This is the principle of religious tolerance proclaimed by the Qur'an (2:256), which is in line with its pluralistic attitude, which we have seen in the first article*. But medieval theologians/faqihs were not destined to comprehend the full breadth and depth of Qur'anic humanism. The political and legal doctrine developed by them two or three centuries after the emergence of Islam, which has significantly retained its influence in our time, divides the whole world into two areas - the "territory of Islam" (dar al-Islam) and the " territory of war "(dar al-harb)1. Permanent war is declared on the inhabitants of the second region until they convert to Islam or submit to the authority of Muslims, which is expressed by the payment of jizya (tribute). To a certain extent, this doctrine is consistent with the realities of past eras, when the "right of the strong" prevailed and war dominated international relations. But today, such a concept is increasingly becoming an anachronism, going against the ideals and norms of modern international law. Moreover, and most importantly, it does not correspond in any way to the true spirit of either the Holy Scriptures or the prophetic tradition. For according to these primary sources, armed struggle/jihad is legitimate only if it is defensive in nature. The war for spreading the faith is not only devoid of sanctity, but even God-defying.2

Freedom of religion

The Prophet Muhammad was called to incline not only the Meccan and other Arabian pagans to true confession, to strict monotheism, but also all the peoples of the world, including the "people of the Book" - followers of the former revealed religions, primarily Judaism and Christianity. And both in the Meccan period of his ministry (c. 610 - 622) and in the Medina period (622 - 632), the Prophet strictly followed the fundamental commandment of the Koran:

Call on the way of the Lord
With wisdom, a good admonition,
Make the best argument you can with them...

(16:125)

* See: Vostok (Oriens), 2006, N 3, pp. 58-70.

1 It is true that theologians sometimes recognize a third category - the" treaty territory "(dar al - ' ahd), with which the Muslims concluded a truce agreement. But most of them agree on the purely temporary nature of such a truce.

2 The issue of violence/war against apostates will be discussed in the next article of this cycle.

page 70

The Prophet and his companions should be especially sensitive to Jews and Christians:

Argue with the people of the Book
Not otherwise than the most beautiful...
Tell [them]:
We believe in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you;
Our God and your God are one.

(29:46)

In the case of deafness and hostility to the new faith, the Prophet (and through him, the Muslims) were required not just to endure and forgive, but to nobly (jamil) endure and forgive (15:85; 70:5; 73:10). According to Surah 43, the Prophet once complained about the pagans of Mecca who persisted in their unbelief: "Lord, these are the people who will disbelieve!", but God reassured him: "Leave them in peace!" (43:88 - 89). Another time the Almighty pointed out to him:

If their disgust is so painful to you,
Go through the ground if you can
Or build a ladder to heaven -
Bring them a sign .
It would have been God's will,
He would have gathered them all together on the path of righteousness, -
Don't be ignorant!

(6:35)

The tolerant teachings of the Qur'an accompanied the Prophet not only in Mecca, but also in Medina. In particular, after the Battle of Uhud (3H / 625), when the Muslims were defeated by the Meccan army, the Prophet, who was the most wounded in the battle, said: "Will the people be saved who have blood on the face of their prophet, who called them to the Lord?!" And a suggestion was given to him from above: 3

[To God], not to you, to decide -
Will He have mercy on them
Or punish them for their wickedness.
Verily, to God belongs [all things],
What is in the heavens and on earth:
He forgives whom He pleases,
And punishes whom he wants.
He is All-forgiving and All-merciful.

(3:128 - 129)

In the light of such precepts of Scripture, as well as its pluralistic attitude in general, it is already difficult to imagine that the Qur'anic God approves of violence/war as a method of conversion. Indeed, even the prophet Noah, who was rejected by his people, asked:

Do you really think so, kinsmen?,
What if the [message] that the Lord has given me ...
remains incomprehensible to you,
Are we going to force it on you,
Since you hate it?!

(11:28)

And the Most High reminds the Prophet Muhammad in various suras:

It would have been God's will,
[The Arabians] would not have been polytheists, -
We didn't put you in charge of them!

(6:107)

3 This is how the hadiths are related: B 4068, 4073-4075; M 1791.

page 71

If only the Lord had willed it,
Everyone on earth would have believed;
Will you force people to do this
Forcibly convert to the faith?!
It is not you who will guide whomever you will,
but God Alone guides whomever He wills.
No matter how hard you try,
Most people will not believe.

(10:99) (28:56) (12:103)

Dozens of times, Scripture confirms the freedom of religious choice, condemning any attempt to encroach on it. The duty of the founder of Islam, like other prophets, is only to convey the message of God faithfully and clearly (5:99; 16:35; 24:54; 29:18; 36:17). "Guide, but you are [only] a guide, / and not a ruler over them," God once again points out to the Prophet Muhammad (88: 21-22). Ayat 2: 256 clearly states the principle of nonviolence in matters of religion:

There is no compulsion in religion,
[For] it is already clear
The difference between a true path and a false one.

Ayat 2: 256 is echoed by the following:

Tell them:
This is the truth that comes from God;
Whoever wants to believe, let him believe,
and whoever does not want to believe is free to refuse.

(18:29).

Guided by the instructions of God, the Prophet addressed the Meccan polytheists with the following words::

I do not worship your idols,
and you do not worship my God;
And I will not serve them,
and you will not serve Him;
And you will have your own faith,
I have my own.

(109:1 - 6).

True faith comes from inner conviction, and therefore cannot be established by force. And it is in this sense that the words of Ayat 2:256 - "There is no compulsion in religion!"are sometimes interpreted. By explaining the truth to man, God has given him the freedom of choice, for which he is responsible to Him:

Indeed, We have guided him to the right path,
[And it's up to him to decide] -
Be grateful, [believers],
Or [in disbelief] to show unrecognizability.
We have opened before him [for selection]
Two paths - [good and evil].
Those who follow the right path will benefit themselves,
And whoever turns away, turns away to his own detriment.

(76:3) (90:10) (17:15).

The Scripture also justifies the rejection of violence in matters of faith by the fact that God himself will resolve people's religious disputes on the Day of Judgment:

page 72

Indeed, the believers [of the Qur'an],
Jews, Sabians, Christians, Majus4
and polytheists,
God, the Witness of all Things, will judge them on the Day of Resurrection
.

(22:17)

As we can see, the Qur'anic imperative is unambiguous: religious differences should be left to the upcoming judgment of God. Until then, we should compete in good deeds for the common good (2:148; 5:48).

Therefore, the Scriptures declare peace to be the natural norm for the coexistence of peoples and faiths. "O believers, join the world together!" calls Ayat 2: 208. Whenever the enemy offers peace, you should accept it:

If they are inclined to peace,
Bend down to it and you,
Putting your trust in God.

(8:61)

Only defensive warfare is legitimate

It is well known that during the entire period of his Meccan ministry, the Prophet Muhammad chose exclusively peaceful methods of conversion to the new faith, that it was pagans who resorted to violence against the young Muslim community, instituting a socio-economic boycott against Muslims and subjecting them to persecution (including beating to death). Fleeing persecution, the first Muslims were first forced to emigrate to Ethiopia, and then to Medina, where the Prophet himself followed, becoming the victim of an assassination attempt. But even in the new place (both in Ethiopia and in Medina), the Meccan infidels did not leave the Muslims alone, plotting and organizing military campaigns against Medina. Therefore, all the armed actions of Muslims against the Meccan pagans and their allies were retaliatory, i.e. they were defensive in nature.

This exclusively defensive purpose of armed struggle was emphasized by the Qur'an in all its revelations sanctioning it. The first such ayats (22:39-41) begin with the words:

Those who were attacked,
Who has been harassed,
[From now on] it is allowed to [fight].
They were lawlessly driven out of their homes
Only for confessing that God is their Lord.

Ayat 2: 190, sent down a little later, categorically warns Muslims against any aggressive actions.:

Fight for the cause of God
With those who are fighting against you,
But don't fix it.,
For God does not love aggressors.

The above-mentioned verses from Sura 22 also indicate another task of the armed struggle permitted by God - the protection of the human right to believe in God:

If God didn't hold back
Some people against others,
Would have been destroyed
Many cells, churches, synagogues and mosques,
In which the name of God is glorified.

(22:40)

4 The Sabians are a group of pre-Muslim Arabian monotheists who did not adhere to Judaism or Christianity; the Majus are Zoroastrians and other fire - worshipping dualists.

page 73

This idea of protecting religious freedom is more clearly expressed in Ayahs 2: 193 and 8: 39, where Muslims are instructed to fight to put an end to all persecution for their faith and to make their faith a purely personal matter in their relationship with God. Alas, such truly remarkable ayats are sometimes interpreted, as we will see below, in the absolutely opposite sense, passing them off as a call for the violent spread of Islam!

A purely defensive motive permeates all the armed enterprises of the founder of Islam without exception. Granted permission to fight the Meccan pagans in the second year of the Hijra, his retaliatory measures against them were virtually limited to intercepting a Meccan trading caravan returning from Syria. The Battle of Badr that followed this unsuccessful attempt was initiated by the Meccans themselves. And in the following years, it was the Muslims who were on the defensive in the truest sense of the word - in the third year, the Meccans attacked Medina (the Battle of Uhud), and in the fifth - together with their allies besieged the city (the Battle of the Moat). When, in the following sixth year, the Muslims went to Mecca on a peaceful pilgrimage to the Kaaba, the pagans of Mecca blocked their path, and the Prophet, who did not want bloodshed and violation of the sanctity of the Meccan territory, concluded a truce with the pagans for a period of 10 years. And only after a violation of the treaty by the Meccans, who participated in an attack on Muslim allies from the tribe.khuzaa, the Prophet, marched on Mecca in the eighth year, taking the city almost without bloodshed, which put an end to the hostile machinations of the Meccan pagans against the new faith.

The Prophet's armed struggle with the other pagans of Arabia was of the same defensive nature. As a rule, it was conducted against those tribes (in particular, Saqif, Ghatafan and Mustalik) that were allies of the Meccans in their confrontation with the Muslims, participating in their campaigns to Medina, and some of them committed or planned other aggressive actions. It should also be recalled that it was the Saqifis and Khawazinites who were the first to go on a campaign against the Muslims after the conquest of Mecca. But, as in the case of the pagans of Mecca, the Prophet did not force any of the defeated to accept Islam.

The Prophet's wars with the Jews of Madinah (Qaynukaites, Nadirites, and Qurayzites) and Khaybar were also purely defensive. The former not only stirred up trouble in the ranks of the young Muslim community, but also conspired with the pagans of Mecca. Add to this the attempt of the Nadirites on the life of the Prophet (throwing a millstone at him) and the betrayal of the Qurayzites during the siege of Madinah by the anti-Islamic coalition forces in the fifth year of the Hijri, when they broke off their agreements with the Prophet and promised help to the besiegers. The Jews of Khaybar were allied with the Hatafanites (and, according to some sources, with the pagans of Mecca) and, moreover, were the instigators of the mentioned coalition.

Consider, finally, the Prophet's military ventures outside of Arabia. He sent an army to Syria in the eighth year of the Hijra to avenge his messenger, who was captured in Mut by the Ghassanid ruler and betrayed to Mu-

5 It seems that this protection of religious freedom is mainly implied in Ayat 75 of Sura 4: "Why don't you fight in the name of God, / For the sake of the oppressed-men, women and children, / Who cry out: /' Bring us, O Lord, out of this city, / Whose inhabitants are indeed oppressors; / Send us a protector from you, / Show us an intercessor!"". In traditional interpretations (in particular, at-Tabari), it is usually said that" city " means Mecca, where Muslims (slaves and others) remained, who were not allowed to move to Medina by pagans. But the ayat can also be given a more universal meaning - as a commandment to protect the freedoms and rights of the oppressed in general.

page 74

a martyr's death. In the following year, in the ninth year, he himself set out on the Tabuk campaign, having received news of the Byzantine army moving to Medina.6

This can be summed up in the following words of Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 1350): "To one who has carefully studied the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him!) it becomes clear that he did not force anyone to accept his religion at all... because he followed the words of the Almighty: "There is no compulsion in religion!" [2:256]. This is denial in the sense of prohibition: do not force anyone to follow religion. And this ayat applies to all people, extending to any infidel... But the Prophet fought only with those who fought against him. And if he made a peace treaty with someone, he did not make war against him as long as he remained faithful to the treaty and did not break it, since God commanded: "Continue to keep the treaty / As long as they remain faithful to it" [9:7]... Yes, the Prophet never forced anyone to accept his religion, but people entered it voluntarily, according to their free choice "[Ibn al-Qayyim, p. 12] 7.

"Ayat of the sword" and "Ayat of jizya"

As early as the middle of the 19th century, one of the greatest European Islamic scholars, the Dutchman Reinhard Dozy, wrote: "The opinion that has long been held about this (about the duty of Muslims to wage a holy war for the spread of Islam. - T. I.) Europe is not entirely accurate. The Qur'an does not contain a single command that, if you carefully follow the flow of thoughts, would prescribe war against all the infidels... Holy war is imposed only in the single case when the enemies of Islam turn out to be attackers; if someone understands the precepts of the Koran differently, then the arbitrary interpretation of theologians is to blame" [Dozi, pp. 270-271].

This" arbitrary", belligerent interpretation of Scripture by medieval theologians is manifested primarily in relation to ayats 5 and 29 of Surah 9 - the last (in chronological order) Surah dealing with issues of war. The first of these ayats, later known as the Ayat of the Sword, says:

Kill pagans everywhere,
Wherever you meet them.

The second Ayat, the Ayat of Jizya, concerning the "People of the Book" prescribes::

Fight those who have received the Scripture,
Who does not believe in God and the Last Day,
Does not abstain from what is forbidden by God and His Messenger,
Who does not profess the true faith,
Until they start paying jizya...

Resorting to the concept of "abrogating and abrogating" (nasih and mansuh) adopted in classical Qur'anic studies, according to which some Qur'anic revelations can "abrogate" or modify other, earlier ones, militaristic theologians 8 believe that these two ayats "abrogate" all the previous ayats numbered in the hundreds from more than 50 suras that command peacefulness and tolerance for other faiths. From now on, they claim, the Prophet and Muslims were ordered to wage an all-out war against the non-believers: "people of the Book" are invited to convert to Islam or pay ji-

6 The same defensive motive can be traced in the first Muslim conquests, which are not included in our task.

7 Ibn al-Qayyim here elaborates on the thoughts of his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah, as set forth in his Guide to War with the Infidels (Ka'ida fi qital al-Kuffar), also known as the Treatise on War (Risalat al-qital).

8 From the French militant < lat. militaris - "fighting".

page 75

And the pagans are to choose between Islam, jizya and death (according to Abu Hanifa, Malik and one of the versions from Ibn Hanbal) or only between Islam and death (according to al-Shafi'i and another version from Ibn Hanbal).

From this point of view, the tolerant revelations of the Qur'an referred exclusively to the period when Muslims were weak. But as soon as they were strong enough, they were ordered to go on the offensive, to fight until the complete victory of Islam throughout the world. Therefore, the peaceful coexistence of Muslim states with non-Muslim ones is supposedly allowed only if there is a lack of forces for a military offensive against them.

Such a theological and political concept not only distorts the Qur'an and the Sunnah. It is fraught with immoralism unworthy of God's religion. Tamaskan l-yatamakkan! ("To become pale in order to gain a foothold!") - since childhood, the author of these lines is familiar with this saying, which condemns even at the level of the common people's consciousness such a line of behavior. In addition, today this concept serves as a kind of provocation, because it provides the enemies of Islam with a weighty argument for all kinds of "preventive" wars. 9

A militant reading distorts the Qur'an because God's precepts of religious tolerance set forth above are formulated as universal principles, and such principles cannot be "abrogated". Will God reject the diversity of faiths declared by Him as corresponding to His destiny?! Or take the principle of " no compulsion in religion!". Having established it, God gives the same ayat such a basis - the true path and the false path are already clearly distinguishable. Had everything changed by the end of the Prophet's ministry? A similar question can be raised about the principle of freedom of choice as a condition of genuine religiosity and responsibility.

Therefore, verses 9: 5 and 9: 29 should not be given a general meaning, but should be applied exclusively to specific cases, in relation to those who are hostile to Islam or intend to attack Muslims. And on this point, the Scriptures themselves are quite clear.

So, in Sura 60, after the call to resist the warring pagans, you should::

But God does not forbid you
To show friendliness and justice to those who,
Who didn't fight you for your faith,
I did not drive you out of your homes, -
Indeed, He loves the just.

(60:8)

Commenting on this ayat, none other than the greatest interpreter of the Qur'an, at-Tabari (d. 923), notes that the friendliness prescribed here applies to representatives of all faiths and religions who do not fight with Muslims because of their faith, and that such a precept cannot be canceled by any other ayat.

And Surah 9 itself clearly speaks in favor of a" differentiated " approach. Contrary to the statement about its totally militant, offensive orientation, here,

9 Unfortunately, sometimes even authors who seem to want to move away from the old militant paradigm of interpretation of the Qur'an are held captive by it. Thus, in the recently published book of A. Aliyev [Aliyev, 2004], the section devoted to exposing the myth that "Islam was spread by fire and sword" is concluded as follows: "Of course, canonical Islam does not prohibit the conduct of a "holy war", but it restricts its unleashing by a number of conditions: war can not be waged by any person. neither for the sake of seizing territories, nor for achieving national and racial superiority, nor for gaining power over a defeated enemy, it can be initiated only for the purpose of establishing the Islamic faith, establishing just social relations from the point of view of Islam, and eradicating evil in those manifestations in which they are presented in the predestinations of the Prophet" (p. 353).. Isn't the italicized words a justification for the militant, violent imposition of Islam?!

page 76

as before, it is clearly stated that war does not apply to Gentiles who did not violate the peace agreements with Muslims (9: 4), but against those who "were the first to make war", who "drove out the Prophet", who in relations with Muslims "do not honor their obligations", who "behave themselves aggressively (mu'tadun)" (9:8, 10,13).

It is also noteworthy that immediately after the infamous "ayat on the sword", God gives the Prophet such a tolerant instruction: if any of the pagans ask for security, they should be given it, then they should be initiated into Islam. But even if he does not believe, let him go home in peace. "They are an ignorant people" (9:6), God explains this mercy to the polytheists.

A strong argument against the militaristic interpretation of Ayat 9: 5 and Surah 9 in general is the final two ayats. When God addresses the pagans of Arabia, He says that He has revealed to them a kindred messenger, to whom their aversion from his faith is bitter. God reveals to the Prophet: "If they turn away, say:' God is sufficient for me!..."" (9:128 - 129). The same tolerance that was so often expressed in the Qur'anic revelations of previous years!

Proponents of the militant interpretation could not, of course, fail to notice these final verses, which run counter to their construction. And they decided-without any justification - to assign these ayats to the Meccan period. It is so easy to declare them "cancelled" because they have descended earlier. But even if we accept such arbitrariness in the chronology, it is legitimate to assume that since God was pleased to place these tolerant ayats at the end of the last surah of the Koran, which deals with the topic of war, then it is probably they that express His true will in this regard.

As for the Ayat of Jizya (9:29), it is all the more necessary to interpret it in a strictly restrictive sense. How can it mean all Jews, Christians, and other people of the Book, without exception, regardless of their hostility or love for Muslims?! Is the total understanding of Ayat compatible with the commandment of Ayat 29: 46 to argue with the people of the Book "in the most agreeable way" or with the testimony of Ayat 5: 82 about Christians as "most friendly" to Muslims?! Could the Prophet have responded in this way to the Christians of Ethiopia who had hospitably sheltered Muslims fleeing persecution?! Of course not. Therefore, Ayat 9: 29 refers only to those who fight against the Muslims. In this sense, the jizya corresponds to what is called a military contribution in modern parlance.

Strangely, the commentators who identified the" recipients of the Book "in Ayat 9:29 with Jews and Christians were not confused by the words of Ayat" who do not believe in God and the Last Day", which are difficult to apply to any of the adherents of Judaism or Christianity. The authors of the interpretation of the Qur'an al-Muntahab could not find a better explanation than to say that they are talking about those who" do not properly " believe in God, the Resurrection and the Last Day. But this is only one step away from calling for war even against dissident Muslims, as extremists from medieval Kharijites to modern Wahhabis allow themselves!

Let us also suggest that Ayat 9: 29 may refer not only to some Jewish or Christian sects in Arabia, but also to Meccan and other Arab pagans. After all, unlike the epithet "people of the Book" (ahl al-Kitab), which in the Qur'an usually describes Jews and Christians, the epithet "those who received the Book" (allazina utu al-Kitab) is also applicable to pagan Arabians, since they also received the Book-the Qur'an.

The realities of the prophetic ministry of the founder of Islam also do not agree with the militant interpretation of Surah 9. Indeed, even after this surah, which occurred more than a year before his death, the Prophet did not organize any military action against the pagans or "people of the Book" in order to convert them to Islam or receive jizya from them, and he did not force anyone within or outside of Arabia to accept his faith. After all, not

page 77

Otherwise, for example, Ibn Qasir's statement (d. 1373) about the Prophet's appearance in the Tabuk campaign in compliance with the instructions of the Ayat of Jizya should be considered an annoying oversight [Ibn Qasir, 1990, vol.5, p. 2; aka, 1999, comment. to Ayat 9: 29], since Surah 9 itself, according to the unanimous opinion of Muslim Qur'anic scholars, descended after that campaign.

Another well - known fact from the Prophet's biography-his epistles (in the last years of his life) to foreign rulers, including the Roman Caesar, the Ethiopian Negus, the Egyptian Mukaukis, and the Persian Khosroes-does not correspond to the constructions of militarists. And in none of these messages is the call to Islam accompanied by a mention of any other alternative - war or jizya. If Ayat 9: 5 and 9: 29 had prescribed such alternatives, the Prophet would certainly have included them in his epistles. Even if we assume that the messages were sent before the descent of Surah 9, then upon receiving it, the Prophet would certainly have brought to those rulers the new regulations of God regarding them.

What does "religion to God" mean?

Proponents of a militant interpretation of jihad often also refer to Ayat 2: 193 and the related Ayat 8: 39. They are cited, in particular, by the authors of "Programs for the study of Sharia sciences", justifying the conclusion that it is necessary to conduct an armed struggle "in the name of ensuring that the word of Allah is above all else, and the entire religion is entirely devoted to Allah" [part 3, p. 21]. Ayat 2: 193 is given here in the following translation: "And fight them until the turmoil disappears, and the religion belongs to Allah "(Ayat 8: 39 differs from this one only in that instead of the word "religion" it uses the expression "all religion")10.

