Naik writes concerning this verse:

This verse is quoted during a battle. ...We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war. ...Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur'an says, "Kill the Mushriqs (pagans) where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur'an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don't be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says: "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge." [Al-Qur'an 9:6]
The Qur'an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don't just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security? This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur'an to promote peace in the world. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Dr. Naik makes some very interesting observations about the verse. Indeed, it is truly amazing how Islam-haters will ignore God's infinite mercy in their attempt to malign Islam. God has always given human beings a way out of any suffering, and has only ordained fighting as a last resort. Muslim scholars have written much commentary on these Qur'anic verses explaining the historical context in such great detail so that there may be no misconceptions. We have quoted extensively from various commentators on these verses and there is no need to repeat the same material again. We will provide one more commentary before moving on. Professor Shahul Hameed writes on verse 9:5:

This is a verse taken from Surah At-Tawba. This chapter of the Qur’an was revealed in the context when the newly organized Muslim society in Madinah was engaged in defending themselves against the pagan aggressors. The major question dealt with here is, as to how the Muslims should treat those who break an existing treaty at will. The first clause in the verse refers to the time-honored Arab custom of a period of warning and waiting given to the offenders, after a clear violation. That is, they will be given four months’ time to repair the damage done or make peace. But if nothing happens after the expiry of these forbidden months, what should be done? This is what the present verse says. According to this verse, fighting must be resumed until one of the two things happens: Either the enemy should be vanquished by relentless fighting. That is what is meant by {then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]}; or they should repent, establish prayers and pay zakah, etc. This is one of those verses of the Qur’an which are likely to be misunderstood, if quoted out of context. We must understand that this fighting was against a people who forced the Prophet and his companions to leave not only their own homes but all their property and even their hometown of Makkah to Madinah. Once the Muslims were organized into a community in those lawless times, the rules to be followed by the Muslims were clearly laid down, even in the matter of war. Since Islam is a comprehensive system, no human activity could be ignored. And given the nature of mankind, we cannot imagine a situation where fighting is completely ruled out either. As can be seen, the above injunctions on fighting is not on an individual level, but only in the case of a society that strives to flourish and thrive as a nation. But even here the norms are clear: fighting is only in self defence or for the establishment of justice; and always fighting is the last option. And no one is allowed to transgress the limits set by God. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Ibn al-`Arabi, in his commentary on the Qur’an, writes:

It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you. (Ahkam al-Qurâan: 2/456, emphasis added)

Shaykh Sami al-Majid also makes some very interesting points in his discussion on this verse:

If we look at the verses in Sûrah al-Tawbah immediately before and after the one under discussion, the context of the verse becomes clear. A few verses before the one we are discussing, Allah says: “There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 1-2]
In these verses we see that the pagans were granted a four month amnesty with an indication that when the four months were over, fighting would resume. However, a following verse exempts some of them from the resumption of hostilities. It reads:
“Except for those pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 4]
So when Allah says: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” we must know that it is not general, since the verse above has qualified it to refer to the pagan Arabs who were actually at war with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who broke their covenants of peace. This is further emphasized a few verses later where Allah says:
“Will you not fight people who broke their covenants and plotted to expel the Messenger and attacked you first?” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 13]

I have read the new Tafsirs and the old Tafsirs. Reality is this that New Tafsirs are trying to deny the fact which has been unanimous among the Salafs and their interpretation. Let us see the proofs of this difference:

1) Islam q&a has NOT been banned by Saudi Government due to any RELIGIOUS difference, but it was only due to the POLITICAL difference where Kingdom could not be criticized by any one.
Regarding Religious Affairs, then Islam q&a has still the largest Muslim following and the biggest Fatwa Website.

2) You said that I quoted only one Verse of Quran.
Actually 1 Verse is enough.
Then I constantly asked in my posts to read the full article of Islam q&a which posted many Quranic Verses and Traditions.
Then I quoted Ibn Kathir who again quoted many Quranic Verses and Ahadith.
Then I gave the link to Ghamidi's book which quoted Salaf Islamic Scholars opinions upon this matter.
In fact, among the Salafs, no one disagreed upon killing of Polytheists during the Era of Prophet and Sahaba in the Arabia. Later little dispute arose where some Jurists said it was only limited to the Polytheists of Arabia. But remaining Salaf were of the Opinion that all Polytheists should be killed (including Shafi, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ibn Hazm etc).

3) There was an Ijma of Sahaba that all the polytheists (i.e. including Non Arabs) should be killed or they have to accept the Islam.

When Umar Ibn Khattab conquered Iran, he wanted to slaughter the Majoos of Iran according to this Quranic Verse. But then Sahaba witnessed that Majoos were also counted among Ahl-e-Kitaab. Upon their testimony Umar Ibn Khattab changed the order of their killing and took Jizya from them.
See the Sahih Tradition recorded by Ibn Hajar Asqallani in his book Fatah-ul-Bari:
وروى عبد بن حميد في تفسير سورة البروج بإسناد صحيح عن ابن أبزى " لما هزم المسلمون أهل فارس قال عمر : اجتمعوا . فقال : إن المجوس ليسوا أهل كتاب فنضع عليهم ، ولا من عبدة الأوثان فنجري عليهم أحكامهم فقال علي : بل هم أهل كتاب "’


Salaf Interpretation of Verse 9:5-7

4) I am afraid the modern Tafsirs are nothing else than DECEPTION and against the Salaf Interpretation and Ijma of Sahaba and practice of Prophet.
They try to claim that killing of only those Kuffars was meant who kept on fighting Muslism. This is a false claim. Contrary to that that order was common for all the Polytheists (even if they were living peacefully) that they got only 4 months, and after that they had to accept Islam or they would be killed.

5) Please read the Tafsirs of Salaf (e.g. Tafir of Qurtabi and others) which make it clear that Verse of Asylum was only for the Polytheists who were living in the Darul Kufr and they came to Muslim land. They were given 4 months time and after that returned to the Darul Kufr.
As far as Polytheists living in Islamic State (i.e. Darul Islam) were concerned, then the verse was clear about them that they will be killed after the 4 months time.
(See Tafsir al-Qurtabi, Interpretation of Verse 9:06 where provided all these details).

6) I would also suggest you to read other Tafasir from the Salaf like Jalalain and Ibn Kathir , Tafsir Ibn Abbas which are very very clear about this Issue and totally against the deceptions that are presented by few modern Mufassirin.
e.g. Ibn Kathir writes under 9:06:

This honorable Ayah was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas commented: "No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi’ Al-Akhir."​

Conclusion:

These modern Muffassirin are going against the Salaf Muffassirin and their interpretation.
Salaf Aima were very clear upon this Issue in their fatwas.
Ijma of Sahaba is very clear and completely denying these modern muffassirin.

 

[Aramagedon]

Iranian DNA (Persian, Kurd, Balouch, Azeri etc...) is +98% Indo - European. other than 2% Iranian Turkmens, there is no Turk DNA in Iran. same applies to Turkified anatolis btw.

Anatoli inhabits have 30-35% Iranian DNA!!!

Anatoli people became Turkified/Turk speakers by Middle Asian Turk rulers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkification

Science never lie

 

[Dai Toruko]

One cell from me is 10000 times more worthy than you because Persians ruled you for 1700 years.

You did not answer my question. You disturbed old cell from 2000 BC.

 

[sur]

How similar is ISIS to the early Safavid Empire?...

Because BOTH have crypto-jeooz behind them. Hence the similarities. Those who faked conversion to islam & joined one group to cause split among early muslims. And now again isreali-secret-intelligence-services (IsIs) at work

 

[Shah Khalid]

I have read the new Tafsirs and the old Tafsirs. Reality is this that New Tafsirs are trying to deny the fact which has been unanimous among the Salafs and their interpretation. Let us see the proofs of this difference:

1) Islam q&a has NOT been banned by Saudi Government due to any RELIGIOUS difference, but it was only due to the POLITICAL difference where Kingdom could not be criticized by any one.
Regarding Religious Affairs, then Islam q&a has still the largest Muslim following and the biggest Fatwa Website

He Was Banned Because He Gave Fatwas Without Authorization Not Politics.Stop Misleading People

2) You said that I quoted only one Verse of Quran.
Actually 1 Verse is enough.

