The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Issue 26

Issue 26 [@ 20:22] Walid Shoebat – “The peaceful verses became Mansukah, means made – null and void, with verses like verses of the sword.”

Rebuttal 26: The makers of the movie tacitly repeat allegations and insinuations against Quran for their audience on the premise that if you keep throwing a thing at the wall, soon it starts to stick. The emphasis on Mansukah is one such trick. So, we repeat too that Mansukah is an alien concept to Quran promulgated by ignorant. No verse of Quran is null and void (see Rebuttals 5 and 9c). Instead, it is the Old and New Testaments that are made null and void by Quran (see Rebuttal 21).

The inevitable lie of “verse of the sword” finally had to be relied on by the documentary to prop up its facade of falsehood. This fabrication by the documentary has been dealt and removed by Rebuttal 23 above drawing from Commentary and Translation of the Quran by Muhammad Ali and now in his book “Religion of Islam” under the chapter “Jihad” he wrote:

So-called “Verse of the Sword”:

Notwithstanding that ch.9 [of Quran], as shown above [in the original book and rebuttal 23], does not go beyond what is contained in the earliest revelations on the subject of war, the fifth verse of that chapter is called by some people “the verse of the sword”, as if it inculcated the indiscriminate massacre of all idolators or unbelievers. The misconception is due to the fact that the words are taken out of their context, and a significance is forced on them which the context cannot bear. The following words occur in the 5th verse: “So when the sacred months have passed away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5). But similar words occur also in the earliest revelation on the subject: “And kill them wherever you find them” (2:191). In both places it is the context which makes it clear as to the identity of the persons regarding whom the order is given. In both cases those against whom the order is given are the people who have taken up the sword and attacked the Muslims first. It has already been shown that the injunction to fight against the idolaters, as contained in the opening verses of the 9th chapter, relates only to such idolatrous tribes as had made agreements with the Muslims and then broken them and had attacked the Muslims, and not to all idolatrous people, wherever they may be found in the world. If only we read the verse that precedes the fifth verse, not the shadow of a doubt will remain that all idolaters are not spoken of here. For the fourth verse, as quoted already, states that those idolaters were not within the purview of the order who had remained faithful to their agreements. The order was therefore directed against specified idolatrous tribes, the tribes that had made agreements with the Muslims and broken them repeatedly, as expressly stated in (8:56). It is a mistake to regard the order as including all idolatrous people living anywhere in the world or even in Arabia. And if the verse preceding the so-called “verse of the sword” makes a clear exception in case of all friendly idolatrous tribes, that following it immediately makes a clear exception in favour of such members of idolatrous hostile tribes as ask the protection of the Muslims (see v. 6, quoted in the preceding paragraph). And then continuing the subject, it is further laid down that the order relates only to people “who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the prophet and they attacked you first” (9:13). With such a clear explanation of the fifth verse contained in the preceding and following verses, no sane person would interpret it as meaning the killing of all idolaters or the carrying on of unprovoked war against all idolatrous tribes.

References:

Religion of Islam – Muhammad Ali