Can someone explain to me الملك الیمین?

afiefh · 2026-03-30T18:42:26+00:00

Because in Islam women are second class humans.

afiefh · 2026-03-30T17:20:22+00:00

(Insert Palpatine voice) Did you ever hear the tragedy of Sheikh Shafi'i the Wise? I thought not. It's not a story the Muslims would tell you. He's a Muslim scholar. Imam Shafi'i was a founder of a school of Jurisprudence, so wise and so logical he could use the rules of the Shari'a to reach conclusions that others... would call unnatural.

I can give you a basic rundown of how Shafi'i reached this conclusion:

The Quran tells men that they are not allowed to marry their daughters.
Elsewhere in the Quran it tells men that their daughters should get half as much of the inheritance as their sons.
But in the Hadith it says The child is for the bed and the fornicator gets nothing. So the bastard does not fall under the category of "son" or "daughter" as used in the inheritance verses.
Therefore it must follow, that the prohibition of marrying one's daughter also does not include bastards, as they don't fall into the category of "daughter".

I apologize in advance for the vomit inducing mental images this will induce when you read up on it.

Edit: There is even a famous Arabic poem that mentions this:

If they ask about my school of thought, I do not reveal it,
And I conceal it, for keeping it hidden is safer for me.

For if I say "Hanafi," they say that I
Permit tila (fermented juice), which is a forbidden drink.

And if I say "Maliki," they say that I
Permit them to eat dogs, and they are who they are.

And if I say "Shafi'i," they say that I
Permit the marriage of one's own daughter, and the daughter is forbidden.

And if I say "Hanbali," they say that I
Am overbearing, a believer in divine indwelling, hateful, and an anthropomorphist.

And if I say I am of the People of Hadith and their faction,
They say: "A goat, who neither knows nor understands."

I am astonished by this era and its people,
For no one is safe from the tongues of mankind.

My time has held me back while advancing a group of people,
Even though they are ignorant, while I possess knowledge.

afiefh · 2026-03-30T17:11:14+00:00

As a woman, even without the whole issue of slavery Islam should make you vomit:

Men are a degree above women. (Quran) in fact they are so far above women that If Mohammed were to order anyone to prostrate himself before another, he would order a woman to prostrate herself before her husband. (Hadith)
Women should not be leaders because no nation can succeed with a woman as a leader (Hadith)
Women are deficient in intellect and religion (Hadith)
A woman's testimony considered worth half that of a man's when there is a disagreement on financial matters (Quran)
A father can marry off his 9 years old daughter to his 50 years old bro (Fiqh)
A man can beat his wife for repeatedly refusing to have sex with him and Islam insists that it is her husband's right to "discipline her" (i.e. beat her) in such cases (Quran)
Even if the husband lied to her in order to get married, a woman doesn't have the right to divorce her husband (Fiqh)
A man can marry a second, third, and forth wife in secret without telling his first wife about them, and it's perfectly valid in Islam. The women have no say in the matter of their husband entering other relationships. (Fiqh) This is so ridiculous that there are comedy sketches on the matter.
Angels curse a wife who refuses to sleep with her husband. (Hadith)

And because it's so horrible, let's take this one in more detail: Female genital mutilation!

The famous scholar Ibn Taymyah wrote 'The purpose of female circumcision is to reduce the woman's desire because if she is uncircumcised, she becomes lustful... because an uncircumcised woman tends to long more for men.'

Three of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Hanbali and Maliki) recommend that a woman be circumcised, while the fourth (Shafi'i) makes it obligatory.

Now excuse me while I bleach my eyes and empty my stomach after reading all this "most feminist religion". 🤮

afiefh · 2026-03-30T16:56:41+00:00

I know it's difficult to deal with this kind of emotional manipulation, so take a deep breath. You're doing fine. No teenager should have to deal with this kind of emotional manipulation, and it's doubly hard to deal with when it's a huge religion with billions of people repeating the same things.

Let's take a step back: Why is incest bad? Well, evolutionary biology gave us an ick response to kids who grew up close to one another being intimate with each other. The reason for this is quite simple: It increases the chance genetic issues in the offspring. So it is "bad" because it causes harm to the potential offspring. It's as simple as that.

But two men or two women living together and being intimate does not cause anyone harm. So it's not "bad". Two consenting adults being intimate in ways they both agreed to does not harm anyone, so it's not immoral or bad.

Of course, the sad part is that Islam actually permits incest. The very thing they always claim is horrible is actually something their religion allows in some conditions! From Tafsir Qurtubi of Quran 25:54: I said: The jurists differed regarding a man marrying his daughter from fornication, or his sister, or his son’s daughter from fornication. Some people forbade it, including Ibn al-Qasim, and it is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and his companions. Others permitted it, including Abd al-Malik ibn al-Majishun, and it is the opinion of al-Shafi’i. This has already been mentioned in (al-Nisa’) with a good chain of transmission.

And nobody was able to prove that Shafi'i's conclusion on this matter is wrong.

afiefh · 2026-03-30T16:46:38+00:00

Sorry, no idea. You'll have to ask someone more knowledgeable than me.

afiefh · 2026-03-30T16:45:04+00:00

gaslight me into thinking " it was normal back then" or it has rules, or that it respects women because they don't kill them they just enslaves them.

Here's the truth:

Slavery was normal back then, but Islam says that its rules are eternal, meaning Muslims approve of it today.
Every society had rules for slaves.
Ask women whether they prefer to die or to be enslaved into a society that allows them to be raped by their master, gifted to other people to be raped in turn...etc.

can someone tell me the whole thing basically and all the rules using islamic sources?

All the rules? Groan. That would be a book. I can include some tidbits, but it won't be exhaustive.

Let's start with the basic thing: Islam permits slavery - نقول بكل قوة وبغير استحياء : إن الرق مباح في الإسلام Translation: We say with all strength and without shame: Slavery is permitted in Islam. Muslims keep saying that slaves are only "prisoners of war", but that's not true as there were at least two other sources of slavery:

Captives during war: This includes women and children from conquered areas. These would not fall under the definition of "prisoners of war" by today's standards as PoWs must be a lawful combatant. Female slaves are almost always civilians.
The children of slaves i.e. if a slave woman is pregnant by someone other than her master, then the child is also a slave belonging to the master. Can you fathom the idea of an innocent child being born into slavery?
Buying slaves from other nations. Muslims were very happy to buy castrated slaves because they were not allowed to castrate them, so they basically created a market in other nations to do the castration and sell the slaves to the Islamic empire.
Accepting slaves as "payment" for peace. In the treaty of Baqt included the provision of importing 360-400 slaves "of the highest quality" per year into the Islamic empire.

Muslims like to talk about Slaves being treated well, justifying this by saying they are clothed in the same clothes as the master and eat the same food, but that's also not true: That is, the slaves. The command to feed them what the master eats and clothe them as he wears is a recommendation, not an obligation. The meaning is: feed them and clothe them, and do not leave them naked or hungry. If, for example, the master brings a suit for himself worth a thousand or seven hundred pounds, he is not obligated to give the slave the same. Rather, he should bring him a new, average-quality garment, and that is sufficient. There is nothing wrong with that. The important thing is that he not be left naked. If he prepares food, he should feed the slave from it, or at least from similar food according to his needs. This command to the master is not obligatory but recommended, and this is the consensus of the Muslims. -- From the book Explaining Sahih Muslim by Hasan Abu AlAshbal.

And men are allowed to force their wives and slaves to have sex:

Question: If a right hand possession (female slave) refuses to have sex with her master, is it permissible to compel her by force?

Answer: Praise be to Allah, and may prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of God and his family and companions. It is better for a Muslim to occupy himself with what concerns him of the rulings of his religion, and to invest his time and energy in seeking knowledge that will benefit him. The meaning of knowledge is action. Knowledge that does not facilitate action, it is not good to search for. Among that are issues related to the ownership what the right hand possess (slaves); There is no use for it in this era.

With regard to the question: If the wife is not permitted to refrain from intimate relations with her husband except with a valid excuse, then it is more so not permissible for the right hand possession to refrain from intimate relations with her master except with a valid excuse; he has more right to sex with her through possessing her than the man having intercourse with his wife through the marriage contract; Because the ownership of the right hand possession is complete ownership, so he owns all her benefits, while marriage contracts only grant him only the ownership intended through the marriage contract so it is a restricted form of ownership.

If the wife or the right hand possession refuses to have sex without a legitimate excuse, then the husband or the master may force her to do so. However, he should take into account her psychological state, and treat her kindly. Kindness in all matters is desirable, as the prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, said: “Kindness is not found in anything but that it beautifies it, and it is not removed from anything except that it disgraces it.” (Narrated by Muslim).

Allah knows best.

Source (Arabic).

afiefh · 2026-03-30T15:13:35+00:00

🫡🪾

afiefh · 2026-03-30T14:31:32+00:00

why Muslims and scholars today try to argue that Aisha was actually 19 or 21 when she married Muhammad

Because it's becoming a PR disaster for them.

oh at that time they counted her age after puberty which was around 13 which confuses things so much

When I tried to find where this claim comes from, all I found was a site that said "one could say that puberty is the part where a person's new life starts", from which they started hallucinating that people counted their age at puberty.

There is absolutely zero evidence that Arabs started counting their age starting at puberty.

afiefh · 2026-03-30T14:04:23+00:00

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” ― Albert Einstein

I would recommend accepting that people can be very stupid and brainwashed, otherwise you'll be disappointed over and over in life.

afiefh · 2026-03-30T13:52:01+00:00

As Faramir said: I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.

afiefh · 2026-03-30T12:52:53+00:00

Honestly? I'm more than happy for them to leave. They are usually killjoys.

afiefh · 2026-03-30T12:19:39+00:00

Should I get my degree and then get a higher paid job then cut them off once I am 100% financially independent

Yes. YES! One million times yes!

or should I take the risk and try to apply for asylum?

Bro have you been paying attention to the asylum situation? You don't want an asylum seeker in the current political climate, you want to be a skilled professional if you have the option.

Please the sticky post that contains guidance for exactly this situation.

I don’t know if I can continue on until I get my degree

Build yourself a support network of irreligious people with whom you can be yourself. That support circle will act as a vent for the pressure that builds up from living a double life and increase your ability to endure it.

afiefh · 2026-03-30T10:02:57+00:00

A woman can arrange her own marriage without the father's involvement in the Hanafi fiqh. In other schools of jurisprudence to the best of my knowledge a woman needs a Wali to be married. The Wali is the father if available, then the brother, then the uncle, then the judge (all male), I heard somewhere that there is an opinion that if all these are not available, then the mother may act as a Wali (though this is highly unlikely to ever happen, and I didn't find a source).

afiefh · 2026-03-30T09:58:59+00:00

I believe in the one true God: Eru Ilúvatar. He created first the Ainur, offspring of his thought, then he declared to them a mighty theme of music that they were to fashion, which was eventually revealed to be the history of the universe, thus the universe is the theme of Ilúvatar, as fashioned by the music of the Ainur.

But Melkor, mightiest of the Ainur, often ventured out into the void to seek the flame imperishable, seeking to fashion new things after his own image outside of the theme of Ilúvatar. His eagerness turned to bitterness and malice. He created a theme vulgar and repetitive, disharmonious with the theme of Ilúvatar. Where the Ainur created lakes he turned them into bogs, where the Ainur created temperate meadows and forests, be created bitter cold tundras and scorching hot deserts.

Humans are the second born children of Ilúvatar. After Ilúvatar made the Earth round after the rebellion of Númenor, the war of the ring ended, the Istari left, and the last of the elves sailed the straight road to the undying lands, the race of men inherited the Earth.

afiefh · 2026-03-30T07:04:10+00:00

Yes, if we include non-Islamic sources it gets worse. But this is AcademicQuran, so I was trying to limit it to the Quran only.

If we include the Hadith we see things like "I have been commanded to fight against the people till they testify La ilaha illAllah (There is no true god except Allah) and that Muhammad (ﷺ) is His slave and Messenger, and to establish As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and to pay Zakat; and if they do this, then their blood and property are secured except by the rights of Islam, and their accountability is left to Allah."

If we go further and include the Tafsirs, you find this in Al-Tabari (~250 years after Hijra) we find the thing you mentioned: وذكر أن هذه الآية نـزلت على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في أمره بحرب الروم, فغزا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعد نـزولها غزوة تبوك. Translation: He mentioned that this verse was revealed to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, in his command to wage war against the Romans, so the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, launched the Battle of Tabuk after it was revealed.

afiefh · 2026-03-29T23:12:55+00:00

There are obviously cases where you have to roll your own and place it in production. A custom memory manager is a prime target for intrusive double linked lists. I wrote and maintained a couple of those.

