Dear questioner,

Thank you for your question.

Answering your question, Dr. Jasser Auda, Professor and Al-Shatibi Chair of Maqasid Studies at the International Peace College South Africa, states:

This is one of the Quranic signs of the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as mentioned in the previous Scriptures. In the Quran, the context in which Mecca is called Bakkah/Baca in the Quran is a context of dialogue with the "People of the Book".

{All food was lawful unto the children of Israel, save what Israel had made unlawful unto itself [by its sinning] before the Torah was bestowed from on high. Say: "Come forward, then, with the Torah and recite it, if what you say is true!" And all who henceforth invent lies about God - it is they, they who are evildoers! Say: "God has spoken the truth: follow, then, the creed of Abraham, who turned away from all that is false, and was not of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God." -Behold, the first Temple ever set up for mankind was indeed the one at Bakkah: rich in blessing, and a [source of] guidance unto all the worlds, full of clear messages. [It is] the place whereon Abraham once stood; and whoever enters it finds inner peace. Hence, pilgrimage unto the Temple is a duty owed to God by all people who are able to undertake it. And as for those who deny the truth - verily, God does not stand in need of anything in all the worlds. Say: "O followers of earlier revelation! Why do you refuse to acknowledge the truth of God's messages, when God is witness to all that you do?"} (Quran 3:93-98)  

First, God is asking the People of the Book to "bring the Torah and recite it." Afterwards, when God mentioned Mecca, He mentioned it with its name in the Torah. In nowadays Old Testament, despite ages of changes, the name Baca survives in one of the Psalms, which a close look at reveals a sign of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

According to King James Version, Psalm 84 goes:

⁴Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah.
⁵Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them.
⁶Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

In the New King James Version, the same verses read:

⁴Blessed are those who dwell in Your house; They will still be praising You. Selah

⁵Blessed is the man whose strength is in You, Whose heart is set on pilgrimage.

⁶As they pass through the Valley of Baca, They make it a spring; The rain also covers it with pools.

And according to the New International Version, the same verses read:

⁴ Blessed are those who dwell in your house; they are ever praising you. Selah

⁵ Blessed are those whose strength is in you, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage.

⁶ As they pass through the Valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools.

"Pilgrims" who "dwell in Your house", "passing through the Valley of Baca", and the "well" are all clear indications of Muslim pilgrims who visit God's house in "Baca"/Makkah and drink from Zamzam "well".

Additionally, it is interesting to note that some latest versions of the Bible have simply omitted any mention of "pilgrimage" and even the name "Baca" itself from these verses. For example, the Contemporary English Version (CEV), intriguingly, reads as follows: (and notice the footnote!)

⁴You bless everyone who lives in your house, and they sing your praises.

⁵You bless all who depend on you for their strength and all who deeply desire to visit your temple.

⁶When they reach Dry Valley, (84.6 Dry Valley: Or "Balsam Tree Valley." The exact location is not known) springs start flowing, and the autumn rain fills it with pools of water.

So, I believe that mentioning Mecca by the name "Baca" in these verses is a sign for those who are willing to accept the truth from the People of the Book.

We hope this answers your question.

Keep in touch.

Source

Dear questioner,

Thank you for your question.

Answering your question, Dr. Jasser Auda, Professor and Al-Shatibi Chair of Maqasid Studies at the International Peace College South Africa, states:

 The verse you referred to states:

{And so, when the sacred months are over, slay those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place! Yet if they repent, and take to prayer, and render the purifying dues, let them go their way: for, behold, God is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace.} (Quran 9:5)

The historical context of the verse, in the ninth year of hijrah, is that of a war between Muslims and the pagans of Mecca. The thematic context of the verse in chapter nine is also the context of the same war, which the chapter is addressing.

However, the verse was taken out of its thematic and historical contexts and claimed to have defined the ruling between Muslims and non-Muslims in every place, time, and circumstance.

Hence, it was perceived to be in disagreement with more than two hundred other verses of the Quran, all calling for dialogue, freedom of belief, forgiveness, peace, and even patience. Conciliation between these different evidences, somehow, was not an option for most scholars.

To solve the disagreement, based on the method of abrogation, most exegetes concluded that this verse (9:5), which was revealed towards the end of the Prophet's (peace be upon him) life, abrogated each and every 'muta`arid' verse that was revealed before it.

Therefore, the following verses were considered abrogated: 'no compulsion in the religion;' 'forgive them, for God loves those who do good to people;' 'repel evil with that which is best;' 'so patiently persevere;' 'do not argue with the People of the Book except with means that are best;' and '(say:) You have your religion and I have my religion.' (Verses 2:256, 6:13, 23:96, 30:60, 41:46, 109:6, respectively.)

In addition, a large number of prophetic traditions that legitimize peace treaties and multi-cultural co-existence, to use contemporary terms, were also abrogated.

One such tradition is 'The Scroll of Medina' (Sahifat al-Madinah), in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Jews of Medina wrote a 'covenant' that defined the relationship between Muslims and Jews living in Medina.

The scroll stated that, 'Muslims and Jews are one nation (ummah), with Muslims having their own religion and Jews having their own religion.' (Burhan Zuraiq, Al-Sahifah: Mithaq Al-Rasoul, 1st ed. (Damascus: Dar al-Numair and Dar Ma˒ad, 1996), 353.)

Some commentators on the Sahifah render it 'abrogated', based on the verse of The Sword and other similar verses.

Seeing all the above scripts and narrations in terms of the single dimension of peace versus war might imply a contradiction, in which the 'final truth' has to 'belong' to either peace or war. The result will have to be an unreasonable fixed choice between peace and war, for every place, time, and circumstance.

What added to the problem is that the number of cases of abrogation claimed by the students of the companions (al-tabi`in) is higher than the cases claimed by the companions themselves.

After the first Islamic century, one could, furthermore, notice that jurists from the developing schools of thought began claiming many new cases of abrogation, which were never claimed by the tabi`un.

Thus, abrogation became a method of invalidating opinions or narrations endorsed by rival schools of law. Abu al-Hassan al-Karkhi (d. 951/1544), for one example, writes: 'The fundamental rule is: Every Quranic verse that is different from the opinion of the jurists in our school is either taken out of context or abrogated.'

Therefore, it is not unusual in the fiqhi literature to find a certain ruling to be abrogating (nasikh) according to one school and abrogated (mansukh) according to another. This arbitrary use of the method of abrogation has exacerbated the problem of lack of multi-dimensional interpretations of the evidences.

Now, had you not mentioned in your question the 'truth' in scholars' and exegetes' opinions, I would have given you only the above 'apologetic answer' as you put it. However, since you mentioned that there must be some 'truth' in the opinion that says that Muslims have to kill non-Muslims 'wherever and whenever', allow me to add a few words on the scholars you mentioned.

I think that we need to revise the way we look at scholars, jurists, narrators, and exegetes from the past! We view their views, somehow, as more 'authentic' and more 'divine' than contemporary views of today, which is not true.

In fact, contemporary views are more 'authentic' and more 'divine', for the simple fact that they are coming from people who live in the same era as we do.

Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Katheer lived in a very different world, a world in which the only 'international border', if you wish, that they knew was the border between Muslims (Islamic State/Khilafa) and non-Muslims, with an ongoing and never ending war, which had shaped their views about the world. They did not have a globe on their desks which shows clear political borders as we do today!

Thus, it is crucial to realize that an exegete does not represent any 'truth' about the script more than representing the 'truth' about his/her own world. The eye by which an exegete reads the Script is totally subject to his world and there is no view from nowhere, as they say. Thus, when al-Qurtubi talks about war with non-Muslims, he was basically talking about the siege of Cordoba at his time and the ongoing war which lasted until the final 'fall of Cordoba' soon after his time. And so on.

Now, when a scholar from today talks about the relativity of the verse and that there are many other verses that talked about peace and treaties, etc., and that we have to place each verse in its correct context, etc., then this scholar is also speaking with his/her current international scene in his/her mind.

The current international scene does not have one Islamic/non-Islamic border, as was often the case in the past. It is full of all sorts of borders and various international relations that vary from war, conflict, and sanctions to treaties, cooperation protocols, and transnational unions.

Thus, there is more 'truth' in today's view that places the verse only in the context of war, where the rulings of war are indeed part of the Islamic Shariah and part of the realities of politics. Yet, today's view should not exclude all other shades and hues of international relations.

We hope this answers your question.

Keep in touch.

Source

Salam dear questioner,

Thank for your interesting question.

Non-believers are unable to provide any convincing reason for the existence of this universe or of human life. People who believe there is a Creator assume that creation occurred by His will. But in a world where everything is shown to have a purpose, it is natural for a human being to wonder about the purpose of his own creation. One is surely justified in expecting the Creator who put us on this earth to inform us why He did so and what He expects of us.

The Qur'an informs us that God did just that. It says that God created us for a test here on earth, conveying His words:

Then did you think that We created you uselessly and that to Us you would not be returned? (Al-Mu’minun 23:115-116)

A non-believer might decide that the objective of his life will be to collect wealth, obtain position or pursue pleasure to the greatest extent possible. But none of this will benefit him in the long run. According to His final scripture, God created man to test him with certain responsibilities [As stated in verse number 18:7, 67:2 and 76:2]. God, the Almighty, did not intend life on this earth to necessarily be comfortable or satisfying but merely a trial of limited duration, the punishment and rewards of which will be due in the Hereafter.

As mentioned previously, most of creation is "Muslim" in that it is programmed to obey the physical laws set by God, (and his is why the universe functions with balanced equilibrium). Man, however, was given a free will and the ability to either obey or disobey. But God will not allow His universal balance to be upset indefinitely by defiant, corrupt and sinful people, so He only grants human beings a measure of freedom in a temporary world. The scheme of birth, development, decline and death provides each with the opportunity to prove to himself without a doubt what he will deserve on the Day of Judgment, which God created for the manifestation of His ultimate justice.

This life is very meaningful and purposeful to the believing Muslim because he realizes that it will determine his outcome and permanent position in the next life. He lives to earn the approval of his Creator in preparation for the final return to Him.

We all recognize that people make things to perform specific functions for them, in other words, to serve them. God has made us to serve Him, but with one major difference; it is not for the benefit of the Creator Himself but for the benefit of us, His creation. The purpose of our existence is thus stated in the Qur'an:

I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me. (Adh-Dhariyat 51:56)

But man's worship of God is not automatic like the vast majority of created beings but by his own choice and effort, and this is what entitles him to honor and reward.

"How should one worship God in order to fulfill that purpose?" This question can undoubtedly be best answered by Him. God has provided every element of His creation, living and inanimate, with guidance. We can thus expect that He would provide us with guidance as well. His revelation instructs humanity what to do, what to avoid, and the reason for it. It informs man what is expected of him, how to accomplish it, and the results of continual positive effort. Through Prophet Muhammad, God revealed to man the ways of worship suitable to his physical and psychological nature and individual talents, and in harmony with his particular role on the earth. These, in combination, are what enable Him to fulfill the purpose of His creation.

We hope that our answer is satisfactory and to the point.

______________ 

Source: This answer is based on the book of Clear Your Doubts about Islam by Sahih International.

Source

Dear questioner,

Thank you for your important question and your keenness to know about Islam. We hope that we give you a clear and satisfactory answer.

One of the biggest misconceptions about Islam concerns the name “Allah.” Some people believe that Muslims worship a different God than Christians, Jews and others, and some missionary organizations distribute literature in English in which they say such things as: “Allah is the god of the Muslims” and “Muhammad told people to believe in the God, Allah.” They thus imply and reinforce the idea that “Allah” is some sort of false deity.

This is totally incorrect because “Allah” is the same word that Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use for God. If you pick up an Arabic Bible, you will find the word “Allah” wherever “God” is used in English. “Allah” is also the proper name of God. Therefore, Muslims use the name “Allah” even when they speak other languages.

In fact, “Allah” is a special word. It indicates the only entity in existence Who truly possesses the qualities of divinity and lordship, the Creator and Sustainer of the heavens and earth. It is the name of the only being worthy of worship, the one upon whom all creation is dependent at every moment. This name belongs to God alone and no one else.

“Allah” is the only word in the Arabic language equivalent to “God” with a capital “G.” It is also a unique word grammatically since it cannot be made plural or given a masculine or feminine gender. This is consistent with the Islamic concept of God. In English and other languages the word “god” can be used in various forms such as “God,” “gods” or “goddess,” all with different connotations and meanings. The only difference between “god” (meaning a false god or any object of worship) and “God” (meaning the one true God) is a capital “G.” Thus, a more accurate translation of “Allah” might be “the one and only true God.”

But there is another important point, which is that Islam is particularly concerned with the correct concept of God. Someone can have an erroneous concept of Him whether he uses the name “Allah” or the word “God.” Followers of previous religions gradually deviated from the original pure belief in God due to the fact that their scriptures were not adequately protected from loss and alteration. None of these are still available for study in their original form or language.

But this is not true of the last divinely revealed message, the Qur’an. Hence, the accurate concept of God can be found therein.

______________ 

Source: This answer is based on the book of Clear Your Doubts about Islam by Sahih International.

Source

Salam dear Maria,

 

Thank you for your interest in Islam and thank you for your question. 

 

A Muslim is someone who practices Islam; that is, who willingly submits to the revealed directives of God. Everything in the universe is inherently submissive to God, functioning according to the natural laws created by Him. Human beings are physically "Muslim" in that their bodies function according to the genetic program set by God for the period of time He has decreed.

A "Muslim" in the religious sense, however, is someone who consciously commits himself to the worship of God alone, not according to his own inclinations or those of other men but according to the method conveyed by God through His appointed prophets.

 

The Qur'an gives many examples of people who lived before Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and believed in and obeyed the prophet that God had sent them. They entered Paradise because of their obedience to God, and that is the meaning of "Islam."

We hope this answers your question.

______________ 

Source: This answer is based on the book of Clear Your Doubts about Islam by Sahih International.

Source