Law and fighting — Questions people ask about Islam

What does "kill the polytheists wherever you find them" (9:5) mean? Is it a standing command to kill anyone who does not convert?

No — and it is the context of the verse that says so, not an explanation built on top of it afterwards. Anyone who kept his treaty is excepted by the text one verse earlier: "fulfil their treaty to them till their term" 1. The verse itself is tied to a term that runs out, "Then, when the sacred months have passed", and it closes with a way out, "then leave their way free" 2. The reason is stated openly a few verses later: a people "who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first" 3. The most decisive point here is that the verse immediately after it orders that a polytheist be given protection and taken back unharmed: "then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety" 4 — he leaves still a non-Muslim, and safe. Tafsir al-Muyassar glosses it: "then send him back, safe, to where he came from" 5. Nor is this a reading manufactured for outsiders. Ibn al-Qayyim divides the treaty-holders in Surat al-Tawba into three classes, and takes "the sacred months" here to be the months of safe passage in which the polytheists were granted security, not the well-known sacred months 6; and al-Shafi'i says of this very matter that it is "speech whose wording comes out general while what is meant by it is particular" 7. The governing principle is that a ruling hung upon a description that can pass away — such as a broken treaty — loses its attachment when that description goes 8.

1 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).

Qur'an — Surat al-Tawba (Repentance) 9:4 · Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

2 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Qur'an — Surat al-Tawba (Repentance) 9:5 · Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

3 Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers

Qur'an — Surat al-Tawba (Repentance) 9:13 · Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

4 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

Qur'an — Surat al-Tawba (Repentance) 9:6 · Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

5 If one of the polytheists whose blood and property had been made licit asks to enter your protection — O Messenger — and desires safety, then grant him what he asks, so that he may hear the Noble Qur'an and come to see its guidance; then send him back, safe, to where he came from. That is so the proof may be established against him. That is because the disbelievers are a people ignorant of the realities of Islam, and they may well choose it once that ignorance is lifted from them.

Tafsir al-Muyassar · Surat al-Tawba (Repentance) 9:6 our rendering · Open the passage

6 He made the treaty-holders in this three classes. A class he was commanded to fight, and they are those who broke his treaty and did not keep straight with him, so he fought them and prevailed over them. And a class who had a treaty with a fixed term which they had not broken, and who had backed no one against him, so he was commanded to complete their treaty for them till their term. And a class who had no treaty and had not fought him, or who had an unrestricted treaty, so he was commanded to grant them a term of four months, and when it ran out he fought them. These are the four months mentioned in His words commanding them to travel in the land for four months [Repentance 9:2], and they are the sacred ones mentioned in His words "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters" [Repentance 9:5]. So the sacred months here are the months of safe passage: the first of them is the day of the proclamation, which is the tenth of Dhu al-Hijja, the day of the greater pilgrimage on which that proclamation was made, and the last of them is the tenth of Rabi' al-Akhir. They are not the four mentioned in His words that the number of the months with God is twelve months in God's decree, on the day He created the heavens and the earth, of which four are sacred [Repentance 9:36].

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-'Ibad, p. 143 our rendering · Open the passage

7 Then he said: Neither of the two verses abrogates the other, nor does either of the two hadiths abrogate the other or contradict it. Rather, one of the two verses and of the two hadiths is of the speech whose wording comes out general while what is meant by it is particular, and of the summary statements whose meaning the explicating text points to.

Al-Shafi'i · Ahkam al-Qur'an, collected by al-Bayhaqi, p. 51 our rendering · Open the passage

8 2. Is the ruling hung upon a description that passes away, or upon an entity that does not? For if it is hung upon a description — such as a state of war in progress, or a treaty broken — then the description is the operative ground, and when it goes its attachment goes with it. And this is a settled principle with nothing invented in it.

20. Difficult Texts — Third: The Narrative and the Ruling · Open the passage

9 The obligation concerning those who follow, as their fathers did, the religion of the idol-worshippers — that is, of the polytheists — is that they be fought, when there is power over them, until they become Muslims; and it is not lawful that tribute be accepted from them, by the Book of God and the Sunna of His Prophet. And the obligation concerning the People of the Book, and whoever followed their religion before the sending down of the whole Qur'an, is that they be fought until they pay the tribute, or become Muslims. And it is all one whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs.

Al-Shafi'i · Ahkam al-Qur'an, collected by al-Bayhaqi, p. 52 our rendering · Open the passage

10 And His words "Then, when the sacred months have passed" — al-Hasan said: he means the months about which they were told to travel in the land for four months. And on this explanation there is no abrogation at all.

Ibn al-Jawzi · Nawasikh al-Qur'an, p. 462 our rendering · Open the passage

11 Al-Suddi said: it was sent down concerning a man of the Ansar whose kunya was Abu al-Husayn, and he had two sons … He said: and this was before the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, was commanded to fight the People of the Book; then the words that there is no compulsion in religion were abrogated, and he was commanded to fight the People of the Book in Surat al-Tawba.

Al-Wahidi · Asbab Nuzul al-Qur'an, p. 83 our rendering · Open the passage

12 It is established in the biographies and the campaign accounts that among the Ansar were men whose sons had become Jews after that religion had been abrogated by the law of Jesus, and their fathers wanted to force them into Islam, so God Most High sent down that there is no compulsion in religion [The Cow 2:256].

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-'Ibad, p. 141 our rendering · Open the passage

13 3. Fighting. It is the one that the third section touched with the mark of 'a narrative and a ruling', and I do not claim that that mark takes it all in. For the statement that some of the texts are a report of particular events is right in some of them, and a claim needing to be made good in others — and there is in them what is a general ruling in the matter of war and peace, over the working out of whose operative ground the scholars have differed with an old and well-known difference. And I offer you no weighting in it.

20. Difficult Texts — Fifth: Fighting · Open the passage

The strongest objection

Cherry-picking. And the ones who refute this are your own commentators, not your opponents: they transmitted that the sword verse abrogated the verses of restraint, and among them are some who stated outright that the verse denying compulsion in religion was abrogated and that fighting was commanded in Surat al-Tawba. Then al-Shafi'i, cited above, says a few lines later that the polytheists of the Arabs are to be fought "until they become Muslims", and that "it is not lawful that tribute be accepted from them" — so for him the way out is Islam or the sword, not protection. Specifying the addressees narrows who is being spoken to; it does not remove the fact that the aim is to bring them into the religion, and the protection in the sixth verse is a period for hearing, not a right to remain.

The second half of that is correct, and there is nothing to hide in it: al-Shafi'i's text on the idol-worshippers is "that they be fought, when there is power over them, until they become Muslims; and it is not lawful that tribute be accepted from them" 9 — and that is a ruling about them in particular. Its counterpart in the same passage is that the People of the Book "be fought until they pay the tribute … or become Muslims" 9, so on his own showing the way out across the whole matter is not Islam alone. As for abrogation, it is both transmitted and rebutted inside the books of abrogation themselves: Ibn al-Jawzi transmits from al-Hasan that "the sacred months" in the verse are the months of safe passage, and closes with the words "And on this explanation there is no abrogation at all" 10. The claim that the verse denying compulsion in religion was abrogated is an opinion attributed to al-Suddi 11, not a consensus, and the occasion of its revelation runs opposite to what is argued from it: fathers wanted to force their sons into Islam, and God sent down that there is no compulsion in religion 12. What is not claimed as settled: the disagreement among the scholars over defining the operative ground of fighting is old and still standing — which is what the book itself says without dressing it up: "And I offer you no weighting in it." 13

"Until they pay the jizya willingly, while they are humbled" (9:29) — is this a tax imposed on non-Muslims to humiliate them?

The hard edge of the question will not be softened, and what it rests on will not be denied. The verse says: "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low" 1. Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar reads that last phrase as "submissive and lowly" 2, and Ibn al-Qayyim defines the jizya as "wealth taken from the unbelievers by way of being brought low, every year" 3 — so whoever tells you that no one has ever read it as humiliation has kept something from you. But al-Shafi'i defines that same word otherwise: "being brought low is that the ruling of Islam runs upon them" 4 — submission to the courts, not a rite of humiliation staged over the payer. As for the claim that it is taken from you "because you are not one of us," the identity of those it is taken from refutes it: it falls on "those in whom there is fighting, and they are the adult men" 4 — a woman and a child are not one of us either, and neither of them pays anything. The amount tracks wealth, not creed: one dinar for every adult in Yemen 3, and then 'Umar raised it in Syria to four, because "the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) knew the weakness of the people of Yemen, and 'Umar (may God be pleased with him) knew the wealth and strength of the people of Syria" 5. What is bought with it is written into a preserved contract: the people of Ayla paid the jizya, and it was written for them that "their ships and their caravans, on land and sea" were under guaranteed protection, and that "it is not lawful that they be kept from water they come to, nor from a road they travel" 6. And its ceiling: "Whoever wrongs a covenanted man, or diminishes his right, or burdens him beyond his capacity… I shall be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection" 7.

1 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Surat al-Tawbah (Repentance) 9:29 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

2 O Muslims, fight the unbelievers who do not believe in God, and do not believe in the resurrection and the recompense, and do not keep away from what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not abide by the rulings of the law of Islam — from among the Jews and the Christians — until they pay with their own hands the jizya that you impose upon them, submissive and lowly.

Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · Surat al-Tawbah (Repentance) 9:29 our rendering · Open the passage

3 When he sent Mu'adh to Yemen, he ordered him to take from every adult a dinar, or its equivalent in Ma'afiri cloth… and both are jizya, for it is wealth taken from the unbelievers by way of being brought low, every year.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-'Ibad, p. 561 our rendering · Open the passage

4 He said: And I heard men of learning say: being brought low is that the ruling of Islam runs upon them. And how apt is what they said, by what they said: because of their refusal of Islam; so when its ruling runs upon them, they have been brought low by what runs upon them of it. … And it was clear that God (Mighty and Majestic) commanded that they be fought over it: those in whom there is fighting, and they are the adult men.

Al-Shafi'i · Ahkam al-Qur'an li-l-Shafi'i, collected by al-Bayhaqi, p. 59 our rendering · Open the passage

5 …(may God be pleased with him) set it at four dinars upon the people of gold, and forty dirhams upon the people of silver, every year. For the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) knew the weakness of the people of Yemen, and 'Umar (may God be pleased with him) knew the wealth and strength of the people of Syria.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-'Ibad, p. 84 our rendering · Open the passage

6 When the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) reached Tabuk, the ruler of Ayla came to him, made peace with him and paid him the jizya… and he wrote for the ruler of Ayla: "In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. This is a guarantee of safety from God and from Muhammad the Prophet, the Messenger of God, for Yuhanna ibn Ru'ba and the people of Ayla: their ships and their caravans, on land and sea, have the protection of God and of Muhammad the Prophet… and it is not lawful that they be kept from water they come to, nor from a road they travel, by sea or by land."

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-'Ibad, p. 469 our rendering · Open the passage

7 Beware: whoever wrongs a covenanted man, or diminishes his right, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his willing consent, I shall be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection.

A number of fathers among the Companions of the Prophet · Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani · Hidayat al-Ruwat 4/100 · hasan (good) our rendering

8 …even if the one summoned does not come to him content with his ruling, and likewise if he shows displeasure at his ruling. This is because of what I described of the saying of God, Mighty and Majestic: (being brought low, 9:29). So being brought low — and God knows best — is that the ruling of Islam runs upon them.

Al-Shafi'i · Ahkam al-Qur'an li-l-Shafi'i, collected by al-Bayhaqi, p. 78 our rendering · Open the passage

When the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) appointed a commander over an army or a raiding party, he would enjoin upon him privately the fear of God, and good treatment of the Muslims with him. Then he would say: Set out in the name of God, in the path of God. Fight whoever disbelieves in God. Set out, and do not steal from the spoils, and do not act treacherously, and do not mutilate, and do not kill a child. And when you meet your enemy among the polytheists, call them to three things — whichever of them they answer you with, accept it from them and hold back from them. Then call them to Islam; if they answer you, accept it from them and hold back from them. Then call them to move from their land to the land of the emigrants, and tell them that if they do so, they have what the emigrants have and upon them is what is upon the emigrants. If they refuse to move from it, then tell them that they will be like the bedouin Muslims: the ruling of God that runs upon the believers runs upon them, and they will have no share in the spoils or the fay' unless they fight alongside the Muslims. If they refuse, then ask them for the jizya; if they answer you, accept it from them and hold back from them. If they refuse, then seek the help of God and fight them. And if you besiege the people of a fortress and they want you to grant them the protection of God and the protection of His Prophet, do not grant them the protection of God nor the protection of His Prophet; rather grant them your own protection and the protection of your companions. For your breaking your own guarantees and the guarantees of your companions is a lighter matter than your breaking the guarantee of God and the guarantee of His Messenger. And if you besiege the people of a fortress and they want you to bring them down upon the judgement of God, do not bring them down upon the judgement of God; rather bring them down upon your own judgement, for you do not know whether you will hit upon God's judgement concerning them or not. In another narration: When the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) sent out a commander or a raiding party, he would call him and enjoin upon him…

Buraydah ibn al-Husayb al-Aslami · Muslim · Sahih Muslim 1731 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

Beware: whoever wrongs a covenanted man, or diminishes his right, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his willing consent, I shall be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection.

A number of fathers among the Companions of the Prophet · Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani · Hidayat al-Ruwat 4/100 · hasan (good) our rendering

The strongest objection

The very al-Shafi'i you argue from says, in the same book: "God (Mighty and Majestic) has not permitted that the jizya be taken from the one He commanded it be taken from, until he gives it by hand, brought low" [[8]] — so for him being brought low is a condition for the validity of the taking, not the description of some incidental effect, and that is exactly what I claimed. The graduated amount and the protection of the road do not touch the point of the complaint: the tax stays conditional on my not holding your religion, and the verse extends the fighting "until they pay" — so it is ransom paid to a sword, which you have named a contract of insurance.

The condition is granted; the dispute is over what it contains. Al-Shafi'i interprets it with his own hand in the second passage: the judge's ruling is carried out upon them "even if the one summoned does not come to him content with his ruling," "because of what I described of the saying of God, Mighty and Majestic: (being brought low, 9:29)… so being brought low is that the ruling of Islam runs upon them" 8 — he draws from the word the binding force of the courts, not the humiliation of a tax collector. As for "until they pay" 1, the Sunna places four things before it, not one: Islam, then relocation, then "if they refuse, then ask them for the jizya," then, last, "if they refuse, then seek the help of God and fight them" — so it is the last thing offered before the sword, not the first thing demanded. A weight remains in the wording that none of this lifts; it was granted at the head of the answer, with no claim made to lift it.

ISIS and al-Qaeda cite the very same verses you cite. What makes your reading more valid than theirs?

You will not get "they do not represent Islam" here, followed by a change of subject. That sentence is "something true as a verdict, and something incomplete as a description of the event: the man who did it meant religion and meant it deliberately, and that is part of what must be explained and not denied" 1. As for where exactly their argument breaks, the text itself names the mechanism of the deviation by description rather than by the name of any group: "But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension" 2. The commentary on it says they "follow these allegorical verses alone", while those firm in knowledge "refer what is allegorical in it back to what is clear" 3 — so the condemnation of reading by cherry-picking is the verdict of the text, not something laid on top of it. Ibn al-Qayyim ran this same test on the first faction of that kind, in wording that matches what you see in the news: "So they declared them unbelievers and rose against them with the sword, killing the people of faith and leaving the people of idols alone. The corruption of this world and of religion comes from putting the allegorical ahead of the clear" 4. That is the wording of the prophetic mark in an authenticated hadith: "they recite the Qur'an, and it does not pass beyond their throats ... they kill the people of Islam, and leave the people of idols alone" 5 — so the memorization you point to falls inside the description rather than refuting it. And the break happens at two specific steps. First, the charge of unbelief: "say not unto one who offereth you peace: 'Thou art not a believer'" 6; the commentary reads, "Do not deny faith to anyone who shows some sign of Islam and does not fight you" 7; and "declaring an unbeliever someone whom God and His Messenger did not declare an unbeliever" is a major sin in its own right 8. Second, the indiscriminate killing: "but begin not hostilities" 9, explained as "the killing of those whose killing is not lawful — women, children, the old" 10. And what is not on offer here is said plainly before you find it out: a weighting of the verses of fighting themselves. The book withholds exactly that, in so many words 11.

1 And whoever says 'these do not represent religion' is saying something true as a verdict, and something incomplete as a description of the event: the man who did it meant religion and meant it deliberately, and that is part of what must be explained and not denied.

17. Religion and Wars · Open the passage

2 He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

Surah Al Imran 3:7 · Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

3 Those with sick, deviating hearts, out of their bad intent, follow these allegorical verses alone, so as to stir up doubts among people and lead them astray, and so as to interpret them according to their false doctrines. ... and they refer what is allegorical in it back to what is clear in it

Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · Al Imran 3:7 our rendering · Open the passage

4 So they declared them unbelievers and rose against them with the sword, killing the people of faith and leaving the people of idols alone. The corruption of this world and of religion comes from putting the allegorical ahead of the clear, opinion ahead of the revealed law, and desire ahead of guidance.

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al-'Alamin, p. 217 our rendering · Open the passage

5 Some gold ore was sent to the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, and he divided it among four men. And Ishaq ibn Nasr related to me: Abd al-Razzaq related to us: Sufyan told us, from his father, from Ibn Abi Nu'm, from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, who said: Ali, while he was in Yemen, sent to the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, some gold ore still in its dirt, and he divided it among al-Aqra' ibn Habis al-Hanzali, then one of the Banu Mujashi'; Uyayna ibn Badr al-Fazari; Alqama ibn Ulatha al-Amiri, then one of the Banu Kilab; and Zayd al-Khayl al-Ta'i, then one of the Banu Nabhan. Quraysh and the Ansar were angered and said: He gives it to the chiefs of Najd and leaves us out. He said: I am only winning their hearts. Then a man came forward, sunken-eyed, with a protruding forehead, a thick beard, high cheekbones and a shaven head, and said: Muhammad, fear God. The Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, said: Who then obeys God if I disobey Him? He trusts me over the people of the earth, and you do not trust me! A man among the people asked to kill him - I think it was Khalid ibn al-Walid - and the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, prevented him. When the man turned away, the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, said: Out of this man's stock will come a people who recite the Qur'an, and it does not pass beyond their throats. They pass out of Islam as the arrow passes through its quarry. They kill the people of Islam, and leave the people of idols alone. If I live to see them, I will kill them as Ad was killed.

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 7432 · authentic (sahih) our rendering

6 O ye who believe! When ye go forth (to fight) in the way of Allah, be careful to discriminate, and say not unto one who offereth you peace: "Thou art not a believer," seeking the chance profits of this life (so that ye may despoil him). With Allah are plenteous spoils. Even thus (as he now is) were ye before; but Allah hath since then been gracious unto you. Therefore take care to discriminate. Allah is ever Informed of what ye do.

Surah An-Nisa 4:94 · Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

7 Do not deny faith to anyone who shows some sign of Islam and does not fight you, since he may be a believer who is concealing his faith

Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · An-Nisa 4:94 our rendering · Open the passage

8 Among the major sins is declaring an unbeliever someone whom God and His Messenger did not declare an unbeliever. The Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, ordered that the Khawarij be fought, and told that they are the worst of the slain under the vault of heaven, and that they pass out of Islam as the arrow passes through its quarry, and that their religion is to declare Muslims unbelievers for their sins

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al-'Alamin, p. 307 our rendering · Open the passage

9 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Surah Al-Baqara 2:190 · Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

10 And do not commit what is forbidden: mutilation, pilfering from the spoils, and the killing of those whose killing is not lawful - women, children, the old, and those who stand in their position

Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · Al-Baqara 2:190 our rendering · Open the passage

11 And I offer you no weighting in it. What I do say with certainty is one thing, and it lies outside the place of the dispute: that what the armed groups do today was met with repudiation from the scholars across their differing schools, and I know of no considered opinion that supports it - and this is what I know, not a sweep by which I have taken in everyone who has written.

20. Difficult Texts · Open the passage

12 When the four months in which you granted the idolaters safety have passed, declare war on the enemies of God wherever they are, and go after them with siege in their strongholds, and lie in wait for them along their roads

Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · At-Tawba 9:5 our rendering · Open the passage

13 Ibn Sa'd reported, by way of Ikrima from Ibn Abbas, that Ali ibn Abi Talib sent him to the Khawarij and said: Go to them and dispute with them, but do not argue against them with the Qur'an, for it bears many faces; argue against them with the Sunna

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti · Al-Itqan fi 'Ulum al-Qur'an, p. 409 our rendering · Open the passage

14 The Khawarij are among the most truthful of people in speech, yet they lied against God and His Messenger; and so did the Qadariyya and the Mu'tazila. They think themselves truthful and not liars, so they hold this falsehood as a matter of religion and take it for the truest of truth.

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Al-Turuq al-Hukmiyya fi al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyya, p. 293 our rendering · Open the passage

Some gold ore was sent to the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, and he divided it among four men. And Ishaq ibn Nasr related to me: Abd al-Razzaq related to us: Sufyan told us, from his father, from Ibn Abi Nu'm, from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, who said: Ali, while he was in Yemen, sent to the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, some gold ore still in its dirt, and he divided it among al-Aqra' ibn Habis al-Hanzali, then one of the Banu Mujashi'; Uyayna ibn Badr al-Fazari; Alqama ibn Ulatha al-Amiri, then one of the Banu Kilab; and Zayd al-Khayl al-Ta'i, then one of the Banu Nabhan. Quraysh and the Ansar were angered and said: He gives it to the chiefs of Najd and leaves us out. He said: I am only winning their hearts. Then a man came forward, sunken-eyed, with a protruding forehead, a thick beard, high cheekbones and a shaven head, and said: Muhammad, fear God. The Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, said: Who then obeys God if I disobey Him? He trusts me over the people of the earth, and you do not trust me! A man among the people asked to kill him - I think it was Khalid ibn al-Walid - and the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, prevented him. When the man turned away, the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, said: Out of this man's stock will come a people who recite the Qur'an, and it does not pass beyond their throats. They pass out of Islam as the arrow passes through its quarry. They kill the people of Islam, and leave the people of idols alone. If I live to see them, I will kill them as Ad was killed.

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 7432 · authentic (sahih) our rendering

Ali, while he was in Yemen, sent some gold ore still in its dirt to the Messenger of God, God bless him and grant him peace, and the Messenger of God, God bless him and grant him peace, divided it among four men: al-Aqra' ibn Habis al-Hanzali, Uyayna ibn Badr al-Fazari, Alqama ibn Ulatha al-Amiri, then one of the Banu Kilab, and Zayd al-Ta'i, then one of the Banu Nabhan. Quraysh were angered - and on another occasion he said: the chiefs of Quraysh - and they said: You give to the chiefs of Najd and leave us out? He said: I did that only to win their hearts. Then a man came with a thick beard, high cheekbones, sunken eyes, a protruding forehead and a shaven head, and said: Fear God, Muhammad. He said: Who then obeys God, mighty and majestic, if I disobey Him? Does He trust me over the people of the earth while you do not trust me? Then the man turned his back, and a man among the people asked leave to kill him - they hold that it was Khalid ibn al-Walid - and the Messenger of God, God bless him and grant him peace, said: Out of this man's stock will come a people who recite the Qur'an, and it does not pass beyond their throats. They kill the people of Islam, and leave the people of idols alone. They pass out of Islam as the arrow passes through its quarry. If I live to see them, I will kill them as Ad was killed.

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri · al-Albani · Sahih al-Nasa'i 2577 · authentic (sahih) our rendering

The strongest objection

That is counter-selection, not a refutation. You picked 4:94 and 2:190 and said nothing about 9:5 — and that is their verse, not yours, and your own commentary states no restriction in it. And Ibn al-Qayyim is no arbiter between me and them; he is a party to the quarrel. Every faction calls whatever agrees with it clear and whatever contradicts it allegorical, so who decides? Besides, their sincerity and their memorization say they read your book as it stands, not that they are people with a sickness in their hearts — and the description you offer as a mark fits every opponent, so it singles out no one.

The first half of that is true, and it does not get papered over here. The Muyassar on 9:5 reads, "declare war on the enemies of God wherever they are, and go after them with siege in their strongholds" — there is no restriction in it, and putting 9:6 underneath it so that it comes out as a restriction would be an arrangement added on top, not a report from any commentator 12. The book's position is stated in its own letters, reservation and all: "And I offer you no weighting in it. What I do say with certainty is one thing, and it lies outside the place of the dispute: that what the armed groups do today was met with repudiation from the scholars across their differing schools, and I know of no considered opinion that supports it — and this is what I know, not a sweep by which I have taken in everyone who has written" 11. As for "who decides?", your objection was acted on before it was asked. Ali sent Ibn Abbas to them and said, "Go to them and dispute with them, but do not argue against them with the Qur'an, for it bears many faces; argue against them with the Sunna" 13 — that is, throwing verse against verse settles nothing. It is your own complaint, said from inside the community rather than from outside it. As for sincerity, it is not on the scale at all, and the scholars said this about them, not about you: "The Khawarij are among the most truthful of people in speech, yet they lied against God and His Messenger ... They think themselves truthful and not liars" 14. So the distinguishing mark is not a claim about intention but an act that can be matched against the record: they kill the people of Islam and leave the people of idols alone 5.

It is said that "no compulsion in religion" (2:256) is abrogated by Sura 9. Are you quoting a cancelled verse?

No. The verse — "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error." 1 — is not covered by some consensus on abrogation that is being kept from you. What the books of abrogation themselves record is a disagreement: "The scholars differed as to whether this portion of the verse is firm or abrogated," and Ibn Abbas, Mujahid and Qatada held that it stands 2. Here is the other side, named rather than smoothed over: al-Dahhak, al-Suddi and Ibn Zayd said it was abrogated, and al-Suddi named the abrogating text as Sura al-Tawba, exactly as you do; their ground is that it "was revealed before fighting was commanded" 3. That ground falls on the occasion of the verse's own revelation. Ibn Abbas places it at the expulsion of Banu al-Nadir 4, and Ibn al-Qayyim states without doubt that al-Nadir "was after Uhud" 5 — so it came down while fighting was already under way, not before fighting was commanded. As for the claim that it is never acted upon: Umar ibn al-Khattab — the man responsible for "the trust of the Muslims" — offered Islam to his slave Wasaq the Byzantine, who refused. Umar said, "There is no compulsion in religion," then freed him and said, "Go wherever you wish" 6. Abu Ubayd reports this and then rules that the verse stands unabrogated 7. And in Sura al-Tawba itself — the sura said to have cancelled it — one verse after the Verse of the Sword: "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety." 8 He hears, and then he is returned "safely to where he came from," since "they may well choose it once that ignorance is removed" 9. His safe departure is not conditional on his becoming a Muslim.

1 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

Sura al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:256 · Open the passage

2 The scholars differed as to whether this portion of the verse is firm or abrogated. … The first view: that it is a general statement that has been particularized, and that the People of the Book were excepted from it, for they are not compelled into Islam but are given the choice between it and paying the jizya. This meaning is related from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid and Qatada.

Ibn al-Jawzi · Nawasikh al-Qur'an, p. 296 our rendering · Open the passage

3 The second view: that it is abrogated, (because this verse) was revealed before fighting was commanded, and was then abrogated by the Verse of the Sword; this is the view of al-Dahhak, al-Suddi and Ibn Zayd. … From Ismail al-Suddi, tracing it back to those above him, on "There is no compulsion in religion": he said, it was abrogated, and fighting the People of the Book was commanded in Sura Baraa.

Ibn al-Jawzi · Nawasikh al-Qur'an, p. 298 our rendering · Open the passage

4 From Said ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas, who said: a woman of the Ansar whose children did not live would vow upon herself that if a child of hers lived she would bring him up as a Jew. So when Banu al-Nadir were expelled, some of the sons of the Ansar were among them, and they said: we will not abandon our sons. Then God sent down: "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error."

al-Wahidi · Asbab Nuzul al-Qur'an (Occasions of Revelation), p. 82 our rendering · Open the passage

5 Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri claimed that the raid on Banu al-Nadir was six months after Badr. This is a slip on his part, or an error attributed to him; rather, what admits of no doubt is that it was after Uhud, and the one that was six months after Badr was the raid on Banu Qaynuqa.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Maad, p. 222 our rendering · Open the passage

6 From Wasaq the Byzantine, who said: I was a slave of Umar ibn al-Khattab, and he said to me: Wasaq, become a Muslim, for if you become a Muslim I will employ you over the trust of the Muslims, since I do not seek help in their affairs from one who is not of them. He said: I refused. So he said: "There is no compulsion in religion." Then he set me free and said: go wherever you wish.

Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam · al-Nasikh wa-l-Mansukh, p. 281 our rendering · Open the passage

7 Abu Ubayd said: this, God willing, is the sense of this verse — that it applies to the people of dhimma, because they pay the jizya, or to those who are slaves. As for the people of war, it does not apply to them.

Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam · al-Nasikh wa-l-Mansukh, p. 281 our rendering · Open the passage

8 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

Sura al-Tawba (Repentance) 9:6 · Open the passage

9 If one of the idolaters whose blood and property have been made lawful asks to enter your protection — O Messenger — and desires safety, then grant him his request, so that he may hear the Noble Qur'an and see its guidance; then return him safely to where he came from, so that the proof may be established against him. That is because the disbelievers are a people ignorant of the realities of Islam, and they may well choose it once that ignorance is removed.

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · Sura al-Tawba (Repentance) 9:6 our rendering · Open the passage

10 Because this religion is complete and its verses are clear, there is no need to compel to it those from whom the jizya is accepted; the proofs are plain, and by them truth is distinguished from falsehood, and guidance from error.

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · Sura al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:256 our rendering · Open the passage

11 3. Did those first addressed act on it after the incident had passed, or did they confine it to that incident? For what the generation that witnessed the incident did is a strong indication of which of the two they understood. 4. Does its meaning change when it is read joined to what comes before it and after it? For cutting a sentence out of its place manufactures a ruling that nobody ever laid down — and this happens on the objector's side and the defender's side alike.

20. The difficult texts · Open the passage

12 Ibn al-Arabi said: everything in the Qur'an about overlooking the disbelievers, turning away from them, disregarding them and holding back from them is abrogated by the Verse of the Sword — the verse ordering that the idolaters be fought once the sacred months have passed — which abrogated one hundred and twenty-four verses; then its end abrogated its beginning.

al-Suyuti · al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur'an, p. 63 our rendering · Open the passage

13 Once you have done that, a great many of the verses adduced by those who multiply them fall away — along with the verses of overlooking and pardon, if we say that the Verse of the Sword did not abrogate them — and what remains fit for that is a small number. I have devoted a small work to it, with its evidence, and here I set it out in corrected form.

al-Suyuti · al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur'an, p. 59 our rendering · Open the passage

The strongest objection

You picked your own side of the disagreement, and then you did not tell us what your side actually says. The Abu Ubayd you lean on limits the verse to the people of dhimma and to slaves, and states it plainly: "As for the people of war, it does not apply to them" [[7]]. And the commentary you publish on this site restricts it to "those from whom the jizya is accepted" [[10]]. So what you have is not "no compulsion in religion." It is: no compulsion once you have been beaten and are paying. That is the same façade — all you have done is move the verse out of the drawer marked abrogation into the drawer marked qualification.

Half of that is true, and it is granted without softening: those who held the verse to be in force did not read it as a declaration of freedom of belief in the modern sense, the restriction is written out in their own words 7 10, and anyone who handed it to you as Article 18 of the Universal Declaration deceived you. But your question was whether it is cancelled, and the answer is no — and the difference between "qualified" and "cancelled" is not a matter of wording. A qualified ruling is still applied within its scope, and it was applied in fact: a slave refused Islam and walked out free 6. As for the charge of cherry-picking, the test is stated openly and was set down before this question came up: "Did those first addressed act on it after the incident had passed, or did they confine it to that incident? For what the generation that witnessed the incident did is a strong indication of which of the two they understood," and "Does its meaning change when it is read joined to what comes before it and after it?" 11 By the first, Umar's practice carries weight 6; by the second, the position of the verse inside Sura al-Tawba itself 8. And here is what weighs against us rather than against you: with Ibn al-Arabi the claim of abrogation by the Verse of the Sword ran to "one hundred and twenty-four verses; then its end abrogated its beginning" 12 — a count that did not hold up with al-Suyuti, since "a great many of the verses adduced by those who multiply them fall away … and what remains fit for that is a small number" 13. It is the sprawl of the abrogation claim that stands accused here, not the citing of the verse.

Why does the Quran never simply say: slavery is abolished from today?

Correct: there is no line in the Quran that says "no more slavery from this day". The premise of the question stands, and the book grants it in its hardest chapter — a person who expects such a line "is asking a sound question", the answers of the scholars include "answers that convince and answers that do not", and no claim is made that the matter is settled 1. What the wording itself carries is a separate question. The verse on captives names two courses in its text and no third: "afterward either grace or ransom" 2. Enslavement enters through the commentator's reading, not through the verse — al-Tafsir al-Muyassar adds to the two: "or they are enslaved or killed" 3. On the other side there is a fixed share of the obligatory zakat, "to free the captives" 4, spent "for freeing slaves and those holding a contract of manumission" 5; freeing a slave is the expiation for something that befalls people every day, a broken oath: "or the liberation of a slave" 6; and a slave may ask for a contract by which he buys himself: "And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them" 7. The heaviest thing to be said against all this — and it is said here, not hidden — is that this last exit is not binding in al-Shafi'i's view: "what I prefer for his master is that he write him a contract of manumission", and it is not clear to him that the master is compelled to it, since the verse may carry guidance or permission rather than an obligation 8. As for the closing part of the question, it is not pushed away by argument. What can be said without dispute is that the door "was closed in practice throughout the world", and that those who tried to revive it among the armed groups of today "were met with wide repudiation from the scholars across their differing schools" 9.

1 And here is where the difficulty lies, and I say it without softening it: the man who says 'I would have expected a divine text to say: no more slavery from this day' is asking a sound question. And the answers the scholars give to it vary: some of them speak of gradualness in an institution on which the economy of the whole world rested, and some of them speak of the closing of the entrances reaching the goal without a sudden demolition. And among them are answers that convince and answers that do not, and I do not claim to you that the matter is settled with me or with them.

20. The difficult texts — Fourth: the hardest thing in the field — slavery, and I do not dodge it · Open the passage

2 Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Surah Muhammad 47:4 · Open the passage

3 So when you meet — O believers — those who disbelieve on the field of battle, fight them in earnest and strike their necks, until, when you have weakened them by the number of the slain and broken their force, bind the captives fast: either you grant them release without payment, or they ransom themselves with money or with something else, or they are enslaved or killed. Keep to this until the war ends.…

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · Surah Muhammad 47:4 our rendering · Open the passage

4 The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise.

Surah al-Tawbah (Repentance) 9:60 · Open the passage

5 The obligatory alms are given only to the poor who own nothing; to the needy who do not own what suffices them; to the collectors who gather them; to those whose hearts are reconciled by them — those whose acceptance of Islam is hoped for, or the strengthening of their faith, or their benefit to the Muslims, or by whom you ward off the harm of someone from the Muslims; and they are given for freeing slaves and those holding a contract of manumission,…

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · Surah al-Tawbah (Repentance) 9:60 our rendering · Open the passage

6 Allah will not take you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths, but He will take you to task for the oaths which ye swear in earnest. The expiation thereof is the feeding of ten of the needy with the average of that wherewith ye feed your own folk, or the clothing of them, or the liberation of a slave, and for him who findeth not (the wherewithal to do so) then a three days' fast. This is the expiation of your oaths when ye have sworn; and keep your oaths. Thus Allah expoundeth unto you His revelations in order that ye may give thanks.

Surah al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread) 5:89 · Open the passage

7 And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.

Surah al-Nur (Light) 24:33 · Open the passage

8 al-Shafi'i said: 'And when he combines the strength to earn with trustworthiness, then what I prefer for his master is that he write him a contract of manumission. And it is not clear to me that he is compelled to it, because the verse may carry guidance, or permission [not: an obligation]. A number of the people of knowledge whom I have met have held this view.'

al-Shafi'i (compiled by al-Bayhaqi) · Ahkam al-Qur'an li-l-Shafi'i, p. 169 our rendering · Open the passage

9 And what can be said without dispute is this: that the door was closed in practice throughout the world, and that those of the armed groups of our own time who tried to revive it were met with wide repudiation from the scholars across their differing schools.

20. The difficult texts — Fourth: the hardest thing in the field — slavery, and I do not dodge it · Open the passage

10 Abd Allah ibn Salih related to us, from Muawiya ibn Salih, from Ali ibn Abi Talha, from Ibn Abbas, concerning the word of God that it is not for a prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. He said: that was on the day of Badr, and the Muslims were few that day; and when they became many and their power grew strong, God sent down after this, concerning the captives, "afterward either grace or ransom". So God gave the Prophet — God bless him — and the believers a choice concerning the captives: if they wished they killed them, and if they wished they ransomed them, and if they wished they enslaved them — Abu Ubayd was uncertain about 'they enslaved them'.

Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam · al-Nasikh wa-l-Mansukh fi al-Qur'an al-'Aziz, p. 208 our rendering · Open the passage

11 It is related from Ibn Abbas and Mujahid, among others, that this verse is abrogated by His word "afterward either grace or ransom". But there is no ground for abrogation, because the raid of Badr took place when the Muslims were few; and when they became many and their power grew strong, the other verse came down. This is made clear by His word that it is until he has made slaughter in the land.

Ibn al-Jawzi · Nawasikh al-Qur'an, p. 454 our rendering · Open the passage

The strongest objection

Everything you have listed manages slavery; none of it abolishes it. An expiation in which a human being is bought from a market that is up and running. A share of zakat paid as the price of a person, handed to his owner. A contract of manumission that your own imam says cannot be compelled. All three affirm ownership and work inside it. Even your claim that "the verse names two courses" is undone by what stands in your own books: Ibn Abbas makes the choice killing, or ransom, or enslavement. So you have no prohibition. You have encouragement that can be disregarded without sin — which is why it lasted thirteen centuries, until it was abolished under pressure from outside your own lands.

Most of that is right, and it is not disputed here. Two things can be added. First, the report you argue from carries its own transmitter's doubt about the decisive word itself: "and if they wished they enslaved them — Abu Ubayd was uncertain about 'they enslaved them'" 10. Second, the ruling on captives is an old dispute that never settled, to the point that Ibn al-Jawzi rejects the claim of abrogation in this matter and says "there is no ground for abrogation" 11. Neither of the two is an explicit prohibition, and neither is claimed to be. The book cited here says exactly that: among the answers are "answers that convince and answers that do not", and the matter is not settled either for it or for them 1.

"Cut off their hands" (5:38) — a permanent bodily mutilation for theft?

No. The hand of a hungry man is not cut off, and that is a ruling written down in the books of jurisprudence, not an excuse manufactured today. Umar ibn al-Khattab suspended the amputation for the thief in the year of famine, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal was asked: "If he steals during a famine, do you not cut off his hand? He said: No, not if need drove him to it and the people are in famine and hardship." 1 More explicit still is the case of Hatib's slave boys: they stole a she-camel and confessed against themselves, so Umar ordered their hands cut off, then called them back and said to their master: "Were it not that I know you work them and starve them ... I would have cut off their hands." Then he fined him twice the price of the camel: its price was four hundred, so he ordered that he be given eight hundred 2. The penalty fell on the man who starved them, not on the men who went hungry. Ibn al-Qayyim treats need as "a strong doubt that averts the amputation from the needy, and it is stronger than many of the doubts that many jurists mention." 3 Beyond that, the general wording of the verse is restricted in the law itself, not in a later apology for it: "The hand is not cut off except for a quarter of a dinar or more." 4 And there is no amputation except for what is taken out of a place of safekeeping, so much so that there is none for fruit still on the tree nor for the pith of the palm, "because they are not kept in safekeeping." 5 The text itself, "cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah" 6, is aimed at deterrence, not at recovering property: it is "a punishment by which Allah prevents others from doing as they did." 7

1 The third example: that Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, suspended the amputation for the thief in the year of famine. Al-Sa'di said: ... Al-Sa'di said: I asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal about this hadith and he said: al-idhq is the palm tree, and "the year of drought" is the famine. I said to Ahmad: Do you hold this? He said: Yes, by my life. I said: If he steals during a famine, do you not cut off his hand? He said: No, not if need drove him to it and the people are in famine and hardship.

Ibn al-Qayyim, I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in an Rabb al-Alamin, p. 16 our rendering · Open the passage

2 Some slave boys belonging to Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a stole a she-camel from a man of Muzayna. They were brought to Umar and they confessed. He sent for Abd al-Rahman ibn Hatib, who came, and Umar said to him: Hatib's slave boys have stolen a she-camel from a man of Muzayna and have confessed against themselves. Then Umar said: O Kathir ibn al-Salt, go and cut off their hands. When he had led them away, Umar called them back and said: By Allah, were it not that I know you work them and starve them, so that if one of them ate what Allah has forbidden him it would be lawful for him, I would have cut off their hands. And by Allah, since I am not doing it, I shall fine you a fine that will hurt you. Then he said: O man of Muzayna, how much was offered you for your she-camel? He said: Four hundred. Umar said: Go and give him eight hundred.

Ibn al-Qayyim, I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in an Rabb al-Alamin, p. 16 our rendering · Open the passage

3 This is a strong doubt that averts the amputation from the needy, and it is stronger than many of the doubts that many jurists mention ... In the year of famine the needy and the hard-pressed are many, and the one among them who is not in want and steals without need cannot be told apart from the rest, so the man on whom the hadd is due became confused with the man on whom it is not due, and so it was averted. Yes, if it becomes clear that the thief has no need and is in no want of stealing, his hand is cut off.

Ibn al-Qayyim, I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in an Rabb al-Alamin, p. 17 our rendering · Open the passage

4 The hand is not cut off except for a quarter of a dinar or more.

Aisha, Mother of the Believers - Muslim - Sahih Muslim 1684 - authentic (sahih) our rendering

5 Al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned among the like of this verse: the verse of ablution, with the Sunna coming with the wiping over the leather socks; and the verse of theft, with the Sunna coming with the ruling that there is no amputation for fruit on the tree nor for the pith of the palm, because they are not kept in safekeeping, and that no one is to have his hand cut off unless what he stole reached a quarter of a dinar.

Al-Bayhaqi, Ahkam al-Qur'an li-l-Shafi'i (The Rulings of the Qur'an, by al-Shafi'i, compiled by al-Bayhaqi), p. 26 our rendering · Open the passage

6 As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Surat al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread) 5:38 - Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

7 As for the thief, male and female, cut off - O you who hold authority - their hands as the law requires, as a recompense to them for taking people's property without right, and as a punishment by which Allah prevents others from doing as they did. And Allah is Mighty in His dominion, Wise in what He commands and forbids.

Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar (The Simplified Exegesis), on al-Ma'idah 5:38 our rendering · Open the passage

8 2. The penalties. And here is where the four boxes are run together most: for there is a difference between a text in which there is a fixed penalty, and conditions of proof that the scholars made so severe that the penalty scarcely falls at all, and the practice of a state that imposes it with no condition and no looking into anything. And whoever argues against the first in the shape of the third has argued against something that was never laid down. And this taking apart is sound and I do not offer it as a complete answer: there remains after it a question about the kind of penalty itself and not about its conditions, and it is a standing question which I do not deny and do not settle.

20. Difficult Texts · Open the passage

The hand is not cut off except for a quarter of a dinar or more.

Aisha, Mother of the Believers - Muslim - Sahih Muslim 1684 - authentic (sahih) our rendering

The hand is cut off for a quarter of a dinar or upwards.

Aisha, Mother of the Believers - Al-Bukhari - Sahih al-Bukhari 6789 - authentic (sahih) our rendering

The strongest objection

Everything you have brought narrows the ruling; none of it overturns it. The verse still stands and still commands the cutting, and the very Ibn al-Qayyim you argued from closes the chapter by saying: "Yes, if it becomes clear that the thief has no need and is in no want of stealing, his hand is cut off." So the permanent severing did not fall away. It was moved from the hungry man to the well-fed one. And I did not ask about the hungry man alone: I asked how the cutting off of a limb that does not grow back can be the penalty for property that can be given back. Whoever answers me with the conditions has answered a question I did not ask, and has called the narrowing an answer.

The first half is right and I will not soften it: Ibn al-Qayyim says exactly that, in those words 3, and the book concedes the same limit before anyone puts it to it. Of the distinction between a text, the conditions for proving it, and a state's practice it says: "this taking apart is sound and I do not offer it as a complete answer: there remains after it a question about the kind of penalty itself and not about its conditions, and it is a standing question which I do not deny and do not settle" 8. But your question was not put about the kind of penalty. It was put about one particular scene, a hungry man and a loaf, and that is the very scene in which the amputation is averted 1, so whoever argues from it has "argued against something that was never laid down" 8. What remains once the scene is corrected is a question about someone other than the hungry man: about a man who breaks into a place of safekeeping and takes a quarter of a dinar or more while he is in no want 4, and there the verse is aimed at deterrence, not at recovering the property 7. That is a standing question, and I do not claim to have finished it. What I have finished is the scene it was built on.

What is jihad in the text: warfare, or struggle with the self? And is the "greater jihad" hadith authentic?

You are right about the hadith and wrong about the conclusion. The report "we have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad" is indeed weak, and the man who says so is Ibn Rajab in Jami' al-'Ulum wa'l-Hikam — not some modern apologist: he notes that it is reported as a saying of the Prophet, from a hadith of Jabir, "with a weak chain," and he attributes the words to Ibrahim ibn Abi 'Alqama rather than to the Prophet 1. But the meaning does not rest on that weak report. "The one who strives is he who strives against his own soul for the sake of God" was graded authentic by Ibn Hibban 2, and on it Ibn al-Qayyim built his claim that "the struggle against the self comes before the struggle against the outward enemy, and is its foundation" 3. He divided jihad into four degrees — against the self, against Satan, against the disbelievers, against the hypocrites — and the struggle against the self alone into four further degrees: learning the truth, then acting on it, then calling others to it, then bearing patiently the harm people inflict for it 4, until the count reached thirteen degrees in all 5. As for the claim that the word means pure warfare at its root, the Qur'an itself refutes that: "So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavour" 6. Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar reads it as "strive against the disbelievers with this Qur'an with a great striving, unmixed with slackening" 7, and Ibn al-Qayyim says of it: "This is a Meccan sura, in which he was commanded to strive against the disbelievers with proof and clear exposition and the conveying of the Qur'an" 8. And in the Prophet's own words there is a jihad explicitly described as one "in which there is no fighting": the Hajj and the 'Umra 9. As for the books of jurisprudence, you are right and there is no point in denying it: the chapter is headed "on jihad, the campaigns, the raiding parties, and the expeditions" 8, and Ibn al-Qayyim himself writes that "the struggle against the disbelievers belongs more particularly to the hand" 5. So the juristic term means warfare, the word in the language of the Lawgiver is wider than the term, and both meanings are written down in one and the same book, for a Muslim reader — not for you.

1 Ibrahim ibn Abi 'Alqama said to a group of men who had come back from a campaign: You have come from the lesser jihad; what have you done about the greater jihad? They said: And what is the greater jihad? He said: The jihad of the heart. This is also reported as a saying of the Prophet, from a hadith of Jabir, with a weak chain of transmission, and its wording is: "You have come from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." They said: And what is the greater jihad? He said: "A servant's struggle against his own desire."

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami' al-'Ulum wa'l-Hikam, p. 488 our rendering · Open the passage

2 The one who strives is he who strives against his own soul for the sake of God.

Fadala ibn 'Ubayd · Ibn Hibban · Sahih Ibn Hibban 4706 · authentic (sahih) our rendering

3 The struggle against the self comes before the struggle against the outward enemy, and is its foundation. For so long as a man does not first struggle against his own soul, so that it does what it has been commanded and leaves what it has been forbidden, and so long as he does not war against it for God, he cannot struggle against his enemy outside … indeed, he cannot even go out to his enemy until he has struggled against his own soul to make it go out.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 5 our rendering · Open the passage

4 Section: the degrees of the struggle against the self … Once this is understood, jihad has four degrees: the struggle against the self, the struggle against Satan, the struggle against the disbelievers, and the struggle against the hypocrites. The struggle against the self likewise has four degrees. The first: that a man struggle with it to learn guidance and the religion of truth … The second: that he struggle with it to act upon that guidance once he knows it … The third: that he struggle with it to call others to it, and to teach it to those who do not know it … The fourth: that he struggle with it to endure the hardships of calling to God and the harm people inflict, bearing all of it for God.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 8 our rendering · Open the passage

5 As for the struggle against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, it has four degrees: with the heart, with the tongue, with wealth, and with one's person. The struggle against the disbelievers belongs more particularly to the hand, and the struggle against the hypocrites more particularly to the tongue. … These, then, are thirteen degrees of jihad, and: "Whoever dies without having fought, and without having resolved within himself to fight, dies upon a branch of hypocrisy."

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 9 our rendering · Open the passage

6 So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavour.

Surat al-Furqan 25:52 · Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

7 Had We willed, We would have raised up in every town a warner to call its people to God, mighty and majestic, and to warn them of His punishment. But We made you, O Messenger, one sent to all the people of the earth, and We commanded you to convey this Qur'an to them. So do not obey the disbelievers by abandoning any part of what you were sent with; rather, exert your utmost effort in delivering the message, and strive against the disbelievers with this Qur'an with a great striving, unmixed with slackening.

Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · al-Furqan 25:52 our rendering · Open the passage

8 [Section on his guidance, God bless him and grant him peace, concerning jihad, the campaigns, the raiding parties, and the expeditions] … He strove for God with the striving that is His right: with the heart and the inmost self, with the call and with clear speech, with the sword and with the spearhead; and his hours were given over to striving with his heart, his tongue, and his hand. … This is a Meccan sura, in which he was commanded to strive against the disbelievers with proof and clear exposition and the conveying of the Qur'an; and likewise the struggle against the hypocrites is only by conveying the proof.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 435 our rendering · Open the passage

9 Messenger of God, is there jihad upon women? He said: Yes, upon them is a jihad in which there is no fighting: the Hajj and the 'Umra.

'A'isha, Mother of the Believers · al-Albani · Sahih Ibn Majah 2362 · authentic (sahih) our rendering

10 And strive for Allah with the endeavour which is His right. He hath chosen you and hath not laid upon you in religion any hardship; the faith of your father Abraham (is yours). He hath named you Muslims of old time and in this (Scripture), that the messenger may be a witness against you, and that ye may be witnesses against mankind. So establish worship, pay the poor-due, and hold fast to Allah. He is your Protecting friend. A blessed Patron and a blessed Helper!

Surat al-Hajj 22:78 · Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

11 Strive against your own souls, and carry out the command of God completely, and call people to His path, and strive with your wealth, your tongues, and your persons, keeping your intention in it sincere to God, mighty and majestic, submitting to Him your hearts and your limbs.

Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · al-Hajj 22:78 our rendering · Open the passage

The one who strives is he who strives against his own soul for the sake of God.

Fadala ibn 'Ubayd · Ibn Hibban · Sahih Ibn Hibban 4706 · authentic (sahih) our rendering

Messenger of God, is there jihad upon women? He said: Yes, upon them is a jihad in which there is no fighting: the Hajj and the 'Umra.

'A'isha, Mother of the Believers · al-Albani · Sahih Ibn Majah 2362 · authentic (sahih) our rendering

The strongest objection

That changes the subject rather than answering it. You conceded that the "greater jihad" hadith is weak, then substituted a different hadith and a Meccan verse that came before permission to fight was given, so it proves nothing about what later settled. What governs in practice is not the dictionary but the juristic institution: the very page you cited is the page that says "the struggle against the disbelievers belongs more particularly to the hand," and that quotes "whoever dies without having fought, and without having resolved within himself to fight, dies upon a branch of hypocrisy." So the breadth of the word is decoration for export, while the practice is sword, spoils, and captives.

Your first half is granted, and it is quoted here from its own source in its own words, not passed over in silence 5. What is in dispute is only the charge of a double message. The man who wrote "belongs more particularly to the hand" and "whoever dies without having fought" 5 is the same man who wrote, in that very book, that the struggle against the self is "its foundation" and comes before it 3, and who made the first of its degrees learning the truth, acting on it, calling others to it, and enduring the harm people inflict 4 — in an Arabic work written for Muslims, not in a pamphlet handed out to you. As for the Meccan verse, it was not brought forward to overturn a settled ruling, but to establish that when the word came down it was meant as "proof and clear exposition and the conveying of the Qur'an," in Ibn al-Qayyim's own words 8, in al-Tafsir al-Muyassar 7, and in the wording of the verse itself 6. If the word in the language of the Lawgiver meant fighting, then "upon them is a jihad in which there is no fighting" could not stand 9, nor would "And strive for Allah with the endeavour which is His right" 10 be explained as "strive against your own souls … and strive with your wealth, your tongues, and your persons" 11. It remains true that the chapter of jurisprudence is about warfare — and that is a question about the laws of war, to be asked on its own, not evidence of one message for you and another for us.

If Islam governed my country, would I be judged by your law although I am not one of you?

No, for most of what you asked about — and yes, in two specific places. The line is drawn in the texts, not in politeness. The Qur'an gives the Prophet himself a choice about judging between non-Muslims: "If then they have recourse unto thee (Muhammad) judge between them or disclaim jurisdiction." 1 — "So if they come to you seeking your judgement, judge between them, or leave them." 2 — and it orders the People of the Gospel to judge, themselves, by what was revealed in it 3. Your church, your bishop and the rulings of your own community are written into the Prophet's document for the people of Najran: "nothing of what they have been upon shall be changed, nor any right of their rights nor their religion changed, nor shall a bishop be removed from his bishopric, nor a monk from his monastic life" 4. And your wine is your property, not ours: word reached 'Umar that his tax agents were taking wine and swine in the land-tax, so he forbade them and ordered that the protected non-Muslim subjects be left to sell these themselves, "because wine and swine are property among the property of the protected non-Muslim subjects, and they are not property for the Muslims" 5. The places for "yes" are two, and there is no third in these sources: that you bring your dispute of your own choice to a Muslim judge, and it is then decided among you by the ruling of Islam 6; and that the dispute is between you and a Muslim 7. As for your blood, it stands under an explicit warning: "Whoever kills a person under covenant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." 8 And as for the claim that the law comes from God and so is not voted on, Ibn al-Qayyim devotes a chapter of I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in to the change of the legal opinion with the change of times, places and customs, and states in it that "any question that departs from justice into tyranny ... is not part of the Shari'a, even if it has been brought into it by interpretation" 9.

1 Listeners for the sake of falsehood! Greedy for illicit gain! If then they have recourse unto thee (Muhammad) judge between them or disclaim jurisdiction. If thou disclaimest jurisdiction, then they cannot harm thee at all. But if thou judgest, judge between them with equity. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable.

Surah al-Ma'idah 5:42 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

2 These Jews combine listening to falsehood with consuming what is unlawful. So if they come to you seeking your judgement, judge between them, or leave them. If you do not judge between them, they will not be able to harm you in anything. And if you judge, then judge between them with justice. God loves the just.

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · al-Ma'idah 5:42 our rendering · Open the passage

3 Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

Surah al-Ma'idah 5:47 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

4 To Najran and those about it belong the protection of God and the covenant of Muhammad the Prophet, over their persons, their religion, their land, their property, those of them absent and those present, their kin and their dependants; and that nothing of what they have been upon shall be changed, nor any right of their rights nor their religion changed, nor shall a bishop be removed from his bishopric, nor a monk from his monastic life, nor a church officer from his office; and all that is under their hands, little or much. No suspicion is laid upon them, and no blood of the age of ignorance. They shall not be mustered for war, nor tithed, nor shall an army tread their land. Whoever among them claims a right, justice shall be between them, neither wronging nor wronged ... And upon what is in this document is the protection of God and the covenant of Muhammad the Prophet, the Messenger of God, until God brings His command, so long as they are sincere and act rightly in what is due from them, not turning to wrongdoing.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 554 our rendering · Open the passage

5 Abu 'Ubayd said: he means that the Muslims used to take wine and swine from the protected non-Muslim subjects for the poll-tax on their persons and the land-tax of their land, at their value, and then the Muslims would undertake the selling of them. This is what Bilal objected to and what 'Umar forbade. Then he allowed them to take that from the price of these, provided the protected non-Muslim subjects were the ones who undertook the selling; because wine and swine are property among the property of the protected non-Muslim subjects, and they are not property for the Muslims.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 676 our rendering · Open the passage

6 This ruling included that when the protected non-Muslim subjects bring their dispute to us for judgement, we judge between them only by the ruling of Islam.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 32 our rendering · Open the passage

7 And among them: judging the protected non-Muslim subjects by the ruling of Islam even if they have not brought the dispute to us, when the judgement is between them and Muslims.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 10 our rendering · Open the passage

8 Whoever kills a person under covenant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, and its fragrance is found from a distance of forty years' travel.

'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 3166 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

9 A chapter on the changing of the legal opinion, and its differing according to the change of times, places, circumstances, intentions and customs ... For the Shari'a is built and founded upon wise purpose and the welfare of people in this life and the next. It is justice entire, mercy entire, benefit entire, wisdom entire. So any question that departs from justice into tyranny, from mercy into its opposite, from benefit into harm, and from wisdom into futility, is not part of the Shari'a, even if it has been brought into it by interpretation.

Ibn al-Qayyim · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, p. 10 our rendering · Open the passage

10 The fortieth aspect: that the conditions imposed upon the protected non-Muslim subjects included distinguishing them from the Muslims in dress, hair, mounts and other things, so that resembling them should not lead to a disbeliever being treated as a Muslim is treated. So this means was blocked by obliging them to be distinguished from the Muslims.

Ibn al-Qayyim · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, p. 115 our rendering · Open the passage

11 And in Abu Dawud: "The value of the blood-money in the time of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, was eight hundred dinars and eight thousand dirhams; and the blood-money of the People of the Book at that time was half the blood-money of a Muslim. Then, when 'Umar came, he raised the blood-money of the Muslims and left the blood-money of the protected non-Muslim subjects, not raising it among what he raised of the blood-money."

Ibn al-Qayyim · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, p. 276 our rendering · Open the passage

12 2. The penalties. And here is where the four boxes are run together most: for there is a difference between a text in which there is a fixed penalty, and conditions of proof that the scholars made so severe that the penalty scarcely falls at all, and the practice of a state that imposes it with no condition and no looking into anything. And whoever argues against the first in the shape of the third has argued against something that was never laid down. And this taking apart is sound and I do not offer it as a complete answer: there remains after it a question about the kind of penalty itself and not about its conditions, and it is a standing question which I do not deny and do not settle.

20. The difficult texts · Open the passage

Whoever kills a person under covenant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, and its fragrance is found from a distance of forty years' travel.

'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 3166 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

The strongest objection

These are seventh-century contracts with particular peoples, and what they amount to is that I am left on my religion as the price of a poll-tax and a lower standing — the safety of a subordinate, not the right of a citizen. Your own standard commentary does not treat the verse that there is to be no compulsion in religion as an absolute freedom; it restricts it: "there is no need to compel to it those from whom the poll-tax is accepted" [[10]] — that is, the absence of compulsion is the fruit of a financial contract, not a recognition of me. And your own authoritative books lay down that I am obliged to be marked off from you in dress and in mounts, "so that resembling them should not lead to a disbeliever being treated as a Muslim is treated" [[11]], and they report that my blood-money is half the blood-money of a Muslim, and that 'Umar raised the blood-money of the Muslims and left mine where it was [[12]]. So you have not answered my last question at all: what is my vote worth in a system whose ranks were arranged before I was born?

The two disparities you named are neither a verse nor a hadith. The first is a set of "imposed conditions" that Ibn al-Qayyim brings up in the chapter on blocking the means to harm 10; the second is a report he relays from Abu Dawud recounting what 'Umar did 11 — that is, the jurisprudence of a state in its own time, not a revealed text. And the standard by which the two are judged comes from inside the same book, not from outside it: "any question that departs from justice into tyranny ... is not part of the Shari'a, even if it has been brought into it by interpretation", in a chapter whose subject is that the legal opinion changes with the change of times, places and customs 9. As for the fixed corporal penalties on your body, I do not make light of them and I do not have a complete answer for you on them. The book distinguishes between the text, the conditions of proof, and "the practice of a state that imposes it with no condition and no looking into anything", and then says in its own words that after this taking apart there remains "a question about the kind of penalty itself and not about its conditions, and it is a standing question which I do not deny and do not settle" 12 — so you were told the matter is open before you asked it. As for its being the safety of a subordinate: its condition in the Najran document is written at the end of it — "so long as they are sincere and act rightly in what is due from them, not turning to wrongdoing" 4 — and that is a condition of refraining from wrongdoing, not a condition of belief; and set against it is that killing you deprives your killer of the fragrance of Paradise 8.

Is the penalty for leaving Islam death? How does that square with "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256)?

No. The Qur'an names apostasy explicitly and lays down for it not one worldly penalty: "And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief" — and its recompense is that works come to nothing, and the Fire, not a sword 2. Tafsir al-Muyassar stops exactly where the verse stops: "his deed has come to nothing in this world and in the Hereafter" 3. And "There is no compulsion in religion" 1 came down over your question itself: two sons of a man of the Ansar became Christians and left for Syria, their father told the Prophet, and the verse came down 4. In a second report they brought the dispute before him and the verse came down, "so he let the two of them go" 5 — that is, the first thing the verse did was to take from a father the right to bring his two sons back. And Umar ibn al-Khattab — the caliph, not a preacher — offered Islam to a slave of his, who refused; so he said, "There is no compulsion in religion," then "he set me free and said: go wherever you wish" 6. As for the wording in the Sunnah, it is compound, not single: "the one who abandons his religion and separates from the community" 7. And Ibn Rajab cites another wording of the same hadith — "a man who leaves Islam and makes war on God and His Messenger" — and says of it: "this shows that what is meant is one who combines apostasy and making war" 8. He also holds that it is not a punishment for a past act at all: "As for the apostate, he is killed only for a description present in him at the moment… so the licence for his blood falls away" if he returns 9 — the door you describe as shut is opened by a word at any moment, and this alone sets it apart, in their own reckoning, from the punishment of the adulterer and the murderer.

1 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

Surah al-Baqarah 2:256 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

2 They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein.

Surah al-Baqarah 2:217 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

3 …And whoever among you — O Muslims — obeys them and turns back from his religion and then dies in disbelief, his deed has come to nothing in this world and in the Hereafter, and he becomes one of those held fast in the Fire of Hell, never to come out of it.

Tafsir al-Muyassar · Surah al-Baqarah 2:217 our rendering · Open the passage

4 …Al-Suddi said: it came down concerning a man of the Ansar known as Abu al-Husayn, who had two sons. Traders from Syria came to Medina carrying oil, and when they wanted to return from Medina the two sons of Abu al-Husayn came to them, and they called the two to Christianity, so they became Christians and went out to Syria. Abu al-Husayn told the Messenger of God — may God bless him and grant him peace — and he said: 'Go after them.' So God, mighty and majestic, sent down: "There is no compulsion in religion." And the Messenger of God — may God bless him and grant him peace — said: 'May God put them far away; they are the first to disbelieve.' He said: and this was before the Messenger of God — may God bless him and grant him peace — was commanded to fight the People of the Book; then His words "There is no compulsion in religion" were abrogated, and he was commanded to fight the People of the Book in Surat Bara'a.

al-Wahidi · Asbab Nuzul al-Qur'an (Occasions of the Revelation of the Qur'an), p. 83 our rendering · Open the passage

5 …that the two become Muslims. So they brought the dispute before the Prophet — may God bless him and grant him peace — and he said: O Messenger of God, is a part of me to enter the Fire while I look on? So God, mighty and majestic, sent down: "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error." And he let the two of them go.

al-Wahidi · Asbab Nuzul al-Qur'an (Occasions of the Revelation of the Qur'an), p. 84 our rendering · Open the passage

6 Ali informed us, he said: Abu Ubayd narrated to us, he said: Abd al-Rahman narrated to us, from Sharik, from Abu Hilal al-Ta'i (1), from Wasq al-Rumi (2), who said: I was a slave belonging to Umar ibn al-Khattab, and he said to me: O Wasq, become a Muslim, for if you become a Muslim I will seek your help in the trust of the Muslims, since I do not seek help over them from one who is not of them. He said: I refused. So he said: There is no compulsion in religion. He said: then he set me free and said: go wherever you wish (3).

Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam · al-Nasikh wa-l-Mansukh fi al-Qur'an al-Aziz (The Abrogating and the Abrogated in the Noble Qur'an), p. 281 our rendering · Open the passage

7 The blood of a Muslim man who bears witness that there is no god but God and that I am the Messenger of God is not lawful except for one of three: the married person who commits adultery, a life for a life, and the one who abandons his religion and separates from the community.

Abdullah ibn Mas'ud · Ibn Hibban · Sahih Ibn Hibban 4408 · authentic (sahih) our rendering

8 If it is said: al-Nasa'i has transmitted, from the hadith of Aisha, from the Prophet — may God bless him and grant him peace — that he said: 'The blood of a Muslim man is not lawful except for one of three traits: a married adulterer, who is stoned; a man who kills deliberately, who is killed for it; and a man who leaves Islam and makes war on God and His Messenger, who is killed or crucified or banished from the land' — this shows that what is meant is one who combines apostasy and making war.

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami' al-Ulum wa-l-Hikam (The Compendium of Knowledge and Wisdom), p. 318 our rendering · Open the passage

9 As for the apostate, he is killed only for a description present in him at the moment, namely his abandoning his religion and separating from the community. So if he returns to his religion and to agreement with the community, the description by which his blood was made lawful is gone, and the licence for his blood falls away. And God knows best.

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami' al-Ulum wa-l-Hikam (The Compendium of Knowledge and Wisdom), p. 318 our rendering · Open the passage

10 And also, a man may abandon his religion and separate from the community while affirming the two testimonies and claiming Islam — as when he denies something of the pillars of Islam, or reviles God and His Messenger, or disbelieves in some of the angels or the prophets or the books mentioned in the Qur'an, while knowing that. And in Sahih al-Bukhari, from Ibn Abbas, from the Prophet — may God bless him and grant him peace — he said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami' al-Ulum wa-l-Hikam (The Compendium of Knowledge and Wisdom), p. 317 our rendering · Open the passage

11 Because of the completeness of this religion and the clarity of its signs, there is no need to compel to it those from whom the jizya is accepted. The proofs are plain; by them truth is distinguished from falsehood, and guidance from error.…

Tafsir al-Muyassar · Surah al-Baqarah 2:256 our rendering · Open the passage

12 Abu Ubayd said: and this is the sense of this verse — if God wills — that it concerns the protected non-Muslim subjects, because they pay the jizya, or that they be slaves. As for the people of war, it is not for them (4).

Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam · al-Nasikh wa-l-Mansukh fi al-Qur'an al-Aziz (The Abrogating and the Abrogated in the Noble Qur'an), p. 281 our rendering · Open the passage

13 And this shows that whoever among the Muslims is found to have made war, the imam has an unrestricted choice regarding him, as the scholars of the people of Medina, Malik and others, hold. The first report may be taken to mean that his going out of Islam is his going out from the rulings of Islam, and it may be taken at face value; and by it argues whoever says that the verse of hiraba applies specifically to apostates: so whoever apostatizes and makes war has done to him what is in the verse, and whoever makes war without apostasy has the rulings of the Muslims applied to him — retaliation, and amputation for theft. This is a report from Ahmad, but not a well-known one from him. And likewise a group of the early generations said that the verse of hiraba applies specifically to apostates, among them Abu Qulaba and others.

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami' al-Ulum wa-l-Hikam (The Compendium of Knowledge and Wisdom), p. 319 our rendering · Open the passage

14 And I will not leave you without a place to start from, so I begin with us. The charges standing against our own tradition are known and countable, and here are three of them by name: fighting, whom it is fought against and why · what the right hand possesses · the penalty for apostasy. Take one, then run the criterion in four steps: what wording does the wrongdoer rest on? And does he rest on it bare, or on conditions in its context which he has dropped? And did its own people themselves go against him in that, and when did the disagreement begin — after the tradition became an embarrassment, or centuries before?…

To the one who says: show me a text that can be tested · Open the passage

The blood of a Muslim man who bears witness that there is no god but God and that I am the Messenger of God is not lawful except for one of three: the married person who commits adultery, a life for a life, and the one who abandons his religion and separates from the community.

Abdullah ibn Mas'ud · Ibn Hibban · Sahih Ibn Hibban 4408 · authentic (sahih) our rendering

The strongest objection

This is selective. Sahih al-Bukhari has "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" — a single, explicit wording with no "separating from the community" in it and no making war; and the one who transmits it is Ibn Rajab himself, on the page immediately before the page you argue from. And your verse is weaker than you made it look: the very Tafsir al-Muyassar you quote confines it to those "from whom the jizya is accepted"; Abu Ubayd, in the line directly after the report from Umar, comments that it concerns the protected non-Muslim subjects and slaves — "as for the people of war, it is not for them"; and al-Suddi, on the page from which you took the occasion of revelation, says that "There is no compulsion in religion" was then abrogated. So you are citing sources that undo you at the very place where you stop in them.

"Whoever changes his religion, kill him" is in al-Bukhari, and I do not hide it: the one who transmits it in my answer is Ibn Rajab himself 10. But its scope is disputed among those who transmit it, not only among their opponents. Ibn Rajab reports that "a group of the early generations" said that "the verse of hiraba applies specifically to apostates" — among them Abu Qulaba — and that "whoever makes war without apostasy has the rulings of the Muslims applied to him" 13; so the description that counts, in their reckoning, is compound, not single. As for the narrowing, these are two opinions belonging to their authors, not two texts: al-Muyassar 11, and Abu Ubayd, who prefaces his own view with "and this is the sense of this verse — if God wills" 12. And the two of them stand against what Abu Ubayd himself narrated from Umar, which concerns a slave and not a protected non-Muslim subject 6, and against the occasion of revelation: two sons of a man of the Ansar, not protected non-Muslim subjects 4. The claim of abrogation undoes itself by its own wording: it was abrogated — so he alleges — by "fighting the People of the Book in Surat Bara'a" 4, that is, in the domain of war between communities, not in the domain of a man who changed his mind in his own house; and it does not touch 2:217, which is the Qur'an's own text on apostasy itself and carries no worldly penalty 2. And the book counts "the penalty for apostasy" as one of three charges standing against Muslims, and gives the criterion for testing it instead of answering it: "And does he rest on it bare, or on conditions in its context which he has dropped?" 14.

"What your right hands possess" — did the text permit intercourse with a captive woman without marriage or consent?

Yes. The text permits intercourse with a captive woman by right of ownership, and no reading removes that: "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you." 1 Its sense in al-Tafsir al-Muyassar: "It is forbidden to you to marry women who are already married, except those of them whom you have taken captive in war, for it is lawful for you to marry them after their wombs have been confirmed empty by one menstrual period." 2 The occasion of its revelation is the very case it describes, and the book of the occasions of revelation reports it without softening: "We took captives at Awtas who had husbands, and we were reluctant to have intercourse with them, so we asked the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and it came down … so we deemed them lawful for us." 3 The restriction the Sunna added was the waiting period that confirms the womb is empty — "A pregnant woman is not to be approached until she gives birth, and one who is not pregnant until she has had one menstrual period" 4 — and that is a safeguard of lineage, not a requirement of consent. Whoever offers it as an answer to your question has answered a different question. But what cuts against your picture of the matter as unqualified ownership is found inside the books of law, not outside them: "Whoever mutilates his slave, the slave becomes free from him … As for coercing her, this falls under mutilation, for coercion into intercourse is mutilation; intercourse takes the course of an offence." 5 Coercion is, on that view, an offence that obliges emancipation, not a right conferred by ownership. And what the Prophet did in the most famous of his captives was a contract with audible consent. Juwayriya bint al-Harith came to him seeking help with her writ of emancipation, and he said, "I will pay off your writ and marry you." She said, "Yes." "By his marrying her, a hundred households of the Banu al-Mustaliq were set free." 6 And he freed Safiyya "and made her emancipation her dower, and that became a practice for the community until the Day of Resurrection." 7

1 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

Surat al-Nisa 4:24 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

2 It is forbidden to you to marry women who are already married, except those of them whom you have taken captive in jihad, for it is lawful for you to marry them after their wombs have been confirmed empty by one menstrual period.

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · al-Nisa 4:24 our rendering · Open the passage

3 On the authority of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, who said: We took captives at Awtas who had husbands, and we were reluctant to have intercourse with them, so we asked the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and there came down: "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess" — so we deemed them lawful for us.

al-Wahidi · Asbab Nuzul al-Qur'an (Occasions of the Revelation of the Qur'an), p. 147 our rendering · Open the passage

4 He said concerning the captives of Awtas: A pregnant woman is not to be approached until she gives birth, and one who is not pregnant until she has had one menstrual period.

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri · al-Hakim · al-Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihayn 2829 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

5 The third principle: that whoever mutilates his slave, the slave becomes free from him … As for coercing her, this falls under mutilation, for coercion into intercourse is mutilation; intercourse takes the course of an offence, and for that reason it is never free of either compensation for the violation or a penalty, and it does not take the course of the benefit of service … Our shaykh said: If he coerces his male slave into an indecency, the slave becomes free from him; and if he coerces another man's slave woman into an indecency, she becomes free from him and he is liable for her value — unless a distinction is drawn between his wife's slave woman and another's.

Ibn al-Qayyim · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al-'Alamin, p. 20 our rendering · Open the passage

6 She said: Messenger of God, I am Juwayriya, daughter of al-Harith ibn Abi Dirar, the chief of his people … I came to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, to ask his help with my writ of emancipation. He said: "Would you care for something better than that?" She said: And what is it, Messenger of God? He said: "I will pay off your writ and marry you." She said: Yes. He said: "It is done." … She said: By his marrying her, a hundred households of the Banu al-Mustaliq were set free, and we know of no woman who was a greater blessing to her people than she.

al-Tahawi · Ahkam al-Qur'an al-Karim (Rulings of the Noble Qur'an), p. 2155 our rendering · Open the passage

7 She had come to him as a slave woman from the portion set aside for him out of the spoils, so he freed her and made her emancipation her dower. That became a practice for the community until the Day of Resurrection: that a man frees his slave woman and makes her emancipation her dower, and by that she becomes his wife.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-'Ibad, p. 108 our rendering · Open the passage

8 They did not make intercourse with Arab captive women conditional on Islam; rather they had intercourse with them after the waiting period that confirms the womb is empty. God permitted them that, and did not stipulate Islam … The correct position, which was his guidance and the guidance of his Companions, is the enslavement of Arabs and intercourse with their captive slave women by right of ownership, without stipulating Islam.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-'Ibad, p. 102 our rendering · Open the passage

9 This is a prohibition against coercing them into earning money by prostitution — as has been said, that Abd Allah ibn Ubayy, the head of the hypocrites, had slave women whom he forced into prostitution. This is not a case of coercing a slave woman so that he himself commits fornication with her, for that would rank as mutilating her, whereas this is compelling her to go and fornicate herself.

Ibn al-Qayyim · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al-'Alamin, p. 21 our rendering · Open the passage

10 It is not lawful for you to force your slave women into fornication in pursuit of money. How could that come from you while they desire chastity and you refuse it to them? In this is the utmost condemnation of their vile act. As for those who force them into fornication, God, after their being forced, is Forgiving toward them and Merciful to them, and the sin falls on the one who forced them.

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · al-Nur 24:33 our rendering · Open the passage

He said concerning the captives of Awtas: A pregnant woman is not to be approached until she gives birth, and one who is not pregnant until she has had one menstrual period.

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri · al-Hakim · al-Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihayn 2829 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

That he said concerning the captives of Awtas: A pregnant woman is not to be approached until she gives birth, and one who is not pregnant until she has had one menstrual period.

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri · Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut · Takhrij Sunan Abi Dawud 2157 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

The strongest objection

This is patchwork. The waiting period protects the owner's lineage; it is no right of hers — you said so yourself. Safiyya and Juwayriya are one man's favour to women who pleased him, not a condition binding on him or on anyone else; had consent been a condition, the ruling would have collapsed entirely, not been reported as a merit. The rule that remains after every exception you have cited is this: sexual access is made lawful by ownership alone, with no contract, no guardian, and not a word from her. And your own books say it without hedging: they used to have intercourse with them after the waiting period, requiring neither Islam nor any asking. As for "coercion is mutilation," show me a single text applying it to his own slave woman, the one he owns — that is the whole question, and everything else is a digression.

The first two points are sound and are not disputed here. The report you argue from is in our own books, in its own words: "They did not make intercourse with Arab captive women conditional on Islam; rather they had intercourse with them after the waiting period, and God permitted them that, and did not stipulate Islam … The correct position, which was his guidance and the guidance of his Companions, is the enslavement of Arabs and intercourse with their captive slave women by right of ownership, without stipulating Islam." 8 Your last question is the right one, and the answer is that no such text was found. The same passage runs the rule on "his male slave," "his wife's slave woman," and "another man's slave woman," and says nothing about his own: "If he coerces his male slave into an indecency, the slave becomes free from him; and if he coerces another man's slave woman into an indecency, she becomes free from him and he is liable for her value." 5 The verse of al-Nur does not close the gap either, and that is stated outright in I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in: the prohibition is "against coercing them into earning money by prostitution," and "this is not a case of coercing a slave woman so that he himself commits fornication with her." 9 Even so, the wording of the verse does take her own will into account explicitly: "It is not lawful for you to force your slave women into fornication in pursuit of money. How could that come from you while they desire chastity and you refuse it to them?" 10 So the sum of it: the permission is established by the text, and the restrictions that exist are restrictions of lineage and of offence, not a stated restriction of consent. Anyone who hands you a comfortable answer at this point is handing you something he does not have.

Did Islam not spread by the sword?

Yes. The conquests were wars, fought with armies and banners, and no one denies that. The dispute is over what those wars demanded. Before fighting, the commander of a raiding party would call his enemy to one of three things: Islam together with emigration, Islam without emigration, or payment of the jizya — the tribute — and "if they answered him in that, it was accepted from them" 1. The third option is staying in your own religion at a fixed price, so what was demanded was the submission of the territory, not a change of belief. The heaviest point in the matter is not hidden here. The Qur'an says "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low" 2, and Tafsir al-Muyassar reads that as "until they pay, with their own hands, the tribute you impose on them, subdued and humbled" 3. That is deliberate political subjugation, and it is not to be dressed up. But belief itself may not be forced. "There is no compulsion in religion" 4 came down about fathers among the Ansar whose sons had become Jews — "their fathers wanted to compel them into Islam" — and the fathers were stopped 5. The sons stayed in their religion: "whoever wished joined them, and whoever wished entered Islam" 6. And in Surat Bara'a itself, the very sura invoked to make the case for the sword: "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety" 7, which the commentary explains as "grant him what he asks, until he hears the Noble Qur'an and comes to know its guidance; then return him, safe, to where he came from" 8. The effect of this was structural, not rhetorical. Jizya was taken from the Magians, from the People of the Book, and from the Christians, and "he sent Mu'adh, may Allah be pleased with him, to Yemen, and he contracted dhimma for those of its Jews who did not become Muslims" 9 — a permanent legal status for whoever stayed in his own religion, and his staying in it was income for the treasury, not a loss.

1 He used to order the commander of his raiding party to call his enemy, before fighting, either to Islam together with emigration, or to Islam without emigration — in which case they would be like the bedouin Muslims, with no share in the spoils — or to the payment of the jizya. If they answered him in that, it was accepted from them; and if not, he sought Allah's help and fought them.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 90 our rendering · Open the passage

2 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Surah At-Tawbah (Repentance) 9:29 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

3 O Muslims, fight the disbelievers who do not believe in Allah, nor in the resurrection and the recompense, who do not keep away from what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not abide by the rulings of the law of Islam — those of the Jews and the Christians — until they pay, with their own hands, the tribute you impose on them, subdued and humbled.

Tafsir al-Muyassar · At-Tawbah 9:29 our rendering · Open the passage

4 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

Surah Al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:256 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

5 It is established in the biographies and the campaign histories that among the Ansar were men whose sons had become Jews after the abrogation by the law of Jesus, and their fathers wanted to compel them into Islam; so Allah Most High sent down: "There is no compulsion in religion."

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 141 our rendering · Open the passage

6 … When Banu al-Nadir were expelled, there were among them men who were sons of the Ansar. The Ansar said: O Messenger of Allah, they are our sons. So Allah Most High sent down: "There is no compulsion in religion." Sa'id ibn Jubayr said: whoever wished joined them, and whoever wished entered Islam.

al-Wahidi · Asbab Nuzul al-Qur'an (Occasions of Revelation), p. 83 our rendering · Open the passage

7 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

Surah At-Tawbah (Repentance) 9:6 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

8 If one of the idolaters whose blood and property have been made lawful asks to enter your protection — O Messenger — and seeks safety, then grant him what he asks, until he hears the Noble Qur'an and comes to know its guidance; then return him, safe, to where he came from. That is so the proof may be established against him, and because the disbelievers are a people ignorant of the realities of Islam, so perhaps they will choose it once that ignorance is lifted from them.

Tafsir al-Muyassar · At-Tawbah 9:6 our rendering · Open the passage

9 As for his practice in contracting dhimma and taking the jizya: he took jizya from no disbeliever until after Surat Bara'a came down, in the eighth year of the Hijra. When the verse of the jizya came down, he took it from the Magians, and he took it from the People of the Book, and he took it from the Christians; and he sent Mu'adh, may Allah be pleased with him, to Yemen, and he contracted dhimma for those of its Jews who did not become Muslims, and levied the jizya upon them

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 136 our rendering · Open the passage

10 Because this religion is complete and its signs are clear, there is no need to compel toward it those from whom the jizya is accepted; the proofs are plain, and by them truth is distinguished from falsehood, and guidance from error.

Tafsir al-Muyassar · Al-Baqarah 2:256 our rendering · Open the passage

11 And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?

Surah Yunus (Jonah) 10:99 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

The strongest objection

All of this is a legal arrangement written down after the conquests had already happened. What actually took place is that a man with an army at his gate was given a choice: change his religion, pay in humiliation for the rest of time, or be killed. Calling that a "choice" is playing with the word; if it were put to you that way, you would call it extortion. In fact your own commentary limits "There is no compulsion in religion" to "those from whom the jizya is accepted" — which means that anyone not accepted on those terms is compelled. So the verse raised as a banner of freedom is, in your own books, restricted to whoever has bought himself with money.

The commentary is quoted as it stands, not softened: "Because this religion is complete and its signs are clear, there is no need to compel toward it those from whom the jizya is accepted; the proofs are plain, and by them truth is distinguished from falsehood, and guidance from error" 10. That is a real restriction, and anyone who raises the verse as a slogan of unqualified freedom has gone past the words of the man who explained it. The political subjugation is a fact, and it is not disputed 2 3. But the claim in the question is narrower than that: that belief itself was produced by the sword. The structure of what was actually built contradicts it. A man who fights in order to collect tribute from a non-Muslim gains rather than loses when that non-Muslim stays in his religion — it is revenue in his treasury 9. A man who wants belief by force does not return the one who sought protection to his place of safety once he has heard 7 8. And the most decisive case is the one with no army in it and no tribute at all: a father in Medina, over his own son — and he was stopped 5 6. The address is to the Prophet himself: "Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?" 11

Stoning to death for adultery — where is it in the Quran, and why is it carried out if it is not there?

There is no stoning in the Quran. That is true, and it is deliberate. The verse in Surah al-Nur prescribes a hundred lashes and mentions no stoning at all 1, and al-Tafsir al-Muyassar limits it to those "who have not been married before" 2. The basis for stoning a married person is a hadith reported by Muslim and graded sahih: "the previously married with the previously married: a hundred lashes, and stoning" 3. As for your saying that this is an admission that something is missing from the Quran, Muslim scholars were the first to press that objection: Ibn Zafar rejected counting the stoning verse among what was abrogated in recitation, "because a solitary report does not establish Quran," and al-Zarkashi judged the whole entailment to be "problematic" 4. Al-Itqan records that Umar asked for it to be written down and the Prophet turned him away with "You cannot"; Ibn Hajar explained its absence from the written codex by saying that "the practice does not follow the apparent generality of its wording," and al-Suyuti by saying that in this there is "an indication that concealment is recommended" 5. So the absence is a reasoned decision, not an oversight by the men who collected the text. As for the death penalty itself: those the Prophet stoned across his entire lifetime are, by Ibn al-Qayyim's count, "known and numbered … and they are six persons" 6, because God "made the requirements of evidence and confession severe in the matter of sexual immorality, as a covering for His servants," and punished the accuser himself 7 with eighty lashes and the permanent rejection of his testimony 8. Ibn al-Qayyim goes so far as to teach an accused man how to void the evidence against himself, saying: "This stratagem is permitted, for he may ward off the fixed penalty from himself" 9.

1 The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.

Surah al-Nur 24:2 — trans. Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

2 The fornicatress and the fornicator who have not been married before: the penalty of each of them is a hundred lashes with the whip, and it is established in the Sunna, along with this flogging, that they be banished for a year. Let no pity for the two of them carry you to abandoning the penalty or lightening it, if you believe in God and the Last Day and act by the rulings of Islam. And let a number of the believers be present at the penalty, as a reproach, a deterrent, an admonition and a lesson.

Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar — Surah al-Nur 24:2 our rendering · Open the passage

3 Take from me, take from me: God has appointed a way for them. The virgin with the virgin: a hundred lashes and banishment for a year. The previously married with the previously married: a hundred lashes, and stoning.

Ubada ibn al-Samit · Muslim · Sahih Muslim 1690 · Sahih our rendering

4 In sum, this entailment is problematic. Perhaps he held that it was a solitary report, and the Quran is not established by such a report even if the ruling is established. On this basis Ibn Zafar, in al-Yanbu, rejected counting this among what was abrogated in recitation. He said: because a solitary report does not establish Quran. … Some of them answered this by saying that it was widely known among them and that it used to be recited as part of the Quran, so we established the ruling by widespread transmission, while its recitation is not established by widespread transmission.

Al-Zarkashi · al-Burhan fi Ulum al-Quran, p. 35 our rendering · Open the passage

5 Umar said: when it was revealed I came to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and said, Let me write it down. He seemed to dislike that. Umar said: Do you not see that when an old man commits fornication and has never been married he is flogged, and when a young man commits fornication and has been married he is stoned? … Ibn Hajar said in Sharh al-Minhaj: from this hadith one learns the reason its recitation was abrogated, which is that the practice does not follow the apparent generality of its wording. … It is that the reason for it was to lighten the burden on the community, by its recitation not being made widely known and not being written in the codex, even though its ruling remains, because it is the heaviest and severest of rulings and the gravest of the fixed penalties; and in this there is an indication that concealment is recommended. … He said: Messenger of God, write down for me the verse of stoning. He said: You cannot.

Al-Suyuti · al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran, p. 69 our rendering · Open the passage

6 And further: those whom the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, stoned for fornication are known and numbered, and their stories are preserved and well known, and they are six persons: al-Ghamidiyya, Maiz, the woman in the case of the hired man, and the two Jews.

Ibn al-Qayyim · al-Turuq al-Hukmiyya fi al-Siyasa al-Shariyya, p. 86 our rendering · Open the passage

7 Because God, glorified and exalted, made the requirements of evidence and confession severe in the matter of sexual immorality, as a covering for His servants; and He laid down a punishment for whoever accuses … whoever accuses another of it, and not for the rest of what carries a fixed penalty; and He laid down in it a killing in the gravest of manners and the most repellent to souls, so nothing else may be assimilated to it. And God knows best.

Ibn al-Qayyim · al-Turuq al-Hukmiyya fi al-Siyasa al-Shariyya, p. 264 our rendering · Open the passage

8 And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony - They indeed are evil-doers -

Surah al-Nur 24:4 — trans. Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

9 The fifty-fifth example: if a man is brought before the ruler and it is claimed against him that he has committed fornication, and he fears that if he denies it the evidence will be established against him and he will be punished, then the device for voiding their testimony is that he confess once when he is asked, and not go beyond that; for evidence is not heard alongside a confession, and neither the judge nor the ruler may press him to complete the required number. … This stratagem is permitted, for he may ward off the fixed penalty from himself and turn to repentance, as the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said to the Companions when Maiz fled from the penalty: Why did you not leave him, that he might repent and God turn to him in mercy? So if he flees from the penalty to repentance, he has done well.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Ilam al-Muwaqqiin an Rabb al-Alamin, p. 295 our rendering · Open the passage

10 2. The penalties. And here is where the four boxes are run together most: for there is a difference between a text in which there is a fixed penalty, and conditions of proof that the scholars made so severe that the penalty scarcely falls at all, and the practice of a state that imposes it with no condition and no looking into anything. And whoever argues against the first in the shape of the third has argued against something that was never laid down. And this taking apart is sound and I do not offer it as a complete answer: there remains after it a question about the kind of penalty itself and not about its conditions, and it is a standing question which I do not deny and do not settle.

20. Difficult Texts · Open the passage

11 And where is that to be understood from his saying, may God bless him and grant him peace: "Ward off the fixed penalties from the Muslims as far as you can; if there is a way out for him, let him go, for it is better for the ruler to err in pardoning than to err in punishing"

Ibn al-Qayyim · Ilam al-Muwaqqiin an Rabb al-Alamin, p. 182 our rendering · Open the passage

Take from me, take from me: God has appointed a way for them. The virgin with the virgin: a hundred lashes and banishment for a year. The previously married with the previously married: a hundred lashes, and stoning.

Ubada ibn al-Samit · Muslim · Sahih Muslim 1690 · Sahih our rendering

The woman of Ghamid came and said: Messenger of God, I have committed fornication, and I want you to purify me. He turned her away. The next day she came to him and said: Prophet of God, why do you turn me away? Perhaps you want to turn me away as you turned away Maiz ibn Malik. By God, I am pregnant. He said: Well then, go until you give birth. When she had given birth she came to him with the child in a piece of cloth and said: Here, I have given birth to him. He said: Go and nurse him until you wean him. When she had weaned him she came to him with the child, and in his hand was a crust of bread. She said: Here, Prophet of God, I have weaned him, and he has eaten food. So he handed the boy over to a man of the Muslims, then he gave the order concerning her, and a pit was dug for her up to her chest, and he ordered the people to throw. Khalid ibn al-Walid came forward and threw at her head, and the blood spattered onto his face, and he cursed her. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, heard him cursing her and said: Gently, Khalid. By Him in whose hand my soul is, she has repented such a repentance that if a tax collector had repented so, God would have forgiven him. Then he gave the order concerning her, and he prayed over her, and she was buried.

Buraida ibn al-Husaib al-Aslami · Ibn Abd al-Barr · al-Istidhkar 6/479 · Hasan our rendering

The strongest objection

All of this is about the conditions, and my question is about the kind of penalty: is stoning a human being to death God's ruling or not? You yourselves say that its basis is a report by which no Quran can be established, so you impose the heaviest penalty on the weakest proof. And six cases in the Prophet's lifetime do not acquit a state that stones people today without a single one of your conditions. Al-Ghamidiyya was buried in a pit up to her chest and stoned on her confession alone, without one witness.

The last point is the truest of them, and I will not push it away. The text of the hadith, graded hasan by Ibn Abd al-Barr, says: "a pit was dug for her up to her chest, and he ordered the people to throw." The same text says that "he turned her away," then gave her time until she gave birth, then until she weaned the child, and that he rebuked Khalid and prayed over her. As for "the weakest proof," the answer is in the very passage you took it from: "so we established the ruling by widespread transmission, while its recitation is not established by widespread transmission" 4. The dispute is over whether it is Quran that is recited, not over whether it is a ruling transmitted by the community at large. As for a state that stones without conditions, it is undercut by what Ibn al-Qayyim argues from: "Ward off the fixed penalties from the Muslims as far as you can; if there is a way out for him, let him go, for it is better for the ruler to err in pardoning than to err in punishing" 11. As for the kind of penalty, no claim is made here that your question has been answered. The book says it in so many words: "there remains after it a question about the kind of penalty itself and not about its conditions, and it is a standing question which I do not deny and do not settle" 10.

"Fight them until there is no fitna and religion is all for God" (2:193) — is this not a declared goal of subjugating the world?

No. The limit is stated in the half of the verse that usually drops out of the quotation: "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers." 1 And who may be fought is bounded three verses earlier: "those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities." 2 Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar confines the verse to "the aggressing idolaters" and to "persecution of the Muslims away from their religion", and closes it with "if they cease their disbelief and their fighting, then cease against them" 3. The occasion of its revelation is a specific one, not an open-ended one — the truce of al-Hudaybiyah and the compensatory umrah, and "those who fight against you" "means Quraysh" 4. And what makes the question heavier is not hidden here: Ibn Qutaybah glosses "fitna" in this very verse as "that is, idolatry", so the broad reading has a real basis, and it is not denied. But in the next line he glosses "But if they desist" as "that is, there is no way against them" 5, and glosses "but begin not hostilities" as "do not commit aggression against those who have made peace with you and made a pact with you" 6. Ibn al-Qayyim sets out the stages of the command and says: "Then he was commanded to fight whoever fought him and to hold back from whoever kept apart from him and did not fight him", and among those stages he names "fighting the idolaters until religion should be wholly for God" 7. Then he says, in so many words, what the matter came to after that stage: "So the people of the earth became with him three classes: a Muslim who believes in him, one at peace with him and secure, and one in fear who is at war" 8. The second class — not a Muslim, secure, remaining on his own religion — is exactly what your question says cannot exist, and his blood is inviolable by a sound text: "Whoever kills a person under covenant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise" 9.