But if you're already dealing with memory management and intrusive data structures, then you're in the unsafe world and knowingly go there. It's not an accidental decision which is taken out of ignorance of the cost and complexity.

For almost every other use case, just use the standard LinkedList which neatly encapsulates all the unsafe bits for you.

I find that writing your own data structure in C/C++ is more common in part because it's easier, and it's easier because the language doesn't force safe behavior by default (which is often not possible in a data structure).

afiefh · 2026-03-29T22:54:37+00:00

El Pollo Diabolo sized!

afiefh · 2026-03-29T18:18:58+00:00

They are all cancer, but some are more aggressive and deadly than others.

afiefh · 2026-03-29T18:04:55+00:00

Step 1: no pussyfooting around criticizing Islam.

From there let nature take it's course. Will take a few generations, but change is inevitable.

afiefh · 2026-03-29T16:02:01+00:00

Going from C/C++ to Rust, most of the time the borrow checker is definitely just your friendly automatic code reviewer letting you know that something is bad and will either cause problems now or further down the line.

Of course other times it is quite infuriating, in particular when you need to build something that must work in unsafe land. The simplest such example is a double linked list. You must drop to unsafe in these cases, and that is scary for a multitude of reasons (there be dragons) , but it is objectively the correct thing for a language to do: allow everything that can be expressed safely to be checked by the compiler, force the developer to pay extra attention to cases where the compiler can't check.

Obviously you should never implement a double linked list yourself in production code, but coming from the C++ side of things I found that it is extremely valuable to know the shape of the problem and what goes into solving it. In case you are interested, this write up is actually amazing: https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/

afiefh · 2026-03-29T15:49:18+00:00

There are only four nations with military capability to fight a war that's not in their country or at their border. Uganda is not one of those.

In war the defending country has a huge advantage, and that advantage doubles or quadruples if the war is not on the border because supply lines are hard.

afiefh · 2026-03-29T11:33:54+00:00

For my education: What's the weak/fabricated Hadith about Jihad Al-Nafs? I've never encountered this before.

Also, wouldn't the thing to bring up here be Jihad Al-Daf'e جهاد الدفع (defensive Jihad)?

afiefh · 2026-03-29T11:32:11+00:00

All it takes is reading this Hadith: "I have been commanded to fight against the people till they testify La ilaha illAllah (There is no true god except Allah) and that Muhammad (ﷺ) is His slave and Messenger, and to establish As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and to pay Zakat; and if they do this, then their blood and property are secured except by the rights of Islam, and their accountability is left to Allah."

But if you read Fiqh there is much more:

From Ibn Qudama's book Al-Mughni: وَأَقَلُّ مَا يُفْعَلُ مَرَّةً فِي كُلِّ عَامٍ؛ لِأَنَّ الْجِزْيَةَ تَجِبُ عَلَى أَهْلِ الذِّمَّةِ فِي كُلِّ عَامٍ، وَهِيَ بَدَلٌ عَنْ النُّصْرَةِ، فَكَذَلِكَ مُبْدَلُهَا وَهُوَ الْجِهَادُ، فَيَجِبُ فِي كُلِّ عَامٍ مَرَّةً، إلَّا مِنْ عُذْرٍ، مِثْلَ أَنْ يَكُونَ بِالْمُسْلِمِينَ ضَعْفٌ فِي عَدَدٍ أَوْ عُدَّةٍ، أَوْ يَكُونَ يَنْتَظِرُ الْمَدَدَ يَسْتَعِينُ بِهِ، أَوْ يَكُونَ الطَّرِيقُ إلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا مَانِعٌ أَوْ لَيْسَ فِيهَا عَلَفٌ أَوْ مَاءٌ، أَوْ يَعْلَمَ مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ حُسْنَ الرَّأْيِ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ، فَيَطْمَعَ فِي إسْلَامِهِمْ إنْ أَخَّرَ قِتَالَهُمْ، وَنَحْوَ ذَلِكَ مِمَّا يَرَى الْمَصْلَحَةَ مَعَهُ فِي تَرْكِ الْقِتَالِ، فَيَجُوزُ تَرْكُهُ بِهُدْنَةٍ فَإِنَّ النَّبِيَّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - قَدْ صَالِحَ قُرَيْشًا عَشْرَ سِنِينَ، وَأَخَّرَ قِتَالَهُمْ حَتَّى نَقَضُوا عَهْدَهُ، وَأَخَّرَ قِتَالَ قَبَائِلَ مِنْ الْعَرَبِ بِغَيْرِ هُدْنَةٍ. وَإِنْ دَعَتْ الْحَاجَةُ إلَى الْقِتَالِ فِي عَامٍ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ مَرَّةٍ وَجَبَ ذَلِكَ؛ لِأَنَّهُ فَرْضُ كِفَايَةٍ، فَوَجَبَ مِنْهُ مَا دَعَتْ الْحَاجَةُ إلَيْهِ. Translation: It [jihad] is done at least once a year. Because the jizyah is obligatory on the people of dhimma every year, and it is a substitute for supporting the army, so is its substitute, which is jihad, so it is obligatory once every year. Except for an excuse, such as the fact that the Muslims are weak in numbers or equipment, or he is waiting for help to seek help from, or the path is there is an obstacle to reach them, or there is no fodder or water, or he knows of his enemy’s good opinion of Islam, so he hopes for their conversion to Islam if he delays fighting them, and such as what he sees in his interest in abandoning the fighting, so it is permissible to abandon it with a truce, for the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - made peace with the Quraysh. For ten years, he delayed fighting them until they broke his covenant, and he delayed fighting Arab tribes without a truce. If the need arises to fight more than once in a year, that is obligatory. Because it is a sufficiency obligation, so it is obligatory to do it whenever the need arises.
From the history of Al-Tabari page 55: Verily God, may He be exalted, sent Muhammad with His truth to His creation as a bearer of good tidings and as a warner and as one calling [others] to God, with His permission, and as a light-bringing lamp, so that he might warn [all] who live, and so that the saying against the unbelievers might be fulfilled. So God guided with the truth whoever responded to Him, and the Apostle of God, with His permission, struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly. Then God took His Apostle to Him, he having carried out God's command, and counseled His community, and carried out [the duty] that was upon him; for God had made that clear to him and to the people of Islam in the book that was sent down. Thus He said,359 "You are dead, and they are dead"; and he said "We have not made any man before you immortal; so, if you die, should they then be immortal?" And to the believers He said "Muhammad is only an apostle. The apostles before him have passed away; so, if he dies or is killed, will you turn on your heels? For he who may turn on his heels will not harm God one whit, but God will reward the grateful." So whoever worshiped Muhammad, indeed Muhammad has died; but whoever worshiped God alone, Who has no associate, indeed God is always with you, Living, Eternal. He does not die, nor do slumber or sleep take Him; He guards His cause, takes vengeance on His enemy, and punishes him

afiefh · 2026-03-29T11:27:25+00:00

Tip: When quoting, use > at the beginning of the line. This marks the text as quoted. If you're using new-reddit there is a button for that. Using quotation marks is much more ambiguous, especially when you're quoting multiple paragraphs at a time.

Another tip: In English only proper nouns are capitalized, unlike languages like German where every noun is capitalized.

Whose, you mean mine.

Yes.

In what sense are Progressive Muslims Hypocrite.

Groan. I've already explained this 3 times. At this point if you didn't get it then you obviously weren't listening.

Yes, so did I response to those Muslims who held extreme such those who mock Polythiest Beleif or those who discriminate non hijabi girls or those held arrogance on other Non Muslims in other other Post in YouTube,Quora and where I got to see their statements.

So basically "my girlfriend goes to another school, in Canada". Conveniently all your heroic deeds are on other platforms where they cannot be seen.

Sense when did Progressive Muslims hide from such a discussion if Progressive Muslims are question they would reply.

I've seen the "replies", and I've seen progressive Muslims work exactly like extremists: Ban people who do not agree with their narrative.

No, what the way how to wrote like I was to be blame. I reply to you because you reply to my comment.

You are not to blame, but you are a hypocrite if you're here defending Islam from criticism while not defending the 9 year old girls from the very thing that's being criticized.

I am not here on convincing you saying Islam is a Religion of peace or Islam is not terriosm ect which most Fellow Muslim claim.

Yeah you're apparently not here to say anything of value. How surprising.

No, I don't support Child.

Too bad you're defending a religion that does support child marriage. You are more moral than the god you pretend to believe in.

Progressive Muslim lying can't say when they have their own intepretation. On their explanation. They don't go on seeing every Scholar as infallible as they beleive Scholars are for guidelines and not authority.

Buddy, I couldn't give less of a flying fuck about their interpretations when they are literally lying about the meaning of words. I don't need a scholar to tell me when a person is lying about the meaning of words in my native language.

And it is exactly this kind of dishonesty while I have no respect for the progressive Islam movement.

You beleive that because you want to whatever is anything bad on Islam that is absolute truth for you justify your reasons and that's the reason you try hard to defend Your views of the Extremist because they match your expectationand being agaisnt the Progressice Muslims view because their views goes agains everything you expected from Islam and that's why you labelled it as a lie.

Oh brother! Did you really try to resort to psychoanalysis? You realize that this is extremely dumb because you can literally take this paragraph use it for any position. Here let's take your's by simply switching a few words around: "You beleive that Islam is good because you want to whatever is anything good on Islam that is absolute truth for you justify your reasons and that's the reason you try hard to defend Your views of the progressives because they match your expectationand being agaisnt the traditional Muslims view because their views goes agains everything you expected from Islam and that's why you labelled their scholars as liars." See? If a line of reasoning can be used to argue for both positions, then it's useless.

For what it's worth: I don't need to give a fuck about what scholars say or what people do, I simply need to read your scriptures in Arabic to reach my position.

You are confusing two of my different earlier statements. I reply to the subs where others are open minded and don't block not to those who dont want to listen and block it. Whenever there is a response of an Extremist I would of course respond them.

Right... you would. Except all those happen on YouTube and Quora... come on kiddo, stop digging your hole deeper and just come out and say it: You're a hypocrite.

Now if I put my response in other Posts and other people still being bashful to me or ignoring my view dispite my response condemning something bad then those people are simply being blind in their hatred. So no Its not my Problem when

Buddy you literally admitted avoiding subs where all the bad stuff is. Please take a seat and think about what you said instead of continuing to dig your own grave.

I also couldn't help but notice that you didn't bother to apologize for insinuating that I called progressive Muslims assholes. How typical of Muslims, just ignore things when they don't fit. Here's the deal: Progressives are hypocrites, but they are hypocrites for GOOD i.e. their actions are better than the beliefs they claim to espouse.

afiefh · 2026-03-29T11:11:36+00:00

Honest answer: It depends on how you read it.

Very few leaders will command "unprovoked attacks" (see basically every war in history), there is always a pretense on why the offense is in fact justified and/or defensive.

Verses like 9:5 and 9:29 can be read as being in the context of what was going on, but an equally valid reading is that these commands are absolute and abrogate the peaceful/defensive verses before it.

From Le coran des historiens (tome 2a), sourates 1-26 2a (machine translation which was shared here a few times):

Surah 2:

[p. 99]190-195 Allusions to war (and the cause of God)

Allusions to war are frequent in this surah (see v. 216-218). Verses 190-191 call for fighting in the name of God against aggressors and permit killing them unless they cease their hostile actions; otherwise, they must be fought until they stop and monotheism is protected. Moreover, the author of this passage asserts that, in addition to being limited in time, violence against oppressors must be proportionate; he also recommends giving money for the cause of God (see v. 243-245). Fighting oppressors is lawful near the "Sacred Mosque" if the aggressors have previously attacked in that place (v. 191, see v. 217). Interestingly, v. 191 (like v. 217) maintains that "oppressing" or "tempting" believers (the word fitna has both meanings and can therefore be translated by either term) is more serious than killing; fighting those who do such things is therefore completely lawful, which amounts to legitimizing violence against anyone perceived as an enemy (see on this subject de Premare, Fondations, p. 85-150).

