Despite the title this sura (chapter) again deals with the broken treaty mentioned in Sura 8 and also with a military campaign to Tabuk, to prevent Byzantine Empire aggression against northern Arabia. It is the only sura without the usual saying of “In the name of God…” which leads some to think this it was originally part of Sura 8. As usual Muhammad chides those who do not support his cause (equating it with God’s cause, of course), but notes that Allah (God) always stands ready to accept their repentance, hence the name of this sura (9:104).
As a reminder (see Sura 8’s post), there was a key Battle of Badr in which Muhammad’s outmanned army gained victory over the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. He claimed that they broke a treaty, which came to be known as the Constitution of Medina, a founding document of Islam. Most of this sura is criticism of those who do not support their cause, and encouragement for his followers to faithfully continue, as God (Allah) will support them and bless them.
Mohammad (riding the horse) receiving the submission of the Banu Nadir,
Jami Al-Tawarikh. 1314 – 1315
So, without the usual salute to Allah Muhammad starts right in on the ‘idolaters’ as he calls those who do not accept him and his message. He claims that they have broken the treaty he offered them, and gives them a four-month grace period in which to repent. After that:
When the [four] forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post; but if they turn [to God], maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go on their way, for God is most forgiving and merciful. 9:5
I see this as a bit of a mixed message. On the one hand, those who continue to reject Muhammad’s treaty are to be attacked and killed; which seems rather harsh. But he seems to frame it as if he is offering a treaty and they are the ones rejecting the chance for peace. I think we still see this in various conflicts today: the aggressor justifies their actions by claiming the other side is not accepting their demands for peace. Of course, those demands tend to be to the aggressor’s advantage. Anyway, at least Muhammad keeps their terms of repentance fairly simple: worship the true God, say your prayers, and be kind to the needy. This is what bugs me about the conflict in the Middle East: both sides are worshipping the same Creator God but they implement their faith differently. Instead of discussing this in peace they choose to fight over it. At least here in America we have many different Christian denominations but we have learned to live in peace while debating those differences. Not that Christianity can claim the high ground here: history is full of armed conflicts between various Christian factions. And don’t forgot how much bloodshed there is in the Old Testament history of Israel. Odd how religion, which should bring us together in peace, so often leads to bloodshed.
Muhammad then condemns the idolaters for not heeding the treaty, and claims, “They are the ones who are committing aggression.” (9:10) So, “Fight them: God will punish them at your hands, He will disgrace them, He will help you to conquer them…” (9:14)
Seriously, I see this as a common theme in religion. One group demands that others follow their rules, and when the others resist those others are labeled as the aggressors and this justifies fighting them. In the previous post about Sura 8 I mentioned Numbers 31 in the Bible where the Israelite men are being unfaithful to their own people and religion and going over to the Midianite women. So who does Moses blame? The Midianite women, not his own men, and he sends his army against the Midianites. Here in the USA the Religious Right try to enforce their beliefs on others and when the others resist those Christians claim they are the ones being persecuted. Some go so far as to advocate for the death penalty for those who violate their rules about abortion and sexual orientation. Can you see Jesus doing that? But then, whenever I hear some church leader make such outrageous statements I just sit back and wait until their own dirty sexual laundry gets aired out, as it often does.
Apparently one of the issues is that Muhammad’s people are not in control of the Sacred Mosque in Mecca, rather, the idolaters are. He plays the usual trump card: the idolaters will abide in Hell! (9:17) Frankly, I distrust any religion that tries to scare people into obedience. If your strongest argument for obedience is a negative one, that doesn’t say much for your religion. I once heard a preacher say that if you have one hour to convert someone spend 55 minutes talking about Hell and the last 5 minutes talking about Heaven. Really?
Muhammad gets more specific: “those who ascribe partners to God are truly unclean.” (9:28) I suspect he means both polytheists (pagans) and Christians, who treat Jesus as equal with God (and some call Mary the Mother of God). He also condemns the “People of the Book” as he calls the Jews who do not truly believe and obey. He may consider the Jews to also be polytheists as he claims “The Jews said, ‘Ezra is the son of God,’ and of course the Christians said, ‘The Messiah is the son of God.’ (9:30) This claim about the Jews is rather odd as there is no known Jewish sect that thought of Ezra as the son of God. Perhaps there were Jews that Muhammad knew of who highly honored Ezra for restoring worship based on the Torah and he thought they went so far as calling him a son of God. Keep in mind, the Jewish scriptures (Old Testament) do sometimes call people the ‘son of God’ in a symbolic way. The nation of Israel is called God’s ‘firstborn son’ for example (Exodus 4:22) and David’s son Solomon is referred to as a son of God (2 Samuel 7:14), but in these passages it is clear it is not to be taken in a literal sense. Maybe Muhammad thought that even in a symbolic way ‘son of God’ was offensive. Of course, this doesn’t apply to the Christians who thought that Jesus was quite literally the Son of God, as depicted in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Bottom line, I can understand Muhammad believing there is only one God and objecting to the Christians who saw Jesus as a literal son, but it seems to be a stretch to accuse the Jews of thinking God had a son (or sons). And bear in mind that Muhammad believed in angels and evil spirits: wouldn’t God in a sense be their Father and they His children, since He is their creator?
Muhammad takes issue with those “who hoard gold and silver instead of giving in God’s cause.” (9:34) I am not sure he is necessarily condemning greed and selfishness as much as complaining that they were not financially supporting his cause (including his army). But I like the imagery he uses: “they will have a grievous punishment: on the Day it [the gold and silver] is heated up in Hell’s Fire and used to brand their foreheads, sides, and backs, they will be told, ‘This is what you hoarded up for yourselves! Now feel the pain of what you hoarded!’” (9:34,35) Take that you selfish rich people! A nice ironic punishment to be branded with your own gold and silver.
Muhammad points out that the true believers are to be careful to honor the four sacred months during which they are not supposed to fight. But I wonder if he mentions this to specifically make this point: “…though you may fight the idolaters at any time if they first fight you.” (0:36) Don’t want the infidels to take advantage of you during those sacred months!
He goes on to encourage those who support his cause and rebukes those who are faint to do so, although he points out that it is better to leave the faint-hearted at home; they would only discourage the true fighters. And as is common in many of these surahs he threatens those who question him as God’s messenger: “An agonizing torment awaits those who insult God’s
Messenger.” (9:61) Now to be fair, he does note some good stuff: “God has promised the believers, both men and women, Gardens graced with flowing streams where they will remain; good, peaceful homes in Gardens of lasting bliss; and– greatest of all– God’s good pleasure. That is the supreme triumph.” (9:72) But you have to read through a lot of dire warnings to get to that. I have a similar issue with some of the writings in the Bible, where the emphasis is on the negatives. Like Deuteronomy 28 which starts out with 14 verses of nice things if you obey God, but then bludgeons you with 54 verses of dire consequences if you do not. It’s as if we humans are so corrupt that we can’t be reasoned with but must be beaten into submission. Even though many think of Christianity as a more positive religion, there are many adherents who portray humanity as irretrievably corrupt, we must be constantly threatened to do what is right, and ultimately the world will become so bad that God will step in to destroy it. Read the book of Revelation, for example. I have a hard time buying into such a negative worldview. There is a lot of good in humanity if you look for it. Just as there is also evil. But we should not surrender the battle to those who manifest the evil.
Although I disagree with Muhammad’s tone in much of his writing, he does slip in some clever sayings here and there. Like the one about the selfish rich being branded with their own gold. Here’s another: “They said to one another, ‘Do not go [to war] in this heat.’ Say, ‘Hellfire is hotter!’” (9:81) Good one, Muhammad!
As mentioned at the beginning, he does promise people salvation if they repent. (9:102-106) In this regard Islam and Christianity are very similar: if you repent and turn to God He is merciful and will give you eternal blessings, but if you reject Him then you will receive the most severe punishment imaginable. But if you choose Islam then Jesus might be very upset with you for refusing to accept him as the Son of God! But if you choose Christianity then Allah will be upset that you think He has a son! So you better choose wisely!
Thinking exercises:
1. Which works better to ensure obedience: dire threats, or wonderful promises? Or is there a better alternative to either of these?
2. Are Judaism, Christianity and Islam mutually exclusive? Must the adherent of one reject members of the other two? Can they consider one another fellow believers despite their differences? Must there be enmity between them or can there be friendship? Why or why not?