1 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

Surat al-Baqarah 2:193 · Open the passage

2 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Surat al-Baqarah 2:190 · Open the passage

3 Continue, O believers, to fight the aggressing idolaters, until there is no persecution of the Muslims away from their religion and no associating of partners with God, and religion remains for God alone, purely His, none worshipped alongside Him. But if they cease their disbelief and their fighting, then cease against them; for punishment falls only on those who persist in their disbelief and their aggression.

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar (The Simplified Exegesis) · al-Baqarah 2:193 our rendering · Open the passage

4 Al-Kalbi related from Abu Salih, from Ibn Abbas: These verses came down concerning the truce of al-Hudaybiyah. When the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, was turned back from the House, he and his companions, he sacrificed the offering at al-Hudaybiyah… Then, when the following year came, the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and his companions made ready for the compensatory umrah, and they feared that Quraysh would not keep faith with them in that, and would bar them from the Sacred Mosque and fight them; and his companions were averse to fighting them in the sacred month. So God, exalted be He, sent down: {Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you} — meaning Quraysh.

al-Wahidi · Asbab Nuzul al-Qur'an (Occasions of the Qur'an's Revelation), p. 54 our rendering · Open the passage

5 And likewise His words: {And fight them until persecution is no more} (1) — that is, idolatry (2). And His words: {But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers} — that is, there is no way against them. The root sense of hostility is wrongdoing, and by hostility He meant requital. He says: there is no requital for wrongdoing except upon a wrongdoer.

Ibn Qutaybah · Gharib al-Qur'an (The Rare Words of the Qur'an), p. 76 our rendering · Open the passage

6 {Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities} — that is, do not commit aggression against those who have made peace with you and made a pact with you.

Ibn Qutaybah · Gharib al-Qur'an (The Rare Words of the Qur'an), p. 75 our rendering · Open the passage

7 Then he was permitted to emigrate, and permitted to fight. Then he was commanded to fight whoever fought him and to hold back from whoever kept apart from him and did not fight him. Then he was commanded to fight the idolaters until religion should be wholly for God. Then, after the command to jihad, the disbelievers stood with him in three classes: people of a treaty and truce, people of war, and people of protected covenant. He was commanded to fulfil for the people of the covenant and the truce their covenant, and to keep faith with them in it so long as they held to the covenant; and if he feared treachery from them, he was to cast their covenant back to them and not fight them until he had informed them that the covenant was broken; and he was commanded to fight whoever broke his covenant.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 142 our rendering · Open the passage

8 So the affair of the disbelievers with him settled, after the revelation of Bara'ah, into three classes: those at war with him, people of a covenant, and people of protected covenant. Then the state of the people of the covenant and the truce came round to Islam, so they became with him two classes: those at war, and people of protected covenant; and those at war with him were in fear of him. So the people of the earth became with him three classes: a Muslim who believes in him, one at peace with him and secure, and one in fear who is at war.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 144 our rendering · Open the passage

9 Whoever kills a person under covenant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, and its fragrance is found at a distance of forty years' travel.

Abdullah ibn Amr · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 3166 · Sahih (authentic) our rendering

10 I say: this opinion which they held they took only from the implied sense of the wording, and that (is only) 1 a proof so long as no stronger proof opposes it; and something stronger than it has opposed it, such as the verse of the sword and others, which require the killing of the disbelievers without restriction, whether they fight or do not fight.

Ibn al-Jawzi · Nawasikh al-Qur'an (The Abrogating Passages of the Qur'an), p. 247 our rendering · Open the passage

11 The fifth: do not commit aggression by fighting those who have made peace with you and made a pact with you. Ibn Qutaybah said this. 4 The apparent sense is that the whole verse stands firm, and the claim of abrogation in it is far-fetched. 5

Ibn al-Jawzi · Nawasikh al-Qur'an (The Abrogating Passages of the Qur'an), p. 248 our rendering · Open the passage

12 Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them.

Surat al-Nisa 4:90 · Open the passage

13 Beware: whoever wrongs a person under covenant, or belittles him, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his willing consent, I will be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection.

[Some of the Companions] · al-Albani · Sahih Abi Dawud 3052 · Sahih (authentic) our rendering

14 3. Fighting. It is the one that the third section touched with the mark of 'a narrative and a ruling', and I do not claim that that mark takes it all in. For the statement that some of the texts are a report of particular events is right in some of them, and a claim needing to be made good in others — and there is in them what is a general ruling in the matter of war and peace, over the working out of whose operative ground the scholars have differed with an old and well-known difference. And I offer you no weighting in it.

20. Difficult Texts · Open the passage

Whoever kills a person under covenant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, and its fragrance is found at a distance of forty years' travel.

Abdullah ibn Amr · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 3166 · Sahih (authentic) our rendering

Beware: whoever wrongs a person under covenant, or belittles him, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his willing consent, I will be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection.

[Some of the Companions] · al-Albani · Sahih Abi Dawud 3052 · Sahih (authentic) our rendering

The strongest objection

Plain cherry-picking. The very commentary you argued from says "if they cease their disbelief and their fighting" — from disbelief, not from fighting alone. So on your own showing the condition for stopping is that they leave their religion, not that they leave off war, and you cut the sentence in half exactly as you accused me of cutting. And Ibn Qutaybah, who is your linguist and not mine, says "that is, idolatry" with no interpretation at all: the declared goal is to remove idolatry from the earth. As for "those who fight against you", Ibn al-Jawzi himself rejected it: the implied sense of the verse was opposed by the verse of the sword, "which require the killing of the disbelievers without restriction, whether they fight or do not fight". And Ibn al-Qayyim's three classes are not a ceiling but the residue of what has not yet been reached: "one in fear who is at war" describes whoever has not yet been subdued, and "one at peace with him and secure" is whoever accepted the jizyah in humiliation. So what you have called a ceiling is a floor of submission, and the difference between the two projects is the reach of capability, not the reach of the text.

Three things separate them. First: your citation of Ibn al-Jawzi is correct in its wording and incomplete in its setting. He says that while rejecting the implied sense of the verse 10, and then, on the next page, he ends at "The apparent sense is that the whole verse stands firm, and the claim of abrogation in it is far-fetched", and among the meanings he gives for "but begin not hostilities" is "do not commit aggression by fighting those who have made peace with you and made a pact with you" 11. So for him the restriction stands firm and is not abrogated, and your own witness testifies against you in the line that follows. Second: the claim that "the one at peace" is subdued rather than secure is denied by the text outright: "So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them" 12 — the denial of any way against them is unqualified, and it turns on their holding aloof and offering peace, not on the payment of money. And the protection given is not merely that he is not killed, such that it could be called submission: "Beware: whoever wrongs a person under covenant, or belittles him, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his willing consent, I will be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection" 13 — and that is the opposite of a floor of submission, not a form of it. Third, and this one is yours: part of your objection cannot be pushed back, and the book grants it and offers no ruling on it — "there is in them what is a general ruling in the matter of war and peace, over the working out of whose operative ground the scholars have differed with an old and well-known difference. And I offer you no weighting in it." 14 What falls from your claim is the phrase "written in explicit terms": what is explicit is not something its own scholars differ over for twelve centuries. What remains open to you is to ask about the operative ground of the ruling — and that is a live question, and it is not the question of "a project of global domination".

"Killed, or crucified, or their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides" (5:33) — crucifixion and cross-amputation?

No — and I will not tell you that it is a mercy. But what you are calling a "torture list" is not what this verse meant to anyone who read it a thousand years before ISIS. Its subject is fixed by an act that is committed, not by a belief that is held — "whoever draws a weapon and makes the road unsafe" — and the decision in such a case belongs to "the imam of the Muslims" 1, after it had been abrogated that a man take his own redress by himself without recourse to the ruler 2. The "or" in the verse 3 was not read by "many of the people of knowledge" as a free choice among kinds of torment, but as "ranks, one after another" 4: if he killed and took the property, he is killed and crucified; if he killed and did not take it, he is killed without crucifixion; if he took it and did not kill, then the amputation 5 — and banishment means expulsion to another land and imprisonment there "until their repentance appears" 6. Then the verse that follows drops all of it from anyone who repents before he is overpowered 7 8, and that is the place from which Ibn al-Qayyim argued that "the fixed penalties are not carried out on one who has repented" 9. As for mutilation, it is forbidden by a text in al-Bukhari 10, and what the armed groups do today "was met with repudiation from the scholars across their differing schools" 11. All of this is a sound taking apart, and it is not a complete answer: there remains after it "a question about the kind of penalty itself and not about its conditions" — which the book concedes and does not settle 12.

1 Whoever draws a weapon and makes the road unsafe, and is then overcome and taken, the imam of the Muslims has a choice concerning him: if he wishes he may kill him, if he wishes he may crucify him, and if he wishes he may cut off his hand and his foot.

Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam · The Abrogating and the Abrogated in the Noble Qur'an, p. 141 (Ibn Abbas on the verse) our rendering · Open the passage

2 In the beginning of the matter, when a person was wronged, he could take his own redress for himself without recourse to the ruler of the Muslims; then that was abrogated by the obligation of returning to the ruler for the carrying out of the fixed penalties and of retaliation.

Ibn al-Jawzi · Nawasikh al-Qur'an (The Abrogating Verses of the Qur'an), p. 256 our rendering · Open the passage

3 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

Surat al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread) 5:33 · Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

4 As God, mighty and majestic, said concerning highway robbers: {that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land} — that was not, with many of the people of knowledge, a matter of free choice; rather it was by ranks, one after another.

al-Tahawi · Ahkam al-Qur'an (Rulings of the Noble Qur'an), p. 1779 our rendering · Open the passage

5 From Ibn Abbas — concerning highway robbers: if they killed and took the property, they are killed and crucified; if they killed and did not take the property, they are killed and not crucified; and if they took the property and did not kill, their hands and feet are cut off on opposite sides.

al-Bayhaqi · Ahkam al-Qur'an lil-Shafi'i (Rulings of the Qur'an, from al-Shafi'i), p. 312 our rendering · Open the passage

6 That they be killed, or crucified along with being killed (crucifixion being that the offender is bound to a piece of wood), or that the right hand and the left foot of the one who wages war be cut off — and if he does not repent, his left hand and his right foot are cut off — or that they be banished to a land other than their own and held in the prison of that land until their repentance appears.

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar (The Simplified Exegesis) · al-Ma'idah 5:33 our rendering · Open the passage

7 Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Surat al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread) 5:34 · Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

8 But whoever of those who wage war comes forward before you have power over them, coming willingly and in remorse, then what was owed to God falls away from him. So know — O believers — that God is Forgiving to His servants, Merciful to them.

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar (The Simplified Exegesis) · al-Ma'idah 5:34 our rendering · Open the passage

9 Since God does not punish one who has repented, so likewise the fixed penalties are not carried out on one who has repented. God has stated explicitly that the penalty falls away from those who wage war by a repentance that took place before power was had over them, despite the gravity of their crime.

Ibn al-Qayyim · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in an Rabb al-Alamin (Instructing Those Who Sign on Behalf of the Lord of the Worlds), p. 14 our rendering · Open the passage

10 Al-Bukhari brought out, from the hadith of Abd Allah ibn Yazid, 'from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, that he forbade mutilation.' And Imam Ahmad brought out, from the hadith of Ya'la ibn Murra, from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace: 'God Most High said: Do not mutilate My servants.'

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami al-Ulum wa'l-Hikam (The Compendium of Knowledge and Wisdom), p. 383 our rendering · Open the passage

11 that what the armed groups do today was met with repudiation from the scholars across their differing schools, and I know of no considered opinion that supports it — and this is what I know, not a sweep by which I have taken in everyone who has written.

20. The Difficult Texts · Open the passage

12 for there is a difference between a text in which there is a fixed penalty, and conditions of proof that the scholars made so severe that the penalty scarcely falls at all, and the practice of a state that imposes it with no condition and no looking into anything. And whoever argues against the first in the shape of the third has argued against something that was never laid down. And this taking apart is sound and I do not offer it as a complete answer: there remains after it a question about the kind of penalty itself and not about its conditions, and it is a standing question which I do not deny and do not settle.

20. The Difficult Texts · Open the passage

13 The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, carried out the amputation on the 'Uraniyyin and did not cauterize them, so that they died.

Anas ibn Malik · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 6803 · sahih our rendering

14 From Qatada, from Ibn Sirin, who said: The affair of the 'Uraniyyin was before the fixed penalties came down.

Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam · The Abrogating and the Abrogated in the Noble Qur'an, p. 140 our rendering · Open the passage

15 And that the offender is dealt with as he himself did: for when they put out the eye of the shepherd, he put out their eyes. By this it has become clear that the account stands and is not abrogated; and although it was before the fixed penalties came down, the fixed penalties came down confirming it, not annulling it.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-Ibad (Provisions for the Hereafter, on the Guidance of the Best of Servants), p. 254 our rendering · Open the passage

The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, carried out the amputation on the 'Uraniyyin and did not cauterize them, so that they died.

Anas ibn Malik · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 6803 · sahih our rendering

Whoever takes up arms against us is not one of us.

Abd Allah ibn Umar · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 6874 · sahih our rendering

The strongest objection

This is a legal arrangement made after the fact to soften a brutal text. The first application of this verse by the Prophet himself — on al-Bukhari's authority, not on your opponents' — was cutting off the hands and feet of the 'Uraniyyin, putting out their eyes, and leaving them in the lava field until they died. So what "ranks", and what "prohibition of mutilation"? The picture you say is forbidden is the very first one on record, and ISIS did no more than read the first line.

The incident is established and I do not deny it: "the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, carried out the amputation on the 'Uraniyyin and did not cauterize them, so that they died" 13 — and it is the case of men who first put out the eye of the shepherd 15. On it the people of knowledge hold two positions, not one: Ibn Sirin said, "The affair of the 'Uraniyyin was before the fixed penalties came down" 14; and Ibn al-Qayyim rejected that it was abrogated, explaining the putting out of the eyes as dealing with the offender as he himself had done: "for when they put out the eye of the shepherd, he put out their eyes" 15. On both readings alike, no open licence comes out of it: on the first it precedes the coming down of the penalty; on the second it is measured against what they themselves did, and is not unrestricted — and the prohibition of mutilation in al-Bukhari stands 10, and the decision in a case of brigandage belongs to the imam of the Muslims, not to a group that appoints itself 1 2. The plainest thing to say is this: it demolishes any argument from the incident taken absolutely, and it does not lift the weight of the question about the kind of penalty — and no claim was ever made to lift it 12.

"I was commanded to fight people until they say there is no god but God" — is this not a declaration of war on humanity until it converts?

No. The hadith ends, in its own wording, with: "and when they say there is no god but God, then their reckoning is with God" 1 — so its aim is that the sword be lifted at a word that is spoken, not that a heart be searched. It is the very example the scholars of legal theory gave for the rule that a general statement in the Sunna can be narrowed: the verse "until they pay the tribute" narrowed the general word "people" in it 2 — so it was never, on any day, read as unrestricted. Ibn al-Qayyim sets it beside the Prophet's saying, "I have not been commanded to bore into people's hearts, nor to split open their bellies," and concludes: "So he was satisfied with the outward from them, and left their inward selves to God"; he adds that the Prophet's practice with the hypocrites was to accept the outward of their Islam 3 — and a man whose aim is belief does not accept an outward he knows to be a lie. The Prophet closed this same hadith, in Muslim's narration from Jabir, by reciting "Thou art not at all a warder over them" 4 5, which al-Tafsir al-Muyassar glosses: "it is not upon you to compel them to believe" 6. And the very phrasing of your question is denied of him in the Qur'an, word for word: "Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?" 7. The verse ruling out compulsion in religion did not come down about some distant opponent: it came down about men of the Ansar who wanted to force their sons, who had become Jews, into Islam, and they were stopped 8. And whoever kills a person under a covenant of protection, still on his own religion, "will not smell the fragrance of Paradise" 9.

1 I was commanded to fight people until they say: There is no god but God. And when they say: There is no god but God, then their reckoning is with God, Mighty and Majestic.

Abu Hurayrah · Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut · Takhrij al-Musnad li-Shu'ayb 10822 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

2 Among the particular of the Qur'an is that which specifies the general of the Sunna, and it is rare. An example of it is His saying, exalted be He, "until they pay the tribute" — it specified the general in his saying, God bless him and give him peace: "I was commanded to fight people until they say there is no god but God."

al-Suyuti · Al-Itqan fi 'Ulum al-Qur'an, p. 45 our rendering · Open the passage

3 The Prophet, God bless him and give him peace, said: "I have not been commanded to bore into people's hearts, nor to split open their bellies." And he said: "I was commanded to fight people until they say there is no god but God; and when they say it, they have protected from me their blood and their property, except by the right of Islam, and their reckoning is with God." So he was satisfied with the outward from them, and left their inward selves to God … And such was his practice with the hypocrites: accepting the outward of their Islam, and leaving their inward selves to God, Mighty and Majestic.

Ibn al-Qayyim · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, p. 81 our rendering · Open the passage

4 Muslim also brought it out from the hadith of Jabir, may God be pleased with him, from the Prophet, God bless him and give him peace, in the wording of the first hadith of Abu Hurayrah, and added at the end of it: then he recited — so remind them, for you are only one who reminds — "Thou art not at all a warder over them" [al-Ghashiyah: 21].

Ibn Rajab · Jami' al-'Ulum wa'l-Hikam, p. 226 our rendering · Open the passage

5 Thou art not at all a warder over them.

Surat al-Ghashiyah 88:22 · Marmaduke Pickthall — The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

6 So admonish — O Messenger — those who turn away, with that which you were sent to them with, and do not grieve over their turning away. You are only one who admonishes them; it is not upon you to compel them to believe.

Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · Surat al-Ghashiyah 88:22 our rendering · Open the passage

7 And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?

Surat Yunus 10:99 · Marmaduke Pickthall — The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

8 The Messenger of God, God bless him and give him peace, and his caliphs after him, made no distinction in the tribute between Arabs and non-Arabs. Rather, the Messenger of God, God bless him and give him peace, took it from the Christians of the Arabs, and he took it from the Magians of Hajar, and they were Arabs … And it is established in the biographies and the campaign accounts that among the Ansar were men whose sons had become Jews after the abrogation by the law of Jesus, and their fathers wanted to force them into Islam, so God, exalted be He, sent down: there is no compulsion in religion [al-Baqarah: 256].

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 141 our rendering · Open the passage

9 Whoever kills a person under a covenant of protection will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, and its fragrance is found from a distance of forty years' travel.

Abdullah ibn Amr · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 3166 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

10 O Muslims, fight the disbelievers who do not believe in God, nor believe in the resurrection and the recompense, nor keep away from what God and His Messenger have forbidden, nor hold to the rulings of the law of Islam — from among the Jews and the Christians — until they pay with their own hands the tribute you impose upon them, submissive and humbled.

Al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · Surat al-Tawbah 9:29 our rendering · Open the passage

11 Religion is only what is held as belief in the heart, and this is the statement of Abu Bakr ibn al-Anbari … And the second position: that it is abrogated … It came down before the command to fight, then it was abrogated by the verse of the sword; and this is the statement of al-Dahhak, al-Suddi and Ibn Zayd.

Ibn al-Jawzi · Nawasikh al-Qur'an, p. 298 our rendering · Open the passage

12 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

Surat al-Tawbah 9:6 · Marmaduke Pickthall — The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

13 3. Fighting. It is the one that the third section touched with the mark of 'a narrative and a ruling', and I do not claim that that mark takes it all in. For the statement that some of the texts are a report of particular events is right in some of them, and a claim needing to be made good in others — and there is in them what is a general ruling in the matter of war and peace, over the working out of whose operative ground the scholars have differed with an old and well-known difference. And I offer you no weighting in it.

20. The Difficult Texts · Open the passage

I was commanded to fight people until they say: There is no god but God. And when they say: There is no god but God, then their reckoning is with God, Mighty and Majestic.

Abu Hurayrah · Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut · Takhrij al-Musnad li-Shu'ayb 10822 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

Whoever kills a person under a covenant of protection will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, and its fragrance is found from a distance of forty years' travel.

Abdullah ibn Amr · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 3166 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

The strongest objection

This is a patch that does not touch the bone. The narrowing you appeal to takes no one out of the circle of fighting; it only changes the price of safety: a word from the people of the idols, a tribute from the People of the Book. And al-Shafi'i says it on the very page you quoted from, without evasion: "So He made it obligatory upon His Prophet to fight the people of the idols until they accept Islam" [[10]]. The Qur'an imposes fighting on the People of the Book "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low" [[11]], and al-Muyassar glosses that as "submissive and humbled" [[12]]. Then the verse of no compulsion in religion that you bring forward — a group of the early scholars said it is abrogated by the verse of the sword [[13]]. So where is the freedom in "accept Islam, or pay in humiliation, or fight"?

The objection is right in half, and that half is granted: classical jurisprudence did not take the question out to "each to his own religion, and it is no concern of ours." It arranged it in ranks, and among those ranks are the tribute and the lowering; and the text of al-Muyassar is what you quoted, letter for letter 10. What remains after granting that is not small: in none of its forms is the end point of the fighting belief itself. Ibn al-Jawzi brings the abrogation as one of two positions, not as a consensus, and against it he brings from Ibn al-Anbari that "religion is only what is held as belief in the heart" — that is, the place force reaches is not the place of religion at all 11. The idolater whose blood was made lawful in Surat al-Tawbah is, if he seeks protection, given protection until he hears; and then "convey him to his place of safety" — he goes back to where he is safe, an idolater, just as he came 12. And your division into Arabs who accept Islam and non-Arabs who pay does not hold: Ibn al-Qayyim records that the Prophet took the tribute from the Christians of the Arabs and from the Magians of Hajar, "and they were Arabs" 8. What is left after that is a place of old dispute that was never settled, and the book says of the texts of fighting: "And I offer you no weighting in it" 13 — and whoever sold you a decisive verdict in this chapter sold you what he does not own.

"When you meet those who disbelieve, strike the necks" (47:4) — is this a command to behead?

No. The command in the verse is tied to meeting fighters on the field of battle; it is not a directive in the shape of the execution of a bound man 2. And its text does not stop at the striking: "until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens" 1 — the taking of captives, in al-Zajjaj's reading, falls after the fighting has been pressed hard, not before it 4, and the making fast of bonds, in al-Nahhas's reading, is so that the captive is kept from escaping 3. As for the naming of the neck in particular, Ibn Rajab cited it in the chapter on doing well in killing, on the ground that striking the neck is the easiest and quickest way of taking a life, "without added torment" 5 — that is, the verse names the lighter way, not the harsher one. What is in the clip you saw is mutilation itself, and that is forbidden in the Prophet's instruction to every raiding party he sent out: "Do not mutilate, and do not kill a child" 6. I do not claim that this ends the disagreement over the rulings of war — it is an old disagreement, and its parties are named 7 — but what the armed groups do today was met with repudiation from the scholars across their differing schools 8.

1 Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Surah Muhammad 47:4 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

2 So when you — believers — meet those who disbelieve on the fields of battle, fight them in earnest and strike their necks, until, when you have weakened them by killing many and have broken their force, then bind the captives fast: either you show them favour by releasing them without compensation, or they ransom themselves with money or with something else, or they are enslaved or killed. And keep to that until the war ends.

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · Surah Muhammad 47:4 our rendering · Open the passage

3 "Then it is smiting of the necks" is a verbal noun: that is, smite the necks with a smiting … "until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds" — that is, lest they escape, or lest some harm from them reach you. And ithkhan is pressing hard in the striking; it is derived from their saying "a thick thing", that is, dense.

Abu Ja'far al-Nahhas · I'rab al-Qur'an, p. 117 our rendering · Open the passage

4 (When ye have routed them) means you have killed many among them, as He said: it is not for a prophet to have captives until he has subdued the land. So the taking of captives comes after the killing has been pressed hard.

al-Zajjaj · Ma'ani al-Qur'an wa I'rabuh, p. 5 our rendering · Open the passage

5 Doing well in the killing of what may lawfully be killed, whether people or beasts, is to take its life by the quickest, easiest and swiftest means, without added torment, for that is pain with no need for it … And the easiest way of killing a human being is to strike him with the sword on the neck. God Most High said concerning the disbelievers: "Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks" [Muhammad: 4]

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami' al-'Ulum wa al-Hikam, p. 381 our rendering · Open the passage

6 "When the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, sent out a raiding party to fight in the way of God, he would say to them: Do not mutilate, and do not kill a child." … And Ahmad and Abu Dawud brought out, from the hadith of 'Imran ibn Husayn and Samura ibn Jundub, "that the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, used to forbid mutilation."

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami' al-'Ulum wa al-Hikam, p. 382 our rendering · Open the passage

7 The first of the two: that it is in force, and that the ruling of favour and ransom remains and has not been abrogated. This is the position of Ibn 'Umar, al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin, Mujahid, Ahmad and al-Shafi'i … The second: that favour and ransom were abrogated by His words commanding that the idolaters be killed wherever they are found. This is the position of Ibn Jurayj, al-Suddi and Abu Hanifa.

Ibn al-Jawzi · Nawasikh al-Qur'an, p. 581 our rendering · Open the passage

8 3. Fighting. It is the one that the third section touched with the mark of 'a narrative and a ruling', and I do not claim that that mark takes it all in. … What I do say with certainty is one thing, and it lies outside the place of the dispute: that what the armed groups do today was met with repudiation from the scholars across their differing schools, and I know of no considered opinion that supports it — and this is what I know, not a sweep by which I have taken in everyone who has written.

20. The difficult texts · Open the passage

The strongest objection

None of this touches the letter of the verse: it orders the striking of necks, and Ibn Rajab himself cited it as proof that striking the neck with the sword is the way a human being is killed — so you have not denied the beheading, you have only stipulated that it be quick. And the commentary you argued from puts the option of killing the captive there in plain words. So where is the difference between what is in your Qur'an and what is in the clip?

The difference lies in two places, and it is the text that says them, not me. The first is the situation: the command is tied to "when ye meet in battle" — that is, facing a fighter on the field of battle 2 — and the bound man has left that situation by the words of the verse itself, "making fast of bonds" 1. The second is who holds the authority: the option of killing that appears in the commentary is stated in the context of the ruling on captives in a war that is under way 2, and it is the subject of an old disagreement between those who held that favour and ransom remain — Ibn 'Umar, al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin, Mujahid, Ahmad and al-Shafi'i — and those who held them abrogated 7. It is not a permission given to private individuals. As for Ibn Rajab's citing of the verse, it comes in a chapter whose subject is the barring of "added torment" 5, and the filmed clip is torment and display — the very mutilation whose prohibition Ibn Rajab brought out 6. I will give you no more than this: in working out the operative ground of the rulings of war a disagreement remains, and I do not settle it 8.

What do your texts say about killing civilians, women, and children?

Yes — the prohibition is stated in so many words; it is not inferred from some general command. "Do not kill a child" is a clause in the standing instruction given to a raiding party before it set out 1, and beside it stands: "He used to forbid the killing of women and children" 2. In the Qur'an: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities." 3 The gloss on it in al-Tafsir al-Muyassar reads: "do not commit the forbidden things — mutilation, stealing from the spoils, and the killing of those whose killing is not lawful: women, young boys, the elderly, and those in the same position" 4. And this restriction is not an apology manufactured today. Al-Nahhas writes on "but begin not hostilities": "do not kill those you have not been commanded to kill; women and young boys fall under this command" 5. Ibn al-Jawzi does not put the reading down to himself either; he transmits it from Ibn Abbas and from Mujahid 6. As for the second half of your question, it will not be answered here with "these are not of us". This is what the book says, word for word: "And I do not say 'these are not of us' and walk on — rather I say that the mechanism by which they are produced is known and can be described, and that whoever among the people of religion produced it is answerable for it." 7

1 When he sent out a raiding party he would charge them to fear God, and would say: Go forth in the name of God, and in the way of God, and fight whoever has disbelieved in God. Do not mutilate, do not act treacherously, and do not kill a child.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-Ibad (Provisions of the Hereafter, on the Guidance of the Best of Servants), p. 90 our rendering · Open the passage

2 He used to forbid the killing of women and children. He would examine the fighters: whoever he saw had grown hair he put to death, and whoever had not grown hair he spared.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-Ibad (Provisions of the Hereafter, on the Guidance of the Best of Servants), p. 89 our rendering · Open the passage

3 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Surah al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:190 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

4 Fight — O believers — for the victory of God's religion, against those who fight you; and do not commit the forbidden things: mutilation, stealing from the spoils, and the killing of those whose killing is not lawful — women, young boys, the elderly, and those in the same position. God does not love those who overstep His limits and so make lawful what God and His Messenger have forbidden.

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar (The Simplified Exegesis) · Surah al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:190 our rendering · Open the passage

5 "But begin not hostilities": do not kill those you have not been commanded to kill; women and young boys fall under this command.

Abu Ja'far al-Nahhas · I'rab al-Qur'an (The Grammatical Analysis of the Qur'an), p. 98 our rendering · Open the passage

6 "But begin not hostilities": by killing women and children. Reported by Ibn Abi Talha from Ibn Abbas, and by Ibn Abi Najih from Mujahid.

Ibn al-Jawzi · Nawasikh al-Qur'an (The Abrogating Verses of the Qur'an), p. 247 our rendering · Open the passage

7 And I do not say 'these are not of us' and walk on — rather I say that the mechanism by which they are produced is known and can be described, and that whoever among the people of religion produced it is answerable for it.

17. Religion and wars · Open the passage

8 And it has been said of "but begin not hostilities": that is, do not go beyond that to the killing of women and children.

al-Zajjaj · Ma'ani al-Qur'an wa I'rabuh (The Meanings of the Qur'an and Its Grammar), p. 262 our rendering · Open the passage

9 When the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent out a raiding party to fight in the way of God, he would say to them: Do not mutilate, and do not kill a child.

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami' al-Ulum wa al-Hikam (The Compendium of the Sciences and the Wisdoms), p. 382 our rendering · Open the passage

10 He (peace be upon him) was asked about the people of a dwelling of the idolaters who are raided by night, so that some of their children and women are struck, and he said: "They are of them." This is a sound hadith. What he (peace be upon him) meant by their being of them is that they follow them in the rulings of this world, and that no indemnity is owed.

Ibn al-Qayyim · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in an Rabb al-Alamin (Instruction of the Signatories on Behalf of the Lord of the Worlds), p. 206 our rendering · Open the passage

11 even though the women of a people at war are not killed, just as the children are not killed

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-Ibad (Provisions of the Hereafter, on the Guidance of the Best of Servants), p. 385 our rendering · Open the passage

The strongest objection

This is interpretation dressed in the clothing of the text. "But begin not hostilities" is a short, general phrase inside a verse that commands fighting, and whoever packs "women and young boys" into it is a commentator stating his own opinion. And worse than that: your own books contain what cancels what you have just quoted. Your prophet was asked about raiding the homes of the idolaters by night, "so that some of their children and women are struck", and he said: "They are of them." So with you the prohibition falls away at the first military necessity — and that is precisely the argument of every man who has killed a child in his name.

The first charge falls on the dating. Al-Zajjaj writes on this same verse: "And it has been said of 'but begin not hostilities': that is, do not go beyond that to the killing of women and children" 8, and Ibn al-Jawzi traces the reading to "Ibn Abi Talha from Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Abi Najih from Mujahid" 6 — so it is the reading of the earliest layer, not the wording of a later writer. The wording of the instruction itself turns up in another author, in another book: "Do not mutilate, and do not kill a child" 9. As for the second charge: it is in our books exactly as you say, and it is not hidden here. But the qualification attached to it stands in the very same passage. Ibn al-Qayyim reports it and then says: "What he meant by their being of them is that they follow them in the rulings of this world, and that no indemnity is owed" 10 — that is, the lifting of blood-money from a man who strikes them without aiming at them. And the ruling itself still stands with him in a second book: "the women of a people at war are not killed, just as the children are not killed" 11. Where in "no indemnity is owed" is there permission to aim at a child?

Why is someone killed for insulting the Prophet or drawing a cartoon?

The common claim is the reverse of what the text says. The Quran does speak about people who mock its verses and talk idly about them, and the order it gives the Prophet himself is to walk away from the gathering 1 — to "withdraw from them until they turn to some other talk" 2. It tells believers that they will hear their religion attacked and orders them to bear it, and it calls bearing it "of the steadfast heart of things" 3 4. Where it does address insult to God and His Messenger in speech, the penalty it names is a curse in this world and the next and a humiliating punishment 5 6. The man who brought the message "never took revenge for himself for anything done to him" 7. A group came in to him and greeted him with "Death be upon you"; he answered in a single word, and then reproached Aisha for her sharpness rather than the men who had insulted him 8. Ibn al-Qayyim — one of the harshest writers on killing the insulter — lists people who met him with open contempt and were never touched, and reports that he turned Umar away from killing Abd Allah ibn Ubayy with the words "Word must not reach the people that Muhammad kills his companions" 9, and states that the matter was a weighing of interests, not an automatic sentence: "he killed where the weightier benefit lay and he held back where the weightier benefit lay" 10. And Kaab ibn al-Ashraf, always produced as the example of a poet killed, had gone to Mecca after Badr and "set about inciting people against the Messenger of God … and against the believers" 11.

1 And when thou seest those who meddle with Our revelations, withdraw from them until they meddle with another topic. And if the devil cause thee to forget, sit not, after the remembrance, with the congregation of wrong-doers.

Quran, Surah al-Anam (Cattle) 6:68 — trans. Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

2 When you see, O Messenger, the idolaters who speak of the verses of the Quran with falsehood and mockery, withdraw from them until they turn to some other talk. And if Satan makes you forget this, then once you remember, do not sit with that transgressing people who spoke of God's verses with falsehood.

Tafsir al-Muyassar, al-Anam 6:68 our rendering · Open the passage

3 Assuredly ye will be tried in your property and in your persons, and ye will hear much wrong from those who were given the Scripture before you, and from the idolaters. But if ye persevere and ward off (evil), then that is of the steadfast heart of things.

Quran, Surah Al Imran (The Family of Imran) 3:186 — trans. Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

4 … And you will certainly hear from the Jews, the Christians and the idolaters what hurts your ears: words of associating partners with God, and attacks on your religion. And if you endure all of that, O believers, and fear God by keeping to His obedience and avoiding His disobedience, then that is among the matters that call for firm resolve and are worth competing in.

Tafsir al-Muyassar, Al Imran 3:186 our rendering · Open the passage

5 Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained.

Quran, Surah al-Ahzab (The Clans) 33:57 — trans. Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

6 Those who offend God by associating partners with Him or by other acts of disobedience, and who offend the Messenger of God by word or by deed — God has put them far away and driven them from every good in this world and the next, and has prepared for them in the Hereafter a punishment that abases and humiliates them.

Tafsir al-Muyassar, al-Ahzab 33:57 our rendering · Open the passage

7 The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, was never given a choice between two things but he took the easier of the two, so long as it was no sin; and if it was a sin, he was the furthest of people from it. By God, he never took revenge for himself for anything done to him — only when the sacred limits of God were violated did he take revenge for God.

Narrated by Aisha, Mother of the Believers · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 6786 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

8 A group of Jews asked leave to come in to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and they said: 'Death be upon you.' I said: 'Rather, death and the curse be upon you.' He said: 'Aisha, God is gentle and loves gentleness in every matter.' I said: 'Did you not hear what they said?' He said: 'I said: And upon you.'

Narrated by Aisha, Mother of the Believers · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 6927 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

9 If it is said: the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, did not kill Abd Allah ibn Ubayy, who had said, 'If we return to Medina, the mightier will surely drive out the weaker from it'; and he did not kill Dhu al-Khuwaysira al-Tamimi, who said to him, 'Be just, for you have not been just' … the answer is: the right was his, so it was his to exact and his to waive … all the more so since sparing those you mention, and others, held great benefits during his lifetime that lapsed after his death: the winning of people over, and not driving them away from him — for if word had reached them that he killed his own companions they would have been repelled. He pointed to this very thing when he said to Umar, who had advised him to kill Abd Allah ibn Ubayy: 'Word must not reach the people that Muhammad kills his companions.'

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Maad, p. 386 our rendering · Open the passage

10 There is no doubt that the benefit of this winning over, and the gathering of hearts to him, was greater in his sight and dearer to him than the benefit gained by killing one who insulted and injured him. That is why, when the benefit of killing became clear and clearly outweighed the alternative, he did kill the insulter, as he did with Kaab ibn al-Ashraf, for he had declared his enmity and his insults openly, so killing him weighed more than sparing him. So too the killing of Ibn Khatal, of Miqyas, of the two girls and of the blind man's slave mother. He killed where the weightier benefit lay and he held back where the weightier benefit lay. And when the matter passes to his deputies and successors, it is not for them to waive his right.

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Maad, p. 387 our rendering · Open the passage

11 He was a man of the Jews, and his mother was of Banu al-Nadir. He was severe in his injury to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and in his poems he made love-verse about the women of the Companions. When the battle of Badr took place he went to Mecca and set about inciting people against the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and against the believers; then he returned to Medina in that same state.

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Maad, p. 170 our rendering · Open the passage

12 And among them: the settled ruling that the one who insults the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, is to be killed, and that his killing is a prescribed penalty that must be carried out. For the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, granted no safe conduct to Miqyas ibn Subaba, nor to Ibn Khatal, nor to the two girls who used to sing his satire — even though the women of an enemy at war are not killed, just as children are not killed — and he ordered these two girls to be killed

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Maad, p. 385 our rendering · Open the passage

13 For al-Siddiq, may God be pleased with him, said to Abu Barza al-Aslami, when he had made to kill a man who had insulted him: 'This was for no one but the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace.'

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Maad, p. 385 our rendering · Open the passage

14 The reports from the Companions on this are many, and more than one of the imams has related a consensus on killing him. Our shaykh said: this is to be understood as the consensus of the first generation of …

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Maad, p. 54 our rendering · Open the passage

15 Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance. Thus unto every nation have We made their deed seem fair. Then unto their Lord is their return, and He will tell them what they used to do.

Quran, Surah al-Anam (Cattle) 6:108 — trans. Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

16 If those who conceal unbelief while showing faith, and those in whose hearts is doubt and suspicion, and those who spread false reports in the city of the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, do not desist from their foul and evil deeds, We shall surely set you against them; then they will dwell with you there only a short time. Cast out from God's mercy, wherever they are found they will be seized and put to death, so long as they persist in hypocrisy and in spreading false reports among the Muslims for the purpose of sedition and corruption.

Tafsir al-Muyassar, al-Ahzab 33:60-61 our rendering · Open the passage

The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, was never given a choice between two things but he took the easier of the two, so long as it was no sin; and if it was a sin, he was the furthest of people from it. By God, he never took revenge for himself for anything done to him — only when the sacred limits of God were violated did he take revenge for God.

Narrated by Aisha, Mother of the Believers · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 6786 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

A group of Jews asked leave to come in to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and they said: 'Death be upon you.' I said: 'Rather, death and the curse be upon you.' He said: 'Aisha, God is gentle and loves gentleness in every matter.' I said: 'Did you not hear what they said?' He said: 'I said: And upon you.'

Narrated by Aisha, Mother of the Believers · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 6927 · sahih (authentic) our rendering

The strongest objection

Cherry-picking. The same Ibn al-Qayyim you quote says in plain words that killing the one who insults the Prophet is a prescribed penalty that must be carried out. He argues it from the fact that on the day Mecca was taken the Prophet ordered the killing of two singing girls who used to sing his satire — two women, and women are not killed in war — and he relates a consensus of the Rightly Guided Caliphs with no dissenter. So the mercy whose proofs you have lined up was an exception belonging to a time of weakness, and the sword is the ruling. Your own books of jurisprudence say so openly, while here you tell us something else.

The first half is true and is not denied here: that is Ibn al-Qayyim's text word for word, and the two girls are part of his argument 12. The disagreement on the question is old and still live, and no claim is made here that it is settled. But three things in his own words undo what is built on them today. The consensus he relates was restricted by his teacher Ibn Taymiyya, who said it is "to be understood as the consensus of the first generation" 14 — the report of one era, not the agreement of a whole community. The carrying out of it passes, in his account, "to his deputies and successors" 10 — that is, to a public authority that judges, not to an individual who kills in a street. And Abu Bakr turned Abu Barza away from killing a man who had insulted him, Abu Bakr, saying: "This was for no one but the Messenger of God" 13 — the first head of state in Islam refusing the immunity for himself. The Quran also forbids Muslims to revile what other people pray to, so that God is not reviled in return 15: its rule is a restrained tongue on both sides, not a guarded tongue on one side backed by a weapon. The closest thing in it to a punishment for speech is the verse about those spreading alarm in Medina, and the commentary on it is that they were "spreading false reports … for the purpose of sedition and corruption" 16 in a state of war — that is alarm-mongering, not a drawing and not a novel. So a man who kills a cartoonist is leaning on an opinion that really does exist in the books of jurisprudence, but he leans on it stripped of its conditions and stripped of the authority meant to apply it, and he leaves behind him the higher text and the conduct of the very man he claims to be defending.

Are the ahl al-dhimma citizens, or second-class subjects?

Yes — the rulings are unequal, and the word "protection" does not make that go away. But the items on your list are not one thing, and the heaviest of them were disputed inside the system itself rather than settled by consensus. On bloodshed: the majority do not put a Muslim to death for a dhimmi; Abu Hanifa and the jurists of Kufa do; and Malik and the people of Medina do so where the killing was carried out by stealth 1. Umar and Uthman doubled the blood money against a man who killed a dhimmi deliberately, and Ahmad held the same 2 — so for them it was an aggravated crime, not a lightened one. On testimony: the Quran allows "two others from another tribe" to witness a Muslim's bequest while travelling 3; Ibn al-Qayyim counted this as accepting the testimony of disbelievers against Muslims, in the last sura revealed, and said that "nothing whatsoever abrogated it" 4; Ahmad restricted it to this one case 5 — so the dispute is over the scope, not over the capacity to testify at all. As for the content of the covenant itself, there is the text of the Prophet's writ to the people of Najran: that no church of theirs be demolished, no priest of theirs be driven out, and that they not be turned away from their religion 6. Its guard is that whoever kills a person under covenant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise 7, and that whoever wrongs him, or belittles him, or burdens him beyond his capacity will have the Prophet as his adversary on the Day of Resurrection 8. The governing principle is that God does not forbid kindness and just dealing toward those who did not fight you 9 10, and that hatred of a people is no licence to abandon justice 11. The sharpest evidence for it is one specific incident: a man of the Ansar stole a coat of mail, hid it with a Jewish man, and pinned the theft on him. The Prophet was minded to act — his inclination was with his own people — and to punish the Jew, until the revelation came down: "Lo! We reveal unto thee the Scripture with the truth, that thou mayst judge between mankind" 12 13.

1 Among them is that a Muslim kills a disbeliever. If the man was a combatant, the Muslim is not killed for him, with no disagreement… If he was a dhimmi or a person under covenant, the majority hold that the Muslim is likewise not killed for him. In Sahih al-Bukhari, on the authority of Ali, the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, said: 'A Muslim is not killed for a disbeliever.' But Abu Hanifa and a group of the jurists of Kufa said: he is killed for him… And this is the position of Malik and the people of Medina, that a killing by stealth does not require parity, so in it a Muslim is killed for a disbeliever.

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami' al-Ulum wa-l-Hikam, p. 316 our rendering · Open the passage

2 Likewise, against one who kills a dhimmi deliberately, Umar and Uthman doubled the blood money, and Ahmad and others held this view.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in an Rabb al-Alamin, p. 22 our rendering · Open the passage

3 O ye who believe! Let there be witnesses between you when death draweth nigh unto one of you, at the time of bequest - two witnesses, just men from among you, or two others from another tribe, in case ye are campaigning in the land and the calamity of death befall you. Ye shall empanel them both after the prayer, and, if ye doubt, they shall be made to swear by Allah (saying): We will not take a bribe, even though it were (on behalf of) a near kinsman nor will we hide the testimony of Allah, for then indeed we should be of the sinful.

Surat al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread) 5:106 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

4 Indeed, God Most High has drawn attention to acceptance in a case such as this, by accepting the testimony of disbelievers against Muslims while travelling, in the matter of a bequest, in the last sura revealed in the Quran; and nothing whatsoever abrogated it, and neither Book nor Sunna abrogated this ruling, nor has the community agreed on the contrary of it, and nothing else befits the Law.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in an Rabb al-Alamin, p. 150 our rendering · Open the passage

5 Salih ibn Ahmad said: My father said: The testimony of the ahl al-dhimma is not admissible except in one place — while travelling, of which God Most High said: 'or two others from another tribe, in case ye are campaigning in the land' [al-Ma'idah: 106]. Abu Musa al-Ash'ari admitted it, and it is related from Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with them both: 'or two others from another tribe, from the People of the Book.' This is a place of necessity, because he is travelling and finds no Muslim to bear witness; it came only in this sense.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya · al-Turuq al-Hukmiyya fi al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyya, p. 295 our rendering · Open the passage

6 He made peace with the Christians of Najran for two thousand robes… on condition that no church of theirs be demolished, no priest of theirs be driven out, and that they not be turned away from their religion, so long as they commit no offence and do not take usury.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-Ibad, p. 140 our rendering · Open the passage

7 Whoever kills a person under covenant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, and its fragrance is found at a distance of forty years' travel.

Abdullah ibn Amr · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 3166 · authentic (sahih) our rendering

8 Beware: whoever wrongs a person under covenant, or belittles him, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes anything from him without his willing consent, I shall be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection.

A number of fathers among the Companions of the Prophet · Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani · Hidayat al-Ruwat 4/100 · good (hasan) our rendering

9 Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.

Surat al-Mumtahanah (She That Is To Be Examined) 60:8 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

10 God does not forbid you — O believers — regarding those disbelievers who… did not fight you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes, that you treat them well and deal justly with them by doing good to them and being kind to them. God loves those who are just in their words and their deeds.

Tafsir al-Muyassar — al-Mumtahanah 60:8 our rendering · Open the passage

11 O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do.

Surat al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread) 5:8 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

12 Lo! We reveal unto thee the Scripture with the truth, that thou mayst judge between mankind by that which Allah showeth thee. And be not thou a pleader for the treacherous;

Surat an-Nisa (Women) 4:105 — Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

13 That was because a man of the Ansar called Tu'ma ibn Ubayriq, of Banu Zafar ibn al-Harith, stole a coat of mail from a neighbour of his called Qatada ibn al-Nu'man… then hid it with a Jewish man called Zayd ibn al-Samin… So Banu Zafar, who were Tu'ma's people, said: Come with us to the Messenger of God, God bless him and his family and grant them peace, and speak to him about this. They asked him to argue on behalf of their companion, and said: If you do not, our companion is ruined and disgraced and the Jew goes free. So the Messenger of God, God bless him and his family and grant them peace, was minded to do so — his inclination was with them — and to punish the Jew, until God Most High sent down: 'Lo! We reveal unto thee the Scripture with the truth' — the whole verse.

al-Wahidi al-Naysaburi · Asbab Nuzul al-Qur'an (The Occasions of Revelation), p. 180 our rendering · Open the passage

14 God, glorified and exalted, has made all disbelievers equal in their entry into the Fire of Hell, in the severing of alliance between them and the Muslims, in the absence of inheritance between them and the Muslims, in barring the acceptance of their testimony against Muslims, and in other matters; and He has severed equality between Muslims and disbelievers.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in an Rabb al-Alamin, p. 210 our rendering · Open the passage

15 It is authentically reported from him, God bless him and grant him peace, that he said: 'Do not greet them first with peace, and when you meet them on the road, force them to its narrowest part.' But it has been said that this was in a particular case: when they marched against Banu Qurayza he said, 'Do not greet them first with peace.' So is this a general ruling for the ahl al-dhimma without restriction, or is it confined to those whose situation was like theirs? This is a matter for consideration. Yet Muslim has related in his Sahih, from the hadith of Abu Hurayra, that the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, said: 'Do not greet the Jews or the Christians first with peace, and when you meet one of them on the road, force him to its narrowest part.' And what appears to be the case is that this is a general ruling.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya · Zad al-Ma'ad fi Hady Khayr al-Ibad, p. 387 our rendering · Open the passage

16 Among them: that a free man kills a slave. Most hold that he is not killed for him, and hadiths have come on this in whose chains there is criticism. And it has been said: he is killed for another man's slave but not for his own slave, and that is the position of Abu Hanifa and his companions.

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami' al-Ulum wa-l-Hikam, p. 315 our rendering · Open the passage

Whoever kills a person under covenant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, and its fragrance is found at a distance of forty years' travel.

Abdullah ibn Amr · al-Bukhari · Sahih al-Bukhari 3166 · authentic (sahih) our rendering

Beware: whoever wrongs a person under covenant, or belittles him, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes anything from him without his willing consent, I shall be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection.

A number of fathers among the Companions of the Prophet · Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani · Hidayat al-Ruwat 4/100 · good (hasan) our rendering

The strongest objection

That is selective. What governed the courts for centuries was the majority position, not Abu Hanifa's. And Ibn al-Qayyim himself lists the barring of their testimony against Muslims among the matters in which God "severed equality" between Muslims and disbelievers — that is, a principle of the chapter, not an exception within it [[14]]. And in Sahih Muslim: do not greet them first with peace, and force them to the narrowest part of the road — and Ibn al-Qayyim settled on its being "a general ruling" [[15]]. So your failure to document the rules on church-building and public office is not the problem; the problem is that what you did document establishes the discrimination rather than denying it.

The first half is correct, and there is no denying it: the majority position is what prevailed, and barring testimony against a Muslim is the view of most 14. Three things change its meaning without cancelling it. First, the parity structure in bloodshed is not religious at its root: most hold that a free man is not killed for a slave, and Abu Hanifa draws a distinction there just as he did with the dhimmi 16 — so the question is about the whole system of retaliation, not about the dhimmi alone. Second, Umar and Uthman did not lighten the penalty on the man who killed a dhimmi; they doubled it against him 2 — the inviolability of his life stands, even if the route to exacting it differed. Third, on the hadith about the narrowest part of the road, Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned that it was said to have been about a particular case, and called it "a matter for consideration" before settling on the general reading 15 — so it is disputed among them, not a decisive text. And the most important point remains: what the covenant promised — the church, the priest, and no coercion in religion 6 — is protection of life, property, and place of worship. That is not modern citizenship, and it is not claimed to be.

"A Muslim is not killed for a disbeliever" — is a non-Muslim's blood worth less?

What is presented here as consensus is not one — the disagreement is written in the very books being cited. On retaliation (qisas): the majority do not put a Muslim to death for a dhimmi; Abu Hanifa and a group of the jurists of Kufa do put him to death for one; and Malik and the people of Medina put him to death for one where the killing was by stealth 1. On blood-money (diya) there are four positions, not one: half, according to Malik; a third, according to al-Shafi'i; the same as a Muslim's blood-money, according to Abu Hanifa, in both deliberate and accidental killing; and the same, according to Ahmad, in deliberate killing 2 — and for anyone who traces both back to a principle, the two halves are a single question: Abu Hanifa equalised the two blood-monies because, in his view, retaliation runs between the two 3. When the Qur'an legislated for the killing of a man from a people bound to the Muslims by a covenant, it required that "the blood-money must be paid unto his folk", and mentioned no reduction in it 4; al-Tafsir al-Muyassar reads it: "his killer owes blood-money to be handed over to the victim's next of kin" 5. And the hadith being cited carries its own qualification in its text: "nor a man under covenant while his covenant stands" — added, says Ibn al-Qayyim, to remove the impression that "the blood of a disbeliever is forfeit and that it has no sanctity" 6.

1 And if he is a dhimmi or a man under covenant, the majority hold that [a Muslim] is likewise not killed for him. In Sahih al-Bukhari, from Ali, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he said: "A Muslim is not killed for a disbeliever." … Abu Hanifa and a group of the jurists of Kufa said: he is killed for him … And this is the position of Malik and the people of Medina, that killing by stealth does not require parity, so in it a Muslim is killed for a disbeliever.

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami' al-'Ulum wa'l-Hikam, p. 316 our rendering · Open the passage

2 The compilers of the four Sunan have related from him (peace and blessings be upon him): "The blood-money of a man under covenant is half the blood-money of a free man." … The jurists differed over this. Malik said: their blood-money is half the blood-money of the Muslims, in accidental and in deliberate killing. Al-Shafi'i said: a third of it, in accidental and in deliberate killing. Abu Hanifa said: rather, it is like the blood-money of a Muslim, in accidental and in deliberate killing. Imam Ahmad said: the like of the blood-money of a Muslim in deliberate killing.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 24 our rendering · Open the passage

3 Abu Hanifa held to what is his own principle — that retaliation runs between the two — so their two blood-monies are equal.

Ibn al-Qayyim · Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 25 our rendering · Open the passage

4 It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood-money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave. And if he cometh of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood-money must be paid unto his folk and (also) a believing slave must be set free. And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months. A penance from Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise.

Surah An-Nisa (The Women) 4:92 — Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

5 And if he was from a people between whom and you there is a treaty and a covenant, then his killer owes blood-money to be handed over to the victim's next of kin, and the freeing of a believing slave.

al-Tafsir al-Muyassar · An-Nisa 4:92 our rendering · Open the passage

6 As in his words, "A Muslim is not killed for a disbeliever, nor a man under covenant while his covenant stands." For when he denied that a Muslim is killed for a disbeliever, that gave the impression that the blood of a disbeliever is forfeit and that it has no sanctity; so he removed this impression by his words, "nor a man under covenant while his covenant stands." And since restricting it to his words "nor a man under covenant" would give the impression that he is not killed once a covenant is established for him in general terms, he removed this impression by his words "while his covenant stands."

Ibn al-Qayyim · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, p. 260 our rendering · Open the passage

7 Umar ibn al-Khattab and Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with them) ruled, concerning the blood-money of the Jew and the Christian, for a third of the blood-money of a Muslim. And Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) ruled, concerning the blood-money of the Magian, for eight hundred dirhams.

al-Bayhaqi · Ahkam al-Qur'an lil-Shafi'i, p. 283 our rendering · Open the passage

8 And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are wrong-doers.

Surah Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread) 5:45 — Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930) · Open the passage

9 The forty-second point: that you rejected the established Sunna of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in his words, "A Muslim is not killed for a disbeliever," and his words, "The believers are equal in respect of their blood," and you said: this goes against the plain sense of the Qur'an, because Allah Most High says: "The life for the life" [al-Ma'ida: 45].

Ibn al-Qayyim · I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, p. 232 our rendering · Open the passage

10 Treachery is forbidden in every covenant between a Muslim and another, even if the covenanted party is a disbeliever. Hence in the hadith of Abdullah ibn Amr, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Whoever kills a person under covenant without right will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, and its fragrance is found at a distance of forty years' travel." Al-Bukhari reported it.

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali · Jami' al-'Ulum wa'l-Hikam, pp. 486–487 our rendering · Open the passage

The strongest objection

This is cherry-picking through disagreement. The position the bulk of the community acted on for centuries is the one I described: no retaliation against the Muslim, and blood-money of a half or a third — and the third was the ruling of Umar and Uthman themselves, not of some later jurist who can be argued over [[7]]. Producing a minority position of Abu Hanifa does not erase the fact that the law, in its dominant form, priced my blood at a fraction of yours, and that the killer is ransomed with money where he would be put to death had the victim been one of you.

The ruling of Umar and Uthman for a third is established, and it is not denied here 7. But the Hanafis did not depart from it out of whim: they argued from the plain sense of the Qur'an, "The life for the life", stated absolutely with no qualification of religion 8. Ibn al-Qayyim even counted their rejection of the hadith "A Muslim is not killed for a disbeliever" on the strength of that plain sense as one of the grounds of his objection against them 9. So the dispute is over which of the two texts takes precedence — a dispute inside the text, not a pricing of lives outside it 9. And the disparity is limited to the blood-money alone; the blood itself is inviolable with no fraction: "Treachery is forbidden in every covenant between a Muslim and another, even if the covenanted party is a disbeliever … Whoever kills a person under covenant without right will not smell the fragrance of Paradise" — reported by al-Bukhari 10. The claim still stands where it is true: the dominant position did differentiate in money, and that is a real difference, not to be denied 2. What does not hold up is calling it "your law" as though there were no disagreement in it 1.