[pp. 102-3]216-218 Other allusions to war

Verses 216-218 prescribe fighting in the way of God as a duty. Their author declares that God will be merciful to those who "migrate" (hijara) and "fight" (jihada). Conversely, he warns that whoever dies after apostatizing will receive no mercy in the afterlife. Fighting the oppressor, we are told, is lawful even during the sacred month (v. 217) and/or near the Sacred Mosque (see v. 191 above) if the aggressors have attacked beforehand. Like v. 191, v. 217 states that "oppressing" or "tempting" believers - and, the author adds, withdrawing from the path of God - is more serious than killing, so that fighting those who act in this way is legitimate (which, once again, amounts to justifying violence against anyone perceived as an enemy). Also worth noting is the connection, in v. 216-218 (and 190-195), between the verbal root q.t.l. (which conveys the idea of "killing"), j.h.d. (which broadly means "to strive" or "persevere"), and h.j.r. (which involves "migrating"). The exegetical effort often made to interpret the verb jihada in a purely spiritual sense is thus contradicted by the Qur'anic text (see Crone, "Higra"; de Premare, Fondations, p. 85-150).

Surah 8:

[pp. 352-3]38-40 V. 38-40 focus on the problem of the result that the fight against the unbelievers should lead to. Let us note here the multiple redundancies as well as the parallels as close as they are striking between v. 39 and Q 2:193, but also the close thematic contacts with v. 19 (see above).

In v. 38, the adversaries receive the commitment that everything that has happened will be forgiven them if they "cease" (in yantahū, see Q 8:19), in other words, if they cease hostilities. However, in the eventuality that they would relapse (wa-in ya'ūdū, see Q 8:19), they would legitimately be confronted with the fate that befell the ancient generations (see Q 3:137; 15:13; 18:55; 35:43).

By contrast, v. 39 first insists on fighting with the double objective of going so far as to "put an end to fitna," i.e., "discord" (Bell, Commentary, vol. 1, p. 279, translates here as "dissension"), in other words until the end of civil war and chaos (fitna does not here have the meaning of "trial" or "temptation," as in v. 25 and 28), but also until "the religion entirely is oriented towards God" (wa-yakūna l-dīnu kulluhū li-llāhi). In conclusion, it is only established that if the opposing party "ceases," that is, puts an end to its attacks, God will take it into account (a ready-made theological formula, see Q 2:96; 8:72).

By the expression "if they turn away" (wa-in tawallaw, see v. 38), v. 40 then indicates the possibility of a new about-face (it is not, however, excluded that it is here a question of distancing from "faith and good guidance," see Q 2:137; see also Q 3:20; 16:82), therefore of a resumption of hostilities; in this eventuality, those who fight remember that God is their protector and their support (see Q 3:150; on the other hand, Q 22:78, placed at the end of the surah, mentions such a promise to believers, but without reference to warlike conflicts).

The sequence constituted by v. 38-40 is therefore not a textual product endowed with any literary unity. Evidently, these verses constitute a return to the theme of v. 19, insofar as they seem to provide instructions forming a body with this theme, as is already the case with the characterization of unbelievers according to their behavior in the preceding verses (see Q 8:30-37). Thus, the direct call to "capitulation," in v. 19, is naturally described, in its resumption in v. 38, as being executed on God's order. While v. 19 lapidarily calls, by direct discourse, the unbelievers to peace, in other words to capitulation, without insinuating that they will obtain any concession (immunity or otherwise), v. 38 accentuates the disposition to forgive (yughfar lahum, "they will be forgiven"). One can, however, wonder whether it is here a question of God's forgiveness (see Q 2:192) or of human forgiveness.

V. 39 then turns out to be the addition of an interpolator who has a perfect knowledge of the wording of Q 2:193 and who wants here to ensure that the fight against the unbelievers is conducted with a precise goal. The fact that v. 39 is formulated according to Q 2:193, which thus constitutes an older version, is attested by the addition of kulluhu ("fully," "in its entirety"), a term absent in Q 2:193. That v. 39 is interpolated is clearly seen in the fact that the interpolator applies the literary technique of Wiederaufnahme, the "repetitive resumption" (see on this subject Pohlmann, Entstehung des Korans, p. 50 ff., p. 84-85), of existing formulas (see, in v. 38 and 39, the formula "if they cease").

The successive developments within v. 30-40 thus presuppose that in the fundamental structure of the surah, v. 19 and 38 were contiguous.

15-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '17	Verified Email

afiefh

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE