AI and Islam – Part Three by
Usama Dakdok
In previous articles we critiqued AI’s claim that Islam teaches love and peace by examining Qur’anic verses related to warfare. First, I began by noting that while AI cited Qur’an 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion,” AI later acknowledged the doctrine of abrogation, stating that this verse is superseded by Qur’an 9:5, which commands fighting polytheists. I challenged AI’s portrayal of Islamic warfare as defensive, focusing on Qur’an 22:39, arguing that classical scholars like Al-Tabari added interpretive elements to frame the verse as defensive, despite the text not explicitly stating. I also critiqued differing scholarly explanations about the inconsistent views of whether early Muslims were expelled or prevented from migrating. I maintained that early Muslims were not truly persecuted in Mecca, that warfare became central only after Mohammed gained power in Medina. I concluded that traditional interpretations contradict AI’s simplified, defensive portrayal of Islamic teachings on war. Today, I explore the second reason AI gives to prove Islam is a loving, peaceful religion, to consider the second reason for war as stated by AI was to fight only those who fight the Muslims no aggression. AI proved that by quoting the following verse, “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not love transgressors,” Qur’an 2:190.
After that AI made the following comment: “Clear rule, fighting is against aggressors only, with a strong prohibition against injustice.”
Then, I asked did AI look at any Islamic scholars’ interpretations? Not the scholars who wear suits and ties and live in America, but the original, classic scholars, those who truly understood and interpreted the Qur’an. Not only because they have their own opinion, but because they investigated how Mohammed, his early companions, and the followers of the companions until today have understood and practiced these Qur’an verses. First, the true accurate translation of Qur’an 2:190 states, “And engage in war for the sake of Allah against those who engage in war against you, and do not transgress. Surely Allah does not love the transgressors.” Amazingly, the Muslim scholar Al Tabari began his interpretation stating scholars disagree about this verse and then that some of them said that this verse was the first one given to Mohammed concerning war with polytheist people. How can this be when Qur’an 22:39 was the first verse in which Allah ordered Muslim believers to engage in war? Obviously, the scholars of Islam are inaccurate, so I call them fabricators not interpreters.
More amazingly, Al Tabari stated that scholars declared that Allah, in that verse, ordered the believers among the Muslims to engage in war with the polytheists who engaged in war with them and that they must stop engaging in war with those who stop engaging in war. Disregarding the previous statements, I quote Al Tabari: “Then this verse that is, Qur’an 2 :190 was abrogated by Qur’an 9.” Continuing with his
interpretation, he stated that El Rabia stated this was the first verse given in Medina where Allah commands Mohammed to engage in war with those who fought him.
Obviously, that verse was abrogated when Allah revealed to Mohammed chapter 9. Al Tabari quoted another scholar, Ibn Zayd, who repeated that information but also added Qur’an 9:36, where Allah stated “... and engage in war with all the polytheists as they engage in war with all of you. And know that Allah is with the fearer.” Then he quoted Qur’an 9:5, well known to Islam scholars as the verse of the sword. Allah stated, “So when the forbidden months are passed, so kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them (as captives) and besiege them and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush; so if they repent (Convert to Islam) and perform the prayer and bring the legal alms, so leave their way free. Surely Allah is forgiving, merciful.” Al Tabari continued, but other interpreters said Allah did not change his mind concerning the killing the infidels, that Qur’an 2:190 was not abrogated but what Allah abrogated is forbidding the Muslims from killing the women and the children. This command of not killing women and their children is good even today.
Consider, in the early days of Islam, Mohammed fought using catapults, throwing rocks and fire on villages fortified by walls because he lacked enough men and weapons to strategically engage in war long. But he was fighting during the night and he did not care about saving the women and the children, whom he later used as concubines and slaves to reward Muslim men who followed and engaged in war
alongside him; that's why the verses of the Qur’an were given to Mohammed as needed. Mohammed, in the last few years of his life, became so powerful, with 10,000 Muslim men who loved death than life. Mohammed had no reason to continue killing women and children because obviously they are the spoil of war.
Yes, they took the gold and silver, money, land, and homes, but you can add women and children. In such days it was more beneficial for the Muslim men to have them, to enjoy them sexually or to use them as slaves. That's why in the later verses of the Qur’an, Allah forbade the Muslim from killing women and children. Consider that itself is internal evidence from the writings of the scholars of Islam like Al Tabari that the war between Mohammed and the infidels of his days was not a military war, that is, the armies of Mohammed engaging in war with the armies of the enemies. No, Mohammed and his savage followers were engaging in war against villages, against civilians and the more powerful Mohammed became, the more he took advantage of the enemies. Now he is not killing the women and the children, not because he is compassionate, loving, and merciful no, no, no, it is because they became the spoils of war. Similarly, in the early days of Islam, Mohammed used to burn the villages, including their trees, but later Mohammed stopped burning trees or villages, or homes, because once again that is more spoil of war. Why would you destroy a city you will possess? Why would you destroy a land you will inherit? Why would you destroy the palm trees or available vegetables by burning them if you can simply own it? Why would you kill women and children when
they also will be owned by Muslims, so they can raise Muslim babies or for sex or slavery? That's how Islam spread in the early days; within 100 years Muslims seized many Christian countries. Christian lands became Muslim lands, like my home country Egypt.
A bit later in the history of Islam, as stated by the scholar Al Tabari, a man by the name Yahya Ibin Yahya al Rasani wrote to Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz and asked him concerning Qur’an 2:190. Omar answered him, “This verse is talking about not killing the women and the children.” So he did not engage in war with them. Similarly, Al Tabari stated concerning the interpretation of Mujahid, I quote what Ibn Abaas, Mohammed’s cousin, said about it. He clearly said, “Do not kill the women, nor the children nor the old men.” He continued to state that Omar Ibn Ab Al Aziz wrote that Qur’an 2:190 interpretation as ‘do not kill those who do not engage in war with you,’ that Allah meant women, little ones, and monks. And he corrected himself by saying the accurate interpretation is women and little ones which means to me, ‘go ahead and kill the monks because they may fight you later.’
Simply, the disagreement between scholars of Islam concerning Qur’an 2:190 is that verse completely abrogated because new verses which came later ordered Muslim believers to kill polytheists everywhere they find them whether or not they engage in war with them. Or that this verse’s command was abrogated concerning the killing of women and children. Because those are the ones who could not engage in war with the Muslim believers. Either way, we
can conclude that AI disregarded the interpretation of all Muslim scholars concerning Qur’an 2:190.
Simply, Al Tabari summarized his interpretation of Qur’an 2:190: The verse is telling Muslim believers to engage in war for Allah by following his religion and commands. They are to call others to accept Islam, and if people refuse and oppose it, they may be warred against until they either submit to Islam or, if they are from the People of the Book, agree to pay the jizyah out of hand and they are subdued, humiliated. Thus, the meaning of the statement “And do not transgress” is, do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor anyone who has paid you the Jizyah.
This theme will continue in my ongoing study of AI and war in Islam, in the following articles, Lord willing.
For more information about Islam, visit www.thestraightway.org. To debate information in this article, please call 941-223-3698.
