Proof About Real JIHAD (for IslamOphobics)

'Jihad' Or 'Combat'?

"JIHAD"?

The next issue with this verse concerns mis-translating into the principle language.

There are claims of verses in Quran promoting "Holy War" (Jihad) - Is this a fact or not?

Here is one example, ordering the believers regarding the rules of engagement of war and combat against enemies who had previously been killing the Muslims, without concern of retailiation due to the believers not fighting back up to that time.

And when the forbidden (sacred) months have passed, then QITAL (fight to the death against) the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush.
But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

[English reads backwards from Arabic: 'Qa' 'Ti' 'Lu']
First, let us understand the word used in Arabic, 'qital'. A proper choice for translation of this term is more appropriately 'combat'. Whereas, in the past most of the translators have used to words: 'fight', 'kill' or even 'jihad' - but none of these are balanced enough to give a proper understanding to the average reader. 'Qital' always involves active combat and is not a passive verb. The word 'fight' in English could imply many levels of engagment, even 'fighting' ones own desires. This is too weak of an interpretation.

The word 'kill' could mean 'assasinate' or even 'slaughter', and this is too strong in this case.

The word 'combat' most suits this type of action, but does not have enough forms of the verb in English. Therefore, it needs to have a more comprehensive term used to represent the intended meaning in the verses where it is used throughout the Quran.

There is another point:

Some claim this verse (chapter 9 'Surah At-Taubah', ayah 9) was abrogated, and therefore cancelled any and all the peaceful verses in the Qur'an.

The next issue with this verse concerns abrogation.

There are claims of this same verse in Quran being "abrogated" - Is this a fact or not?

Some claim this verse (chapter 9 'Surah At-Taubah', ayah 9) was abrogated, and therefore cancelled any and all the peaceful verses in the Qur'an.

However, this claim results from a misunderstanding of some Qur'anic concepts. In the Qur'an there is naskh and there is also takhsees. Naskh is the abrogation of a ruling by a ruling that was revealed after it. Naskh occurs in matters of Islamic law. Takhsees on the other hand refers to specification, where one verse restricts the application of another verse, or specifies the limits not mentioned in the other verse. As Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi writes:

Specification involves one verse limiting or restricting a general ruling found in another verse, whereas naskh involves abrogating the first verse in toto (i.e., it is not applied in any circumstances or conditions). (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 233)

Shaykh Qadhi also explains that one of the conditions for naskh is that the two conflicting rulings apply to the same situation under the same circumstances, and hence there is no alternative understanding of the application of the verses. As he states:

Therefore, if one of the rulings can apply to a specific case, and the other ruling to a different case, this cannot be considered an example of naskh. (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 237)

Therefore, verse 9:5 can in no way be considered an example of naskh since it is only a ruling applied to a very specific situation and circumstances. There is a lot of confusion surrounding some verses labeled as cases of naskh because the early Muslims used to use the word naskh to refer to takhsees as well. Therefore, some Muslims failed to realize that some of these cases labeled by early Muslims as 'naskh' were cases of takhsees. This is why some early Muslim scholars are quoted who have classified this verse as a case of 'naskh'. One should realize that they used the term naskh to refer to a broader range of meanings, including takhsees. As Dr. Jamal Badawi writes:

Any claim of naskh must be definitive, not based on mere opinion or speculation. It should be noted that earlier Muslims used the term naskh to refer also to takhsees or specifying and limiting the ruling than abrogating it.

Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi specifically addresses the confusion about verse 9:5, and after citing the different claims he concludes:

It can be seen from the examples and categories quoted that, in reality, most of these verses cannot be considered to have been abrogated in the least. Some of them merely apply to situations other than those that they were revealed for. Almost all of these 'mansookh' (abrogated) verses can still be said to apply when the Muslims are in a situation similar to the situation in which the verses were revealed. Thus, the 'Verse of the Sword' in reality does not abrogate a large number of verses; in fact, az-Zarqaanee concludes that it does not abrogate any! (fn. Az-Zarqaanee, v.2, pps.275-282) (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 254)

CONCLUSION

Translation of Quran or any document into another language requires strict fidelity and absolute integrity to the original and the destination languages. In the case of offering a substitute word in the original language BEFORE translating, this is not acceptable. Unfortunately, this grave error in translation has continued far too long with many translators simply following the previous translators without catching the mistake or worse, fearing critisizims from contemporaries for not following the predecessors in their translations.

There is a matter of trust, in translation, and it is imperative for all translators to translate as responsible as possible.

May Allah protect us!