No It Is Not The Fact That You Have Used The Same Tactic Used By Enemies of Islam Says A Lot About You.You are giving the classical 9: 5 islamophobe argument, which is a clear example of all the arguments the produce, and also a clear example of cherry picking and taking things out of context, here are just a few points to refute your ridiculous argument:
1. Verses 4 says to uphold your treaties with the non believers
2. verse 6 says to give shelter to non combatant polytheists (AND GIVE THEM PROTECTION, EVEN IF THEY STILL DISBELIEVE)
3. verses 7-10 & 13 clearly show that this is against treaty breakers and people who attack you first

But You Have Chosen To Quote One Verse Completely Ignoring What Was Written Before of After It

3) There was an Ijma of Sahaba that all the polytheists (i.e. including Non Arabs) should be killed or they have to accept the Islam.

When Umar Ibn Khattab conquered Iran, he wanted to slaughter the Majoos of Iran according to this Quranic Verse. But then Sahaba witnessed that Majoos were also counted among Ahl-e-Kitaab. Upon their testimony Umar Ibn Khattab changed the order of their killing and took Jizya from them.
See the Sahih Tradition recorded by Ibn Hajar Asqallani in his book Fatah-ul-Bari:
وروى عبد بن حميد في تفسير سورة البروج بإسناد صحيح عن ابن أبزى " لما هزم المسلمون أهل فارس قال عمر : اجتمعوا . فقال : إن المجوس ليسوا أهل كتاب فنضع عليهم ، ولا من عبدة الأوثان فنجري عليهم أحكامهم فقال علي : بل هم أهل كتاب "’

So You Have Declared An Ijma On The Basis Of One Hadith Without Giving Reference w.r.t Sihah Sitah And Giving Isnad And I Won't Be Surprised Considering That You Have Already Been Quoting Verses In Isolation Without Context How Your Quotation Is Going To Turn Out.

And The Hadith You Quote Does Not Show Ijma It Clearly Showed Difference Of Opinion


It Is The Height Of Comedy That You Talk About Salaf Differentiate Between Ancient Commentators and Modern Ones,Yet You're Quoting Modern Day Scholars Like Mufti Al-Munjid' and Ghamidi.Fact of The Matter Is That In The Name Of Ancient and Modern You Have Just Cherry picked Ulema Opinions The Same Way You Have Cherry Picked Verses of The Noble Quran To Fit In With Your Takfeeri Views

 

[Samlee]

5) Please read the Tafsirs of Salaf (e.g. Tafir of Qurtabi and others) which make it clear that Verse of Asylum was only for the Polytheists who were living in the Darul Kufr and they came to Muslim land. They were given 4 months time and after that returned to the Darul Kufr.
As far as Polytheists living in Islamic State (i.e. Darul Islam) were concerned, then the verse was clear about them that they will be killed after the 4 months time.
(See Tafsir al-Qurtabi, Interpretation of Verse 9:06 where provided all these details).

6) I would also suggest you to read other Tafasir from the Salaf like Jalalain and Ibn Kathir , Tafsir Ibn Abbas which are very very clear about this Issue and totally against the deceptions that are presented by few modern Mufassirin.
e.g. Ibn Kathir writes under 9:06:

This honorable Ayah was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas commented: "No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi’ Al-Akhir."​

Conclusion:

These modern Muffassirin are going against the Salaf Muffassirin and their interpretation.
Salaf Aima were very clear upon this Issue in their fatwas.
Ijma of Sahaba is very clear and completely denying these modern muffassirin.

Ok You Want Salaf Muffassirin I Give You Salaf Muffassirin


Tafsir al-Qurtubi:

“Then this ayat was revealed, meaning that it is lawful for you to fight if the unbelievers fight you. So the ayat is connected to the prior mention of hajj and entering houses by the back door. After this the Prophet fought those who fought him and refrained from those who refrained from fighting him until the ayat in Surat at-Tawba (9:5) was revealed, ‘Fight the idolaters,’… Ibn Abbas, Umar Ibn Abd’l – Aziz and Mujahid said that it is an ayat whose judgement REMAINS OPERATIVEand means: ‘FIGHT THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU and do not transgress by killing women, Children, monks and the like,’ as will be explained. An-Nahhas said that THIS IS THE SOUNDER POSITION IN TERMS OF BOTH THE SUNNA AND IN TERMS OF LOGIC. As for the Sunna, there is a Hadith reported by Ibn Ibn Umar that, during one of his expeditions the Messenger of Allah, saw a woman who had been killed and he ABHORRED THAT and FORBADE the killing of women and children. As for logic, it applies to children and those like them, like Monks, the chronically ill, old men and hirelings who clearly should not be killed. When Abu Bakr sent Yazid Ibn Abi Sufwan to Syria, he commanded that he should not do harm to certain groups. Malik and others transmitted this. …”

 

[Samlee]

4) Not only Islam q&a is saying it, but it was the fatwa of all Muslim Jurists in the past that Prophet and Sahaba killed all the Polytheists after the revelation of this verse.

You Don't Seem To Have Any Shame In Spreading Lies

7) Also read Tafsir Ibn Kathir where he is writing exactly the same thing which has been mentioned by Islam q&a

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.

Here Ibn Kathir telling that after the revelation of Verses of Surah Tauba, then verse of "There is no Compulsion in Religion لا اکراہ فی الدین has been abrogated, and now the order is to kill the polytheists if they don't accept Islam, while Ahl-e-Kitaab are allowed to pay Jizyah and save their life.

It Only Takes Google Translate To Find Out What Allama Ibn Kathir Had Actually Written.In This Entire Paragraph He Doesn't Mention Any Abrogation Claim Nor Is Their Mentioning Of Killing polytheists

As For Abrogation

Some state that Q.2:256 was abrogated.[51][72] Mustafa Zayd states, "[t]he allegation of abrogation here is narrated on the authority of Ibn Zayd who is extremely weak and is not used to support argumentation; from As-Suddi, and we have already noted Ibn Al-Jawzi's judgement regarding him;", he then adds that another report contains a weakness in its chain of transmission (isnad), as "Aḍ-Ḍahāk never met Ibn Abbas and never heard from him".[73] This opinion has been described by many as being incorrect since, as stated, by the famous British orientalist Sir Thomas Walker Arnold the verse in question is a Medinan verse, when Muslims lived in their period of political ascendance.[5] Furthermore, Muslim scholars have established the abrogated verses and this verse is not among them,[21] including for example Ibn Taymiyya,[10] Ibn Qayyim,[11] Al-Tabari,[12] Abi 'Ubayd,[13] Al-Jaṣṣās,[14] Makki bin Abi Talib,[15] Al-Nahhas,[16] Ibn Jizziy,[17] Ibn Ashur,[19] Al-Suyuti,[18] Mustafa Zayd,[20] and many others.[21] According to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the verse Q.2:256 can't be abrogated since it is justified by a reason - namely 'The right path has been distinguished from error' - that doesn't accept abrogation.[29] Ibn Taymiyya states that the majority of the Salaf considered that verse to be neither specific nor abrogated.[10]

Similarly
Imam Zarkashi in his masterful work on Qur’anic sciences, “Al-Burhan fi Ulum al-Qur’an.” He explains that many commentators of the Qur’an were incorrect in their understanding that the Verse of the Sword abrogated the various verses of patience and forbearance. This is because “abrogation” entails a complete termination of a legal ruling, never again to be implemented. This is definitely not the case with these verses. Rather, each verse entails a particular ruling conjoined to a particular context and situation. As circumstances change, different verses are to applied instead of others. No ruling is permanently terminated though, which is what is entailed by true abrogation.

He concludes his discussion by saying, “The verse of the sword by no means abrogated the verses of peace – rather, each is to be implemented in its appropriate situation.”

[Al-Burhan fi Ulum al-Qur’an]


Imam Suyuti specifically discusses this verse in relation to other verses of peace, patience, and forgiving. He explains that, contrary to what some Imams believed, this is not a case of abrogation but rather of context. In certain situations, the verses of patience and forgiving apply, while in other situations the verse of the sword applies. No verse was completely abolished by another, but rather each has a specific context and applicability.

[Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur’an]

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