AI and Islam – Part Two
In this article, I continued a critical evaluation of AI’s claim that Islam teaches love and peace, focusing specifically on Qur’anic verses related to warfare and how they are interpreted within Islamic scholarship. The discussion began in a previous section where AI cited Qur’an 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion,” as evidence that Islam promotes religious tolerance and freedom of belief. However, when I pressed further about the broader Qur’anic teaching, AI acknowledged the Islamic doctrine of abrogation and admitted that Muslim scholars maintain that this verse is superseded by Qur’an 9:5, which states, “So when the forbidden months are passed, so kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them [as captives] and besiege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.”
I argued that AI’s portrayal of Islam’s war verses as purely defensive reflects a selective reading of the Qur’an and does not fully address Islamic doctrine, traditional interpretations, or the historical practice of jihad. When I asked AI to provide verses of the Qur’an that teach about war, AI organized them into six categories, the first of which was labeled “Permission to fight because of injustice,” citing Qur’an 22:39–40: “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they have been wronged.” AI added, “This is the first verse granting permission to fight, and it emphasizes that it is because of oppression and persecution.”
So now let us examine together Qur’an 22:39, “Permission is given to those who engage in war because they were wronged, and surely Allah is capable of helping them.” To that end, I cite the interpretation of Al-Tabari, who stated, “Allah has given permission to the believers who fight the polytheists in his cause because the polytheists wronged them by fighting them.” Notice here that the phrase “by fighting them” does not appear in the Qur’anic wording and here we see that Al-Tabari inserted interpretive elements into the text. In his interpretation Al-Tabari also stated that, Qur’an 22:39 could be read in three different ways, each closely related in meaning, and he concluded, “These three readings are close in meaning. Whoever fights a person is himself being fought.” But I strongly criticize this reasoning, suggesting that it is circular logic, because if a Muslim is fighting someone, that does not necessarily prove that he was attacked first.
For the great Muslim scholar Al Tabari to say, “whoever fights a person is himself being fought” to me is like saying that if a butcher kills a cow, it must be because the cow was fighting him. In my view, this reasoning fails to establish genuine self-defense and instead allows scholars to
justify almost any act of warfare by claiming reciprocity. For as a matter of fact, throughout the history of 1400 plus years of Islam, no foreign army ever attacked the Muslim people, but it was always the other way around Muslims invading other lands. That's why we have today 56 Muslim countries in the world. And almost all early invasions by Mohammed and his early companions were against civilians, not armies at all.
Al-Tabari also recorded disagreements among early authorities concerning who was intended in the verse granting permission to fight. Some said it referred to the Prophet and his companions when they were expelled from Mecca to Medina. I challenge this narrative by stating that Mohammed lived in Mecca for thirteen years preaching freely. During that time, he gathered a relatively small group of followers, with estimates from Muslim scholars ranging from 13 to 40, 70. I will round it up to about 100 believers. I believe that if the polytheists in Quraysh had truly desired to eliminate Mohammed and his companions, they could have done so easily, and therefore the claim of expulsion is questionable. Don't forget that Mohammed himself was able to kill 800 Jewish men in one afternoon, taking their wives and their children as concubines and slaves. Those are the people of Banu Qurayza as stated in Qur’an 33:26-27.
We also must know that before the migration to Medina, Mohammed sent some of his followers to Ethiopia, a Christian land. He later brought them back to Mecca after the episode commonly known as the Satanic Verses, in which he allegedly praised the three deities of Quraysh, Allat, Al Oza, and Manet. He later retracted those statements and claimed they were inspired by Satan rather than by Allah or Gabriel. When the hoped for reconciliation with the idol worshippers failed, Mohammed chose to send his followers from Mecca to Medina, a journey of approximately 210 miles north. He eventually left with his father-in-law, Abu Bakr al Sodiq. This departure was voluntary and not the result of forced expulsion.
In Al-Tabari’s account, which reports that when Mohammed left Mecca, Abu Bakr said, “They have expelled their Prophet. Indeed, we belong to Allah and to him we shall return. They will surely be destroyed.” Ibn Abbas reportedly linked this event to the revelation of Qur’an 22:39, and Abu Bakr said, “I knew then that there would be fighting.” This was the first verse revealed concerning fighting. Permission was given to them to fight after the Muslim believers had forgiven the Polytheists for ten years. I see this as clear evidence that the verse marked a turning point from patience to warfare. I once again dispute the claim that the believers had been persecuted or unjustly expelled.
Al-Tabari also recorded another opinion stating that the verse referred specifically to certain believers who intended to migrate from the abode of war, but were prevented from doing so. According to this view, Allah permitted the believers to fight the disbelievers who obstructed their migration. Now we see this as contradictory to the previous explanation and I argue that the
scholars cannot decide whether the verse concerns people expelled from Mecca or people prevented from leaving it. I see these differing interpretations as fabrications designed to create a narrative of persecution that would justify warfare as defensive.
Another explanation recorded by Al-Tabari, claiming that the companions sought permission from Mohammed to kill the disbelievers when they were harmed and persecuted in Mecca, and so Allah revealed, “Indeed, Allah does not love every treacherous ingrate.” In my view, such interpretations are attempts to portray the early Muslims as victims, thereby framing Qur’an 22:39 as a defensive command. Instead, I know that there was no real persecution during the thirteen years in Mecca and that Mohammed and his companions were not in serious danger. I believe that if the Qurayshi people had wished to kill Mohammed and his people, they could have done so quickly, especially given the small size of the Muslim community at that time.
Then later after the migration to Medina, when Mohammed’s following reportedly grew to around 10,000 men. Those are the men that preferred death more then others prefer life. That is when the Muslims were no longer a vulnerable minority, but a powerful military force. That is when Mohammed was capable of ordering mass killings. Once Mohammed gained strength, warfare became central to his mission, and the earlier narrative of persecution served to legitimize subsequent military campaigns. The idea that the war verses were purely defensive is a pure lie from hell taught by the modern day Muslim scholars and the AI. Here I must assert that the scholars themselves, including Al-Tabari, emphasized Allah’s granting of victory to the believers, who fight in his cause. Allah honored them, raised them by destroying and humiliating their enemies, by their hands.
Finally, let me remind you of what the great scholar Al-Qurtubi wrote that this verse “abrogates everything in the Qur’an that speaks of turning away and ignoring, or forgiving. It is the first verse revealed concerning war.” I present this statement as decisive proof that Qur’an 22:39 marked the beginning of an abrogating trajectory toward warfare rather than defensive propaganda. I conclude that the traditional Islamic interpretations undermine AI’s initial portrayal of Islam’s war verses as purely defensive and peaceful. 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 our website at www.thestraightway.org. To debate the information of this article, please call 941-223-3698.