A FEW CRITICS of Islam suggest that there is a trajectory of violence in the early history of Islam, meaning that Islam began as a peaceful religion but later developed into a violent creed. To support this hypothesis, it is argued that the peaceful passages of the Holy Quran were revealed in the early years and the allegedly violent passages were revealed later, culminating eventually in the revelation of Sūrah At-Taubah (Chapter 9) of the Holy Quran. It is then alleged that this is the “most violent” chapter of the Holy Quran and since it is the last of the revealed chapters, it contains the “marching orders” for Muslims that constitute an open-ended command to be violent and to keep on fighting the non-Muslims endlessly. It is further alleged that Sūrah 9 is also known as Al-Barā’ah or “The Disavowal” meaning that all the treaties made with the polytheists prior to its revelation have been annulled and do not matter any more. What is more is that perhaps one of the most commonly quoted “violent verses” of the Holy Quran is also from this Sūrah:
...kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free”116
The first problem with these arguments is that an attempt is being made here to isolate Sūrah 9 from the rest of the Holy Quran. Muslims see the Holy Quran as the Word of God contained in one complete book. The Holy Quran itself never states anywhere that one passage is more important than the other. Furthermore, it does not include any dates for particular passages or Sūrahs, which means that the Holy Quran is to be seen in full. As such, there is no argument based on the Holy Quran itself to suggest any given passage is the “marching orders” or any given passage was revealed later and hence more important.
As time passed, and the study of the Holy Quran developed and became a science, commentators of the Holy Quran sought a more organized and enhanced study. They searched through historical sources and tried to determine the date of revelation of each Sūrah. As a result, in some cases, the date of revelation is widely accepted, but in other cases, the precise date of revelation of a given Sūrah may be disputed. Regardless, as far as the word of God is concerned, it has always been seen as a whole in the Holy Quran, not in pieces as some critics imagine.
This is why when the Holy Quran says that there is no compulsion in religion (2:257) and that the religion of the disbelievers is for them and the religion of Islam is for the Muslims (109:7), these passages should be seen as supplementary or additional to other verses of the Holy Quran; not contradictory to them. Specific to Sūrah At-Taubah, it should be understood that even this Sūrah must not be seen as an independent and stand-alone chapter or Sūrah of the Holy Quran. One of the unique things about this chapter is that it is actually a part of the previous chapter or a sub-section of the previous chapter, Al-Anfāl. Every chapter of the Holy Quran starts with the words Bismillāhir Raḥmānir Raḥīm (In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful) and it is mentioned in the traditions of Prophet Muhammadsa that every time a new Sūrah was to be revealed these words (Bismillāh...) would be revealed indicating the start of the revelation of the new Sūrah. In the case of Sūrah At-Taubah, that did not happen which is a clear indication that this Sūrah is to be seen as a part of the previous Sūrah – Al-Anfāl – and not separate from it.
Furthermore, Sūrah Al-Anfāl was among the first to be revealed after the migration of Prophet Muhammadsa to Madīnah, and Sūrah At-Taubah was among the last to be revealed after the migration.117 When we see these two chapters as a whole, we notice that Anfāl contained a prophecy that God would give Muslims a great victory and this prophecy was made at a time when there were no signs of its fulfillment. Muslims were still a small community who had fled from their persecutors in Makkah. Years later when Makkah fell and the prophecy was fulfilled, the second part of Anfāl was revealed and separately named At-Taubah. As a result, Sūrah At-Taubah (chapter 9) of the Holy Quran is in a sense Part II of Sūrah Al-Anfāl (chapter 8) and contains a declaration of the fulfillment of the great prophecy made in Al-Anfāl.
Another point to be noted is that a second name for Sūrah At-Taubah is Al-Barā’ah which critics translate as “The Disavowal” alleging that all prior treaties that the Muslims made with non-Muslims are now null and void and the Muslims are free to attack anyone. This confusion comes from the meaning of the Arabic word Barā’ah. While it is true that one meaning of this word is “immunity or disavowal”, another meaning of this term is absolution from a fault or responsibility.118 This second meaning is what applies here in context, especially when Sūrah At-Taubah is seen as a continuation of Sūrah Al-Anfāl, and a part of the Holy Quran as a whole.
The fact is that the Makkans used to mock the Muslims for having fled to Madīnah and used to say that the prophecies of Prophet Muhammadsa regarding victory have failed. This Sūrah alleviates this mockery and “fault” from the Muslims, Prophet Muhammadsa and God, stating that the prophecy has indeed been fulfilled as Makkah has come under the control of the Muslims:
This is a declaration on the part of Allah and His Messenger addressed to the idolaters whom you had promised that Allah and His Messenger would surely triumph, that the promise has been fulfilled and that Allah and His Messenger are absolved of all obligation (Barā’ah) in that respect.119
In other words, this verse makes a declaration that Islam and Prophet Muhammadsa have been completely vindicated by the Fall of Makkah. Thus the meaning of the Arabic word that applies here, strictly according to the context, is, “absolution from a fault or responsibility”, and certainly not the self-serving mistranslation by the critics, that is, “the disavowal of all previous treaties with non-Muslims”, and an open invitation to engage in a perpetual fighting with non-Muslims.
As far as the so-called “violent verses” in Sūrah At-Taubah (Chapter 9) are concerned (9:3, 5, 13), they should be seen in the context of 9:4:
Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.
In other words, Muslims are emphatically commanded that they should not violate the treaties they have made with these people, and that they should not fight with anyone unfairly or unjustly. Muslims should only fight those who are vehemently opposed to them, and are bent on waging an armed conflict.
As we have clearly established in previous chapters, the Holy Quran is very clear about the specific conditions in which Jihad can be declared, the extent to which Jihad can be fought, the goal for Jihad, and so on. The verses in Surah 9 should be seen in the context of these other verses as they are part of the same, complete word of God in the form of a single book: The Holy Quran.
Even Sūrah At-Taubah (Chapter 9) itself points out that the Prophet Muhammadsa is not a pro-violence Prophet seeking to destroy his opponents or fight them without just cause:
Surely, a Messenger has come unto you from among yourselves; grievous to him is that you should fall into trouble; he is ardently desirous of your welfare; and to the believers he is compassionate, merciful.120
In other words, Prophet Muhammadsa is a prince of peace and it gave him no pleasure to fight these battles which were in self-defence. At another place, God addresses Prophet Muhammadsa and says:
So haply thou wilt grieve thyself to death for sorrow after them if they believe not in this discourse.121
This was the main goal for Prophet Muhammadsa. He only wanted to peacefully share the truth of Islam with all his opponents and convey the message and teachings of the Holy Quran, and leave it to them to see the beauty of these teachings. He had no desire to fight with anyone and even when he had to defend himself against the onslaught of his enemies, it caused him a great deal of grief and anguish due to the casualties. To suggest that his conduct in life displays a trajectory or a growing tendency to violence is a gross misrepresentation of clear-cut facts of history.
In earlier chapters, we have demonstrated this by taking the reader through glimpses from the life of Prophet Muhammadsa that he was always looking to establish peace and eschew armed conflict. He became a Prophet at the age of 40 and for the next 13 years he did not fight a single battle. Even after migration, no battles were fought for nearly two years. Then, after four years of warfare, the treaty of Hudaibiyya was signed for the sake of peace even though its terms were evidently not favorable to the Muslims. Another two years later, Muslims took over Makkah, because of a violation of the treaty of Hudaibiyya by the Makkans, and instead of taking a bloody revenge, Prophet Muhammadsa declared a general amnesty for all Makkans, except a handful who had committed the most atrocious crimes against humanity. Many of these culprits were also forgiven, later on.
It is true that Muslims had to fight bigger battles as their numbers grew, but this reflected the fact that with the rise in the number of Muslims the resistence to Islam also grew increasingly fierce and it caused rising military adventurism among the erstwhile powers. At any rate, it is quite evident as a historical fact that the treaty of Hudaibiyya and the general amnesty granted to the opponents of Islam at the time of the fall of Meccca are clear examples which demonstrate that Muslims always yearned for and desired for peace. Their greatest Jihad was a Jihad for peace, self-reformation, and communion with God.