TheMostReadBook.org

Ibn Al-Arabi stated that the so-called "sword verse," (9:5) abrogated all verses that teach pardoning, clemency, negotiation, co-existence, etc., with the polytheists. Extremists adopt this view to justify their all-out war against non-Muslims. Here is the verse,



On the surface of it, it appears that the verse instructs the total annihilation of the polytheist unless they accept Islam, if it is taken in isolation. The Quran is to be taken in its totality, because the overlooking of other verses, which many abrogation claims do, puts a Muslim dangerously close to the warning in this verse,


Therefore, one must be very careful before jumping to the a sweeping conclusion like this. The fact of the matter is that 9:5 applies only to the Arabian peninsula. This is understood from the hadeeth of the prophet, peace be upon him, in which he said, "Get the polytheist out of the Arabian peninsula," narrated by Ibn `Abbaas and Sa`eed ibn Jabeer and reported and rated authentic by Al-Bukhaari and Muslim.

When the Prophet (PBUH) sent letters to neighboring kings inviting them to Islam, he did not threaten them with war if they didn't and he never told his followers to do that either. The practice of the Sahaaba when they conquered foreign lands is that they always allowed the natives to keep practicing their religions. If they believed that 9:5 mandated the conversion of the whole world to Islam or be killed, they would not have let them practice their religions. God strictly prohibits forced conversions, as He mentions in so many verses, for instance,


And


To name a few. The claim of abrogation made about 9:5 is bizarre to say the least. In fact, according to As-Suyooti, this verse

was claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse. He correctly condemns that claim, saying

He said that obviously God is and always will be the most just of judges. The verse cannot be abrogated and it means a command to defer to God and abstain from punishing. And so is this verse,

which Shayzhala in his book "Al-Burhaan" said was abrogated by the sword verse, which in turn was abrogated by the Jizya verse, 9:29. As in all abrogation claims, there is no explicit statement from God or His Messenger, nor a consensus opinion of Islamic scholars, that the sword verse abrogated anything.

BTW, calling 9:5 the sword verse is itself an opinion made by scholars and went on unchallenged, except that other scholars called 9:29 the sword verse instead.

EDIT: I got Ibn Al-`Arabi's book الناسخ والمنسوخ, and the number of claims he makes about the sword verse adds up to 76, not 124 as has been widely reported.

The context of 9:5 are the verses 9:1-4. Aren't the verses talking about the specific situation between the Prophet PBUH and the polytheists at the time and place of the conquest of Mecca?

It sure is but that's not what the extremist want to hear. A violent person full of hate can only see enemies. Recall what Al-Hajjaaj ibn Yoosuf Ath-Thaqafi said when he took over? He looked at all the people sitting down in the mosque and said, "I see heads that came to fruition and it's time to pluck them!"

One of the 124 verses claimed to be abrogated, is, believe it or not, 2:83!

Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote about that in his book, "Nawaasikh Al-Qur'aan," as follows,

He quotes several interpretations of "Say good to people" all make the verse not abrogated. Then he says that some claimed that the sentence means "Be easy on the polytheists when calling them to Islam" and thus it is abrogated by the sword verse. He dismisses that claim saying that the words are general and cannot be limited to the disbelievers without evidence and there is no such evidence here.

I just wonder why it was hard to interpret "Say good to people!" What is there that needs further elaboration? Abul-Aaliya understood it just fine. He said it means "Say to people what is recognized as good."

He also says that giving the believers a warning is a "speaking good." Thus, the claim that it is abrogated by the sword verse is invalid even if 2:83 implies going easy on the polytheists. Besides, the context addresses the Children of Israel which was pointed out by Ibn Abbaas and others.

Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, pages 196-197, reports that `Ataa' opined that 2:83 was not abrogated and the words "say good to people" means "command the recognized as good and forbid the objectionable".

Dr. Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 45-48 (items 758-763) refutes this case on three bases,

1. Different addressees: Verse 2:83 addresses the Children of Israel, while the sword verse address Muslims.
2. Different people the addressees are referenced to: Verse 2:83 refers to all people, while the sword verse refers to the polytheists.
3. No contradiction: Muslims are to say good even to their enemies and even in battle.

Ibn Salaama tells an interesting story about this verse: Ibn Jurayj said to `Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah, "Your talks are attended by the good and by the wicked. May I be harsh with the wicked?" He replied, "No. Do you not recite 2:83?"

In his book, الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 11, Dr. Husayn Nassaar reports Dr. Subhi As-Saalih's opinion about this claim as follows,



Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, pages 100-101, mentions that Al-Hasan and Ath-Thawri both understood the verse to be addressing Muslims to call on people to do what'God ordered done and avoid what God forbade.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Ibn Jabeer (At-Tabari),
Ibn Jurayj,
Muqaatil,
Qataada (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Al-Hasan,
Abul-`Aaliya,
Sufyaan Ath-Thawri,
Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Al-Husayn (Al-Baaqir), (may have been ibn Al-Hasan, per Ibn Salaama),
`Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ar-Raazi (according to Aş-Şa`di and quoted in detail from his exegesis, volume 3, page 178, by Dr. Zayd),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Subhi As-Saalih.

Another verse claimed to have been abrogated by the sword or Jizya verses is

Here is what Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote about that case,

Ibn Al-Jawzi refutes the abrogation case by explaining the time element in 2:109. He said the call for pardon in 2:109 was timed until "God brings forth His command", thus the Jizya verse or the sword verse constitute that awaited command and therefore they complement rater than abrogate 2:109.

We also learn the names of some of the scholars who took the position that the Jizya verse, 9:29 abrogated 2:109. They are, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi: Ibn `Abbaas, Ibn Mas`ood, Qataada, and Abul-`Aaliya.

And those who took the position that the sword verse, 9:5, abrogated 2:109 include: Qataada.

Al-Hasan's opinion is that the sword verse applies to matters unsettled between Muslims and the polytheists only.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Ma`ood, Qataada (in one report) and Abul-`Aaliya (who all said, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi, that the abrogating is 9:29),
Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Masood, Al-Baaqir, Abul-`Aaliya, As-Suddi and Ar-Rabee` (who all said, according to Aş-Şa`di, that the abrogating is 9:5),
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di (Al-Yamaani),
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Qataada (in another report),
Al-Hasan,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

Another verse claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse is

Here is what Ibn Al-Jawzi reports about scholars opinions in regards to abrogation of this verse,

The gist of the above discussion that relates to this topic is that 2:256 is claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse (9:5) and some said that it was abrogated by the Jizya verse (9:29). The scholars who took the position that the sword verse abrogated 2:256 include Ad-Dhahhaak, Ibn Zayd and As-Suddi. Of the scholars who said it was the Jizya verse that abrogated is Sulaymaan ibn Moosa.

He also mentions that Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid and Qataada said that 2:225 was not abrogated but it specified one of two options for the people of the Book: Either accept Islam or pay the Jizya.

Once again the discussion does not appear to consider that several cases are addressed. One case is people of the Book living under Muslim rule. They have to pay the Jizya, a defense tax. As I mentioned before, this is fair since Muslims pay the Zakah and have to enlist in the army when called upon to serve, while non-Muslims do not have to.

The second case is non-Muslims who are not under Muslim rule. Those are not to be fought, forced to accept Islam or pay Jizya, per 2:256. We know this because God says quite clearly that Muslims are never to initiate aggression; Muslims can only fight those who fight them,

I wouldn't be surprised if this verse is one of those claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse!

The third and last case is the case of polytheists living in Arabia. We know that from an authentic hadeeth of the Prophet, peace be upon him, which I quoted in the OP. That is the subject of the sword verse. God has decreed that no polytheists can live in the holy land of Arabia. He has not required this of any other country.

Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani reports in his book التبيان في الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن, page 82, that some scholars have made the analogy that the divorce, emancipation and sale by force are invalid, thus, they concluded, that 2:256 remains valid and is not abrogated. Good analogy. He refers to books of comparative jurisprudence but does not name any.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Mas`ood,
Ad-Dhahhaak (in one report),
Zayd ibn Asalam Al-`Adawi (according to Shu`la),
Ibn Zayd and As-Suddi,
Sulaymaan ibn Moosa,
Al-Mansoor Billah,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Umar ibn Al-Khataab (by his practice),
Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid, Qataada, Ad-Dhahhaak (in another report), Ash-Sha`bi, Al-Hasan, Muqaatil ibn Sulaymaan and Maalik said that 2:256 was not abrogated but it specified one of two options for the people of the Book: Either accept Islam or pay the Jizya.
Abu-Bakr ibn Al-Anbaari (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Abdullah ibn Al-Husayn (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Ash-Shawkaani,
Ibn Katheer,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani,
Al-Qaffaal,
Az-Zamakhshari,
Muhammad Abduh,
M. Rasheed Ridha,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris.

Very useful information as it states explicitly who was of which opinion, and it is clear that the abrogation opinion here is far from being unanimous. I just want to draw attention to something that is mentioned in the commentaries on 2:256, which is the fact that the Arabic construct for "There is no compulsion in religion" is linguistically an absolute form of negation called " نفي الجنس " which implies that compulsion does not exist in religion, period. Once people accept the verse as valid, it becomes pretty difficult to justify the extremely intolerant positions that some advocate.

This passage states the "reason for revelation" of 2:256. It describes related events at the time the verse was revealed. The details of the events are not important for what I am going to say, so there is no need to translate them here. I just want to make a remark that is not directly related to abrogation but I feel very strongly about it. The expression "reason for revelation" is not appropriate IMHO and should be replaced by "circumstances at the time of revelation." Only God knows the reason for revelation. He may choose a time where the verse would be directly applicable to a specific on-going situation, which makes the verse instantly appreciated and put into practice, but that is quite different from that situation being the reason for the revelation.

Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that this verse was claimed abrogated by the sword verse. He does not say who made the claim and seems to agree with it.

This is what he wrote,

Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, pages 284-285, says that Ibn Abbaas made that claim and Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Ibn Salaama, Ibn Al-Jawzi and Makki agreed with him, but that the majority does not.

He adds that some said the verse is not abrogated because the end of it allows the use of the sword if people do not accept the Prophet (!) They interpret that from the clause وقل لهم في أنفسهم قولا بليغا (speak to them a far-reaching word). He says that this interpretation is backed up by the opening clause in the next verse,

I respectfully disagree with the argument, but not with the conclusion. Verse 4:64 states that prophets are to be obeyed. That does not mean they will be, nor does it mean that they can force people to obey them! Those who interpret the verse that way seem to think that الطاعة (obedience) is the same thing as الانطياع (acquiescence). It's not; the former is done willingly, the latter unwillingly.

Dr. Mustafa Zayd's refutation is simple. He says in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, page 26 (item 731), that the context is about the hypocrites. By definition, they are Muslims and therefore are not included in what the sword verse talks about.

Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 127, rejects this claim. He says that "turning aside" does not mean leaving out the punishment of the polytheists, but rather it means to be upset with somebody and not show friendliness toward them. Presumably then he believes that such turning aside does not preclude fighting.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Makki,
Ibn Al-Jawzi.

Against:
The majority, according to Al-Khazraji,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that one of the verses claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse is


Here is how he refutes that claim,


He explains that حفيظا means keeper or responsible, so where is any aspect of abrogation?

If 4:80 was abrogated then it means that the mission of the prophet has changed and that he has become a keeper or responsible for all who have not accepted Islam! Those who claim that the sword verse abrogated 4:80 must mean that the prophet now has to convert the whole world by force or kill them. If someone refuses to convert and thus is killed, then does the prophet still remain responsible for that person's disbelief or does fighting him absolve him of the responsibility? It boggles the mind that someone will so think.

Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, pages 284-285, claims that Ibn Abbaas made the claim of abrogation and said that Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi and Ibn Salaama agreed but Ibn Al-Jawzi did not.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Abbaas (according to Al-Khazraji),
Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Zayd,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Ibn Abbaas (according to Ibn Al-Jawzi),
As-Suddi, Ibn Qateeba,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la (implied by his referral to similarly worded verses),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.