Militarist theologians usually interpret the word "fitna" appearing in the Arabic original of the ayat as "polytheism" (shirk), although this interpretation is not etymologically justified - they apparently proceeded from the second part of the ayat, understood in the sense of the need to affirm monotheism. And if fitnah is sometimes interpreted by them as "confusion" or "temptation" (which is really part of the range of meanings of this word), then this implies the temptation of polytheism. Moreover, Ayat 2:191 and 2: 217 declare fitna "worse than murder". It turns out that polytheism, unbelief, or the temptation of unbelief is worse than murder, and murder, as you know, deserves to die. It is therefore incumbent upon Muslims to fight for the eradication of all such forms of deviation from the true faith, until "faith in Allah"is established worldwide!11

10 This interpretation is usually found in translations of the Qur'an, in particular, in M. N. Osmanov ("Fight them until disbelief disappears, and faith in God [one] is established";" ... until only the Most High is worshipped"); in V. Porokhova ("...not yet...faith in God will reign"; "... and faith in God embraces everything and everything on this earth"); in E. Kuliyev ("...until the temptation disappears and the religion is completely dedicated to Allah"; the commentary here says:"...So that the religion of the Most High Allah will triumph over other religions, so that paganism and everything that is incompatible with the true faith will disappear on earth"), as well as in the commentaries/translations of al-Muntahab ("until the religion of Allah wins. All religion belongs to Allah alone" and "the meaning and meaning of the Qur'an" ("...until there is no more temptation to go astray, and the whole earth belongs to Allah"; "... until they worship only Allah"; "... until the rule of Islam is established").

11 While proclaiming this goal of armed jihad, medieval theologians stubbornly fail to notice that the institution of jizya established by them, which actually legitimizes the forms of otherness/unbelief they deny, does not agree with it in any way. They admit a different kind of contradiction in their constructions when, on the basis of the relevant instructions of the Prophet, they prohibit the killing of women, children, the elderly, servants of a cult who have retired to their cells, etc., since they are not able to fight with weapons in their hands. After all, this implicitly recognizes that the true purpose of armed jihad is not to eradicate disbelief, but to counter the militant enemies of Islam (we will return to the discussion of this inconsistency in the next article, which deals with the issue of violence against apostates).

page 78

The inconsistency of the militant interpretation of verses 2: 193 and 8: 39 is even more obvious than in the case of the sword and jizya verses. For Surah 2 is one of the earliest Madinah surahs, if not the earliest. And all the subsequent ministry of the Prophet contradicts this interpretation: he never, we repeat, forced people to convert to Islam, not a single armed campaign of Muslims of the time of Muhammad (with or without his participation) was organized against someone because of his disbelief/disbelief. Let us recall the Prophet's release of the Pagan captives after the victory of Badr; his conquest of Mecca in the eighth year of the Hijra, when he released the Pagans in peace during all their long persecution of the Muslims; another subsequent generous gesture towards the Pagan captives after the defeat of the combined Saqif and Hawazin forces; and his last Tabuk campaign, when he turned back back, as soon as the rumor about the upcoming campaign of the Romans to Medina turned out to be false.

Note also that the immediate context of verses 2: 193 and 8: 39 does not agree with their all-offensive interpretation. In both cases, we are talking about opposing the Meccan pagans, who drove the Muslims out of their homes and sought to return them to paganism. Moreover, Ayat 2: 193 ends with the words " If they (the Gentiles) cease, let enmity be only against the aggressors." In the same sense, the ending of Ayat 8:39 also sounds.

Paradoxically, Ayahs 2: 193 and 8: 39 have a completely opposite, anti-violent meaning. The Arabic fitna really means "temptation", "trouble", etc.; however, its original, authentic meaning is "testing", namely, testing gold or silver coins by fire in order to find out their authenticity. Hence its meaning as "persecution", "persecution". And together with the particle 'an ("from"), the verb fatana means "forcibly turn away from". And in the sense of "testing", "persecution", "turning away" [from faith], fitna and the same-root verb are repeatedly used in the Qur'an (for example, in ayats 4:101; 5:49; 10:85; 16:110; 24:63; 29:10; 51:13 - 14; 60: 5). In Ayat 2: 217, immediately after the expression "Fitnah is more terrible than murder", the words follow :" But they (the pagans) will not stop fighting you until they turn you away from your religion, if they can." Therefore, fitna in Ayats 2:193 and 8:39 means violent turning away from the faith, and it is in this sense that fitna is worse than murder: forcing a person (in this case, a Muslim) to turn away from his faith is more terrible than killing him. Such an authentic understanding is given, in particular, by al-Tabari in his commentary on Ayat 2: 191. Therefore, polytheism itself is not fitna, which is worse than murder, but forcing a Muslim to return to polytheism is such.

Accordingly, we should understand the expression ad-din li-Llah, which appears in the second part of Ayat 2: 193 (and Ayat 8:39, respectively) and which literally translates as: "Religion (faith) to God." In fact, it means giving God the final resolution of all disagreements about religion (faith), that is, considering religion as a personal matter of the believer in his relationship with the Lord, which does not tolerate violent interference. Ad-din li-Llah wa-l-watan li-l-jami', "Religion belongs to God, and the motherland belongs to all", is what the Arabs usually say when expressing ideas of interfaith peace. Therefore, Verses 2:193 and 8:39 are more appropriately translated as follows:

Fight them,
Until the persecution of religion ceases
And every faith will be decided by God himself.

Other belligerently interpreted ayats and hadiths

The militaristic interpretation of jihad is sometimes supported by Ayat 36 of Surah 9 (Marginani, vol. 2, p. 135):

page 79

And fight all (kaffatan) polytheists,
How they all (caffatan) are fighting against you.

However, this ayat does not give any grounds for declaring war on all polytheists without exception.12 For rather, it refers only to those Meccan and other Arabian pagans who are fighting against the Muslims. However, if the ayat were to deal with all the polytheists without exception, the duty to oppose them would also fall on all Muslims, which, however, is not provided for in the canonical doctrine, which, as is well known, considers jihad to be a collective (fard kifaya), and not an individual (fard 'ain) duty .13

Supporters of the militant interpretation legitimize their religious hegemony with the words of Ayat 33 of the same Sura 9: "It was He (God) who revealed His Messenger / With the guidance of the right and the true faith / In order to exalt it above any religion." These words are repeated twice more in the Qur'an, in verses 48: 28 and 61: 9, but in the first and third verses it is further stated: "However much the polytheists (Mushrikeen) may hate it," and in the second, " The testimony of God abounds." By" messenger "militantists naturally understand the Prophet Muhammad, by "right guidance" / "true faith" - the Koran/Islam, by "ascension" - the victory of God over all other religions. And even such a relatively liberal author as M. Ali, in his commentary on Ayat 61: 9, did not fail to include Christians among the "polytheists" as well, "since they also accepted the polytheistic doctrine of the Trinity."

But these verses, even if they are understood in the sense of the universal triumph of the religion of God, by no means refer specifically to its forcible dissemination. That's the first thing.

Secondly, the word mushrikun," polytheists", in the Qur'an usually refers to the Arabian pagans, and these ayats can only serve as a prophecy about the triumph of Islam in all of Arabia, which happened during the life of the Prophet.15 To extend them to the whole world is to contradict, among other things, all the Qur'anic revelations about religious diversity as a predestination of God, which is destined to be preserved until the Day of Judgment.16

Third, in all the verses discussed, the words "messenger" and" true faith " have, in our opinion, a generalizing meaning, and therefore, the verses express the gospel of the triumph of God's religion, given to all His messengers, including Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. A careful reading of the context indicates that while the second of these verses (48:28) is related to Muhammad, the other two verses are related to Moses and Jesus.

The incorrectness of the exclusivist interpretation of these ayats is particularly evident in the example of the last of them. Prior to Ayat 61:9, the revelations of Sura 9 mention the Israelites ' rejection of the message of Moses (61: 5), and later that of Jesus-

12" They have all joined together against you in denying the truth, " says M. Asad the second line of this ayat [Meaning and meaning of the Qur'an, vol. 2, p. 28].

13 Moreover, the word kaffatan in Ayat can be applied not to people, but to months, i.e. it refers to the permission to fight in all months. And this meaning is given, in particular, by G. S. Sablukov and I. Y. Krachkovsky in their translations of the Koran.

14 This is found, in particular, in the "Meaning and Meaning of the Qur'an" [vol. 2, p. 25].

15 Even the militarist Sayyid Qutb, commenting on similar expressions in the aforementioned Ayat 2:193 (about fighting the polytheists so that "all religion belongs to Allah"), admits that "these words were intended for the people of the Arabian Peninsula at the time of their announcement." But then, as expected, the author adds. "They are nevertheless of universal value" [Meaning and Meaning of the Qur'an, vol. 1, p. 94].

16 It is no accident that some commentators associate the words of these Ayats about the triumph of the true religion with the coming of the Messiah (Mahdi and/or Jesus).

page 80

sa (61: 6). In Ayat 61: 6, Jesus addressed the Israelites: "I am the Messenger of God to you, confirming what was given in the Torah before me, and announcing the Messenger who will come after me, and whose name is Ahmad" (i.e., Muhammad) .17 It goes on to say here: "And when He gave them clear proofs ,they said,' This is a clear sorcery.'". Exclusivists believe that the pronoun "He" refers to the promised messenger - Muhammad, and on this basis, the "messenger" in the following Ayat 61:9 is identified with the founder of Islam. It is not clear, however, what "clear signs" the Prophet Muhammad presented to Jews and especially Christians, and such signs that opponents called them " sorcery "(sihr). M. Asad believes that the word "this" in Ayat 61:6 refers to the Qur'an, and in support of his interpretation refers the reader to Ayats 24: 24-25, which conveys someone's opinion of the Qur'an as witchcraft [Meaning and meaning of the Qur'an, vol. 4, p. 402]. It is strange that such commentators forget that this comment does not belong to a Jew or a Christian, but to a Meccan Pagan, al-Walid ibn al-Mughira. Moreover, they do not notice that the same words about appearing with clear signs and rejecting them as obvious sorcery are applied in Ayat 5:110 specifically to Jesus and the signs given to him by God (healing the sick, raising the dead, etc.). And again, in Ayat 3: 55, God promises Jesus the exaltation of his followers over those who disbelieve in him - and until the Day of Judgment.

In conclusion of the analysis of the Qur'anic revelations that militantists rely on, we note that in classical theological literature, the goal of war / jihad is often formulated as follows: "To put the word of God above all else" (li-takuna kalimatu-Llahi hia al-'ulya). A similar expression ("And the word of God is above all things") occurs only once in the Qur'an - in Ayat 9: 40, but, we note, without any correlation with military operations.

Let us now turn to the Sunnah. Militant theologians usually cling to the hadeeth of Ibn Umar with the words of the Prophet: "I was told to fight the people (an-nas) until they bear witness that there is no god but God and Muhammad is His Messenger, and they perform salat and zakat. If they do so, then I am commanded their lives and possessions, except for what is rightfully due. We will leave their judgment to God." This hadeeth is also found in an abbreviated form (both from Ibn Umar and Abu Hurayrah), which contains only the condition of professing one God: "I was ordered to fight... until they testify that there is no god but God. If they do.. ,"18.

Fortunately, there is evidence of the circumstances in which the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) announced this utterance (an abridged version of it). This was at the height of the Ridda movement, an apostasy that had erupted in Arabia during the Prophet's lifetime and had taken on threatening proportions shortly after his death. The rebellious tribes refused to pay zakat to the newly elected Caliph Abu Bakr, and he decided to go to war against them. However, the Caliph's intentions were not supported by some prominent companions of the Prophet, including Umar. It was Umar who, in his objection to Abu Bakr, reminded him of the Prophet's instruction. Therefore, the Prophet's statement could only refer to the participants of the ridda, and then "these" should be added to the word "people"in the translation of the hadith.

It is also easy to see that the tradition of the second (small) version of the hadith casts doubt on the authenticity of the extended version. It is strange that neither Abu Bakr nor

17 The Arabic proper names " Ahmad "and" Muhammad "(meaning" The Blessed One") are synonymous.

18 See: B 25, 2946, 6924; M 20-22. This hadith is referred to, in particular, by the authors of " Programs for the study of Sharia sciences "(part 3, p. 22) and commentaries to Ayat 9: 5 in the translation of the Koran by E. Kuliyev.

page 81

anyone who supports his opinion did not know about the mentioned saying of the Prophet with the commandment of Zakat. And why didn't Ibn ' Umar tell his father about such a ha-dis?19

Attention is also drawn to the fact that there is no mention of jizya in the hadith (in both its versions). Therefore, it seems that even the adherents of the militant interpretation of jihad are forced to extend the prescriptions of the hadith to polytheists alone.20 It would be more correct to go further, attributing the hadith only to the account of people fighting against Muslims. By the way, in almost identical terms with the hadith of Ibn Umar (but without mentioning salat and zakat) The Prophet saw Ali storming the Jewish stronghold of Khaybar (M 2405). Both the context of this hadith and the context of Ibn Umar's hadith (small version) allow us to make the following assumption about the true, humane meaning of such instructions of the Prophet: those who fight against Muslims are guaranteed inviolability of life and property if they convert to Islam. Thus, this hadeeth does not oblige Muslims to wage war in order to convert people to Islam, but to ensure the safety of their lives and property to the enemies who have converted to Islam. From the life of the Prophet, there are cases when individual Muslims did not like his generosity - the enemy, they say, did not convert to Islam with all his heart, but only under pain of death. And each time the Prophet had to admonish them. It is logical to believe that it was precisely against such sentiments that the final words of the hadith under discussion were addressed - " We will leave the judgment on them to God."

Another hadith that sometimes justifies militant jihad says:: "He who fights for the word of God