Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 9, “Repentance,” verse 29, Part 2
posted at 8:00 am on December 9, 2007 by Robert Spencer
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Verse 29 of chapter 9 of the Qur’an, as we saw last week, mandates that the Muslims fight against the Jews and Christians “until they pay the jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Asad, Daryabadi and other Western-oriented commentators maintain that the jizya was merely a tax for exemption for military service. Asad explains: “every able-bodied Muslim is obliged to take up arms in jihad (i.e., in a just war in God’s cause) whenever the freedom of his faith or the political safety of his community is imperiled…Since this is, primarily, a religious obligation, non-Muslim citizens, who do not subscribe to the ideology of Islam, cannot in fairness be expected to assume a similar burden.” But they pass in silence over the latter part of v. 29, which mandates the humiliation of non-Muslims.
In explaining how the Jews and Christians must “feel themselves subdued,” Ibn Kathir quotes a saying of Muhammad: “Do not initiate the Salam [greeting of peace] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.” He then goes on to outline the notorious Pact of Umar, an agreement made, according to Islamic tradition, between the caliph Umar, who ruled the Muslims from 634 to 644, and a Christian community.
This Pact is worth close examination, because it became the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis. With remarkably little variation, throughout Islamic history whenever Islamic law was strictly enforced, this is generally how non-Muslims were treated. Working from the full text as Ibn Kathir has it, these are the conditions the Christians accept in return for “safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion” – conditions that, according to Ibn Kathir, “ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.” The Christians will not:
1. Build “a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk”;
2. “Restore any place of worship that needs restoration”;
3. Use such places “for the purpose of enmity against Muslims”;
4. “Allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims”;
5. Imitate the Muslims’ “clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names”;
6. “Ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons”;
7. “Encrypt our stamps in Arabic”
8. “Sell liquor” – Christians in Iraq in the last few years ran afoul of Muslims reasserting this rule;
9. “Teach our children the Qur’an”;
10. “Publicize practices of Shirk” – that is, associating partners with Allah, such as regarding Jesus as Son of God. In other words, Christian and other non-Muslim religious practice will be private, if not downright furtive;
11. Build “crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets” – again, Christian worship must not be public, where Muslims can see it and become annoyed;
12. “Sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets”;
13. “Bury our dead next to Muslim dead”;
14. “Buy servants who were captured by Muslims”;
15. “Invite anyone to Shirk” – that is, proselytize, although the Christians also agree not to:
16. “Prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.” Thus the Christians can be the objects of proselytizing, but must not engage in it themselves;
17. “Beat any Muslim.”
Meanwhile, the Christians will:
1. Allow Muslims to rest “in our churches whether they come by day or night”;
2. “Open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby”;
3. Provide board and food for “those Muslims who come as guests” for three days;
4. “Respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them” – shades of Jim Crow;
5. “Have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist” – these are so that a Muslim recognizes a non-Muslim as such and doesn’t make the mistake of greeting him with As-salaamu aleikum, “Peace be upon you,” which is the Muslim greeting for a fellow Muslim;
6. “Be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.”
The Christians swore: “If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”
Of course, the Pact of Umar is a seventh-century document. But the imperative to subjugate non-Muslims as mandated by Qur’an 9:29 and elaborated by this Pact became and remained part of Islamic law. In the nineteenth century the Western powers began to pressure the last Islamic empire, the Ottoman Empire, to abolish the dhimma. In Baghdad in the early nineteenth century, Sheikh Syed Mahmud Allusi (1802-1853), author of the noted commentary on the Qur’an Ruhul Ma’ani, complains that the Muslims have grown so weak that the dhimmis pay the jizya through agents, rather than delivering it themselves on foot. In his Tafsir Anwar al-Bayan, the twentieth-century Indian Mufti Muhammad Aashiq Ilahi Bulandshahri laments that “in today’s times, the system of Atonement (Jizya) is not practised at all by the Muslims. It is indeed unfortunate that not only are the Muslim States afraid to impose Atonement (Jizya) on the disbelievers (kuffar) living in their countries, but they grant them more rights than they grant the Muslims and respect them more. They fail to understand that Allah desires that the Muslims show no respect to any disbeliever (kafir) and that they should not accord any special rights to them.”
The influential twentieth century jihadist theorist Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) emphasizes that these rules should be revived, for “these verses are given as a general statement, and the order to fight the people of the earlier revelations until they pay the submission tax with a willing hand and are subdued is also of general import” (In the Shade of the Qur’an, Vol. VIII, p. 126).
Likewise the Pakistani jihadist writer and activist Syed Abul A’la Maududi (1903-1979) states that “the simple fact is that according to Islam, non-Muslims have been granted the freedom to stay outside the Islamic fold and to cling to their false, man-made, ways if they so wish.” That heads off any potential contradiction between his understanding of v. 29 and 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion.” Maududi continues by declaring that the unbelievers “have, however, absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines. For if they are given such an opportunity, corruption and mischief will ensue. In such a situation the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life” (Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. III, p. 202).
Next week: Why the Jews and Christians are both accursed of Allah.
(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic/English Qur’an, here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Another great piece. Thank you.
(P.S. Shame on you and Karl Rove for fooling WaPo into believing that you believe that Obama is a Muslim. Shame!
/sarc)
hillbillyjim on December 9, 2007 at 8:15 AM
An important note I didn’t have room for above:
Islamic apologists in the West today commonly assert that 9:29 commands warfare only against the Jews and Christians who fought against Muhammad, and no others. I wish that every Muslim believed that, but unfortunately that has never been the mainstream Islamic understanding of this verse. Indeed, if it had been, the Pact of Umar, which I detail above, would never have been made — for it was made after Muhammad’s death with Christians against whom he did not fight. That in itself, as well as the teachings of all the schools of Islamic law, illustrates that this verse was always understood as having a universal application.
Robert Spencer on December 9, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Ahhh…OK, that clears up what I was going to ask. But then, what exactly constitutes “fighting against Muhammed”? Someone who literally picks up arms in a battle against Muslim forces, or extended to include those, say, Christians who do not follow the instructions properly in the list above?
JetBoy on December 9, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Ooooh! This is more suspenseful than a commercial break in a Perry Mason episode.
Shy Guy on December 9, 2007 at 10:43 AM
You’re dating yourself, which I understand is illegal in many states.
Anyhoo…JetBoy brings up a relevant point. It seems that there’s always enough ambiguity for the frequently referenced “tiny minority” to interpret the Qur’an and hadiths as suits their agenda…and for the more fiery imams to whip their conregations into a frenzy.
What’s left is a “huge majority” who err on the side of caution.
flipflop on December 9, 2007 at 11:31 AM
“Encrypt our stamps in Arabic”
What he heck does *that* mean?
Tony737 on December 9, 2007 at 11:59 AM
“That heads off any potential contradiction …”
Heads off? No pun intended, eh?
Tony737 on December 9, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Ooops! That should say “What *THE* heck does that mean?”
Tony737 on December 9, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Thank you Mr Spencer. Another great piece, as always.
SilverStar830 on December 9, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Krykee doodle. Wasn’t all that covered in sura 2, and 3, and 5, and 6? Oh, and don’t forget the lil gem of allah turning some Jews into apes at v166 in sura 7.
How to beat down females was sura 4’s entirety.
All I’ve seen is a violent manifesto for bigots & zealots.
Simply put; all cultures are based on a cult. The applied philosophy derived from the core beliefs determines the ‘flavor’ of that culture & the interaction of societies.
And this muslim cult ain’t called the religion of perpetual outrage for nothing.
I’ll take a babe-in-a-manger cult symbolizing joy n hope n grace n forgiveness any day.
locomotivebreath1901 on December 9, 2007 at 2:37 PM
I’m with ya…but we also have to think: What if we were born into Islam? And raised in Islamic culture? Which…given these weekely “B the Q” posts, can be pretty intense.
JetBoy on December 9, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Robert,
So if the dhimmis could not encrypt their stamps in Arabic, what language could they use?
mram on December 9, 2007 at 3:28 PM
mram:
Their own languages. Although historically, Arabic overtook and replaced those languages among the dhimmis.
Robert Spencer on December 9, 2007 at 7:26 PM
So it was Islam that brought us the Mullet? heh…
Cheesestick on December 10, 2007 at 1:50 AM
The more I read these articles, the more conviced I am that muslims are still in a kindergarten bully mentality and have yet to grow up into anything like a civilized adult.
And we’re supposed to accommodate that?
Mommynator on December 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM
What a crock! These guys just hate everybody.
Mojave Mark on December 10, 2007 at 11:12 PM
“force them to its narrowest alley.”
reaching for key-canister
ok……aim for eyes…..SPRAY!
O…..& did I say…Fk U!!
lobosan5 on December 12, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Comment pages: