Jihad, Abrogation in Quran and verse of the sword

Killing Innocent Women and Children

Our Beloved Messenger [peace and blessings be upon him] sternly condemned the killing of women and children in battle. He made this statement after being informed by his Companions that a woman was found killed in the battlefield.

This hadith is recorded in all six canonical books of hadith: Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Nasa�i, and Ibn Maja.

According to Imam Suyuti and Imam Kattani - both of whom were hadith masters [hafidh] - it is related by multiple-chain transmission rendering it undeniable [mutawatir]. In other words, the narration is so strong that it is logically impossible for the Prophet not to have said it, such that it is akin to a verse of Qur�an in its strength of transmission.

For this reason, all four schools of law are in agreement that women and children cannot be killed in battle [and a fortiori outside of battle]. Imam Nawawi mentions scholarly consensus [ijma'] on this matter.

[Munawi/Suyuti, Fayd al-Qadir Sharh Jami` al-Saghir; Kattani, Nadhm al-Mutanathir min al-Hadith al-Mutawatir; Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim]

As mentioned above, this is also how many scholars understood the �transgression� mentioned in the verse �And do not transgress limits, for Allah loveth not transgressors.� (2:190) It is related that the great Companion Ibn `Abbas [may Allah be pleased with him] understood the verse as such. [Buhuti, Kashshaf al-Qina`]
I hope this helps answer your questions. Islam in undoubtedly peaceful, reasonable, and a manifestation of Allah�s infinite kindness on earth. Its Sacred Law is applicable for all times and places, without exception. And its Blessed Messenger is as Allah states, �Not sent except as a mercy to all of creation.�

May Allah Most High provide us all with clarity from any confusion we might have regarding His perfect religion and pristine Sacred Law [shari'a]. Amin.

And Allah alone gives success.

wassalam

Faraz A. Khan

The Qur�an on Covenants and Treachery

In many verses, Allah Most High both commands believers to fulfill covenants and harshly condemns those who break them, such as:

�And fulfill every covenant. Verily, covenants will be reckoned.� (17:34)

�Those who break the covenant of Allah after ratifying it, and sever that which Allah ordered to be joined, and (who) make mischief in the earth: Those are they who are the losers.� (2:27)

�Or is it that every time they make a covenant, a group among them casts it aside. Nay, rather most of them are not true believers.� (2:100)

�Those with whom you made a treaty, and then at every opportunity they break their treaty, and they do not fear [Allah with respect to covenants].� (8:56)

These and other primary texts were used by jurists classically to formulate the above rulings regarding the absolute binding nature of citizenship and visa contracts, irrespective of whether the contracts are among Muslims or between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Hadiths on Treachery

Our Beloved Messenger [peace and blessings be upon him] also sternly emphasized the enormity entailed in deception and treachery, whether by an individual towards society or by a government towards an individual.
The Prophet [peace and blessings be upon him] listed among the signs of a hypocrite, �When he enters into a contract, he breaks it treacherously.� [Sahih Bukhari]

He [peace and blessings be upon him] also stated, �When Allah gathers the first and last of humanity on the Day of Resurrection, every treacherous person will be given a huge raised banner and it will be announced, �This is the treachery of so-and-so.�� [Sahih Muslim]

This particular hadith is cited frequently by jurists when discussing the enormity of breaking covenants of mutual security, whether with Muslims or non-Muslims. One narration of the hadith actually ends with, �And there is no treachery greater than that of the national government.�

Commentators explain that the significance of the large banner is to humiliate such people in front of all of humanity. One narration has the addition, �It will be raised commensurate to his treachery,� and yet in another narration, �It will come out of his anus� - the absolute epitome of disgrace, shame and humiliation. The enormous crime of treachery - a sin based on secrecy - is fittingly met with a gross punishment for all eyes to see.

[Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari; Ibn Battal, Sharh al-Bukhari; Ibn Daqiq al-'Id, Ihkam al-Ahkam Sharh `Umdat al-Ahkam]

Edited by Nausheen - 09 January 2013 at 12:13am

I recently came to know that some people say that the verse of the sword (verse 9:5) abrogates all verses of peace, tolerance and forgiveness - thus painting islam a very intolerant and dangerous religion for the rest of the world.

Found a details response, which I wish to post as reference and clarification.

source: http://seekersguidance.org/ans-blog/2010/11/06/jihad-abrogation-in-the-quran-the-verse-of-the-sword/

Question: I�ve recently been reading about abrogation in the Qur�an, and I am now supremely confused. Some people say that there is no abrogation, some people say that only a few verses were abrogated (mostly dealing with inheritance), and some say that over 200 verses were abrogated, including all of the verses about peace and restraint. I�m not sure what to believe. For me, the opinion that makes the most sense is acknowledging the fact that abrogation is possible, but it only occurs a few times in the Qur�an. I am also confused about the �Verse of the Sword� (9:5). I�ve heard some people say that it abrogated any and all verses dealing with peace, including �but if the enemy inclines towards peace, you also incline towards peace�, �there is no compulsion in religion�, and �fight in the cause of ALLAH those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for ALLAH loveth not transgressors�. There are others that say that this verse must be taken in context, which if you read the preceding and following verses in Surah Tawbah, is referring to the specific case of the Makkans who continuously broke treaties and were constantly aggressive. I have always been taught, and believed, that Islam is essentially peaceful and reasonable, but with some of the stuff I�ve read, they�re making it seem like Islam is harsh and unreasonable (I�ve even heard people quote hadiths saying that it�s okay to kill innocent women and children if they belong to the �people of the enemy�). I am so confused, and I have no idea what to think. Can you shed a little light on this? Jazakallah khair.

Answered by Ustadh Faraz A Khan

Answer: Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

I pray this finds you in the best of health and faith.
Abrogation is one of the lengthiest, most complex, and most important topics in both the science of Qur�anic exegesis [tafsir] as well as that of Legal Theory [usul al-fiqh]. Imam Suyuti mentions that a countless number of scholars authored works solely on the topic of abrogation, and that many Imams said, �No one is allowed to give explanation [tafsir] of the Book of Allah until they understand abrogation.� Our Master Ali [may Allah ennoble his face] asked a judge if he knew which verses abrogated others, to which the judge replied that he did not. Imam Ali said, �You are ruined, and you have ruined others.� [Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur'an]

Insha�Allah, the discussion below will serve as a brief overview of abrogation, followed by answers to the various points you bring up in your question. May Allah Most High provide us all clarity with these and related issues.

Abrogation: Definition

According to Hanafi legal theorists, �abrogation� [naskh] is defined as �the removal or annulment of one legal ruling by a subsequent legal ruling.�

Of course, the �change� entailed in abrogation is perceived only by humans. In Allah�s preeternal knowledge, each ruling had its appointed term. Therefore, some Hanafis put forth a more detailed definition as follows:

�A clarification of the end point of one legal ruling, an end point that was preeternally known to Allah Most High yet nevertheless concealed from those addressed by the Sacred Law, such that it appeared to be a lasting ruling from the perspective of humans.� Hence, abrogation entails replacement from our perspective, yet mere clarification from the Divine perspective, i.e., clarification of the termination of a legal ruling and the beginning of a new legal ruling in its place.
[Ibn Malak/Nasafi, Sharh al-Manar; Bazdawi, Usul al-Bazdawi; Ibn 'Abidin/Haskafi, Nasamat al-Ashar Sharh Ifadat al-Anwar]

The key aspect of these definitions is the concept of �complete annulment or termination of a legal ruling,� that is, such that it is no longer applicable whatsoever [i.e., irrespective of whether abrogation itself is that termination or merely a clarification of that termination]. This basic understanding is shared in the definitions of major legal theorists of other schools as well, such as Imam Baqillani, Imam Ghazali, Imam Amidi, Imam Baydawi, Imam Mahalli, Imam Qarafi, Imam Razi and others.

[Amidi, Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam; Ghazali, Mustasfa; Baydawi, Minhaj al-Wusul ila `Ilm al-Usul; Dimyati/Mahalli/Juwayni, Hashiyat ala Sharh al-Waraqat; Qarafi/Razi, Nafa'is al-Usul fi Sharh al-Mahsul]
Abrogation: Differences in Technical Usage

It is important to understand that definitions were formalized later in Islam. Earlier scholars, especially of the first few generations [salaf], might have used similar terms yet with different meanings. One would have to examine the exact intent of an early scholar and how he used the term before arriving at any conclusions.
As Mufti Taqi Usmani (may Allah preserve him) explains in his �An Approach to the Qur�anic Sciences,� the term �abrogation� had a very wide scope in the technical usage of earlier scholars, due to which in their view it included many verses that later scholars did not consider to be abrogation based on the above technical definitions [mustalah]. A common example is if an earlier verse is very general in its wording and then a later verse limits its scope or conditions it in some way - they would deem the earlier verse to be �abrogated� and the later verse to be its �abrogator.� They did not mean that the ruling of the earlier verse was completely replaced or annulled, but rather that it is no longer general but instead limited or contextualized in some way.

An example is the verse, �And marry not polytheist women until they believe.� (2:221) The ruling here is general in that it is unlawful for Muslims to marry any type of polytheist women, whether idol-worshipers or People of the Book.

Yet a later verse states, �[And you may marry] the chaste of those given the Book.� (5:5) This verse serves to limit the general scope of the earlier verse, whereby it is known that the prohibition refers only to polytheist women that are not from the People of the Book.

Earlier scholars would deem this to be a case abrogation: verse (5:5) serves to �abrogate� verse (2:221). However, it is clear that their understanding of abrogation was not a complete annulment of a previous ruling but rather a change in its scope or applicability.

Later scholars, however, would not deem such cases as abrogation, but only cases in which the earlier legal ruling is completely annulled. According to them, therefore, there are far less cases of abrogation in the Qur�an.

Imam Suyuti states that there were many verses that served to give exceptions or limitations to other verses, and �those who considered them as cases of abrogation were incorrect.� [Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur'an]
[Mufti Taqi Usmani, "An Approach to the Qur'anic Sciences;" Muhammad A. Zurqani, Manahil al-Irfan]
Finally, scholars of legal theory mention that limitation or specification of a general verse is not complete annulment but rather can be related to context and circumstances, while abrogation is complete annulment and therefore negates any usage or applicability of the earlier abrogated verse. [Ghazali, Mustasfa] This is important in understanding the verses of fighting and peace discussed below.

Number of Abrogated Verses

Because of this difference between earlier and later scholars in the technical usage of the term abrogation, scholars differed as to how many verses in the Qur�an are abrogated. As you mention in your question, some did indeed say that up to 200 verses were abrogated. This, again, is based on a broader understanding of �abrogation.� Others said less than 100. Imam Suyuti stated that only 19 verses of the Qur�an were abrogated, and Shah Wali Allah agreed with Imam Suyuti on only 5 of those 19. Incidentally, those 19 verses do not deal with the Verse of the Sword or the like vis-a-vis the verses of peace that you mention in your question.

[Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur'an; Mufti Taqi Usmani, "An Approach to the Qur'anic Sciences"]

Of course, some scholars differed on the number merely because the nature of such discussions is difference of opinion.

The Verse of the Sword [9:5] and Abrogation

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]

This understanding is reinforced by the eminent jurist and legal theorist 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]

Context of the Verse of the Sword [9:5]

As you mention in your question, 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.


Edited by Nausheen - 09 January 2013 at 12:16am