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!.
I was right! Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi said 2:190 was abrogated by the sword verse, said Al-Qurtubi, who also said that Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid and Umar ibn Abd-il-Azeez all said it was not. Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, page 66, also says that there are reports that Taawoos, Abu-Haneefa and his fellows also disagree that 2:190 was abrogated.
Husaam Al-Ghaali covers this case in good detail in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 199-207. He added many names to the list of people who spoke about this abrogation claim.
Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 143-147 (items 889-895), discusses and rejects this claim on the basis of no contradiction. He adds that the cause for the claim is one interpretation and that makes it uncertain and nothing in the Quran can be abrogated without certainty. He says that other, stronger interpretations have been offered which show that there is no contradiction between this verse and others claimed to abrogate it. I'd add that no claim of abrogation can be based on an interpretation. Period!
Dr. Zayd quotes a narration from Ibn Abbaas that is a key to understanding the fighting verses,
عن علي بن أبي طلحة الهاشمي عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنه، أنه فسر الأمر بالقتال والنهي عن الاعتداء فقال: لا تقتلوا النساء ولا الصبيان ولا الشيخ الكبير ولا من ألقى إليكم السلم وكف يده، فإن فعلتم هذا فقد اعتديتم
Translation: Ibn Abbaas interpreted the command to fight and the prohibition of transgression as follows. Do not kill women, children, the elderly, or anyone who seeks peace with you and hold back his hand
(i.e., does not fight). If you do, then you have transgressed.
That says it all, doesn't it?
Dr. Zayd then proceeds to show that the claim that 2:190 was abrogated by 9:36 is also bogus, because 9:36 clearly says "as they fight you." He says the sword verse orders the fighting of those polytheists who breached their treaty. That's an act of aggression that makes them enemy combatants and legitimizes fighting them. Finally, he said that some have claimed that
abrogated 2:190. He dismisses that claim since obviously the verse says the same thing again: when you are fought, fight back!
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 109, rejects the claim about 2:190 and quotes the above narration of Ibn Abbaas which he describes as "sound and obvious!" He also offers his own refutation. A linguistic one! He says that the verbal pattern of قاتلوا
is the mutual pattern, meaning that it takes two sides. Thus, he argues, it only applies if one party has already engaged in a fight. Thus, the word means to fight back. This also means that the phrase الذين يقاتلونكم
(those who fight you) is an emphasis meant to eliminate any misunderstanding. How sad that the misunderstanding did however happen and went on for centuries.
I'd add that the verbal pattern of لا تعتدوا
(do not transgress) is one-sided. Thus it means "do not start a fight." More emphasis. More clarification of the obvious.Who said what:
Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Zayd ibn Aslam (in one report),
Ar-Rabee` ibn Anas,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
The majority, according to Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid, Umar ibn `Abdil`Azzez, who all said the prohibition in 2:190 is against killing women and children. Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas agreed,
Taawoos (according to Dr. Faaris, quoting makki and An-Nahhaas),
Al-Hasan Al-Basri, who added to the opinion above excessive violence, killing the elderly, monks, burning trees and killing animals unnecessarily,
Abul-`Aaliya, Sa`eed ibn Jabeer, Abu-Ali Al-Jabaa'i and Ibn Zayd (according to Dr. Abdullah Al-Husayni),
Muqaatil, who said it applies to fighting in a sacred month,
Ibn Qateeba, who said that it applies to all who live peacefully or have a treaty
Taawoos, Abu-Haneefa and his fellows (according to Dr. As-Saqqa),
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani,
Rasheed Ridha, who explained that the circumstance of revelation was that Muslims, on their way to Umra after the treaty of Hudaybiya, were unsure if they are allowed to repel aggression from Mecca during the sacred month,
Imaam Abu-Zahra, who said that 2:190 is the Islamic constitution for fighting. He added that 2:190 contains declarative statements that cannot be abrogated, such as "God does not like aggression". If it's abrogated then it is implied that God now approves injustice, God forbid,
Ibn Taymiya, who said that 2:190 is the evidence that preemptive wars are forbidden in Islam and that war is only for self defense. He added that
specifies the contingency and the objective of war. The contingency is to prevent persecution in religion and the war ends when that purpose is achieved one way or another.
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Al-Ghazaali. He said, in his book تراثنا الفكري في ميزان الشرع والعقل, pages 53-56, that those who claim that Islam is to spread by the sword only understand the logic of criminal gangs,
Husaam Al-Ghaali who said that the command to fight the polytheists is to counter their fighting, not because of their disbelief. He gives for evidence the story of Asmaa' bint Abi-Bakr when her polytheist mother came to visit her and brought her a gift. Asmaa' wouldn't take the gift until she asked the Prophet (PBUH) who told her to accept the gift and be hospitable and kind to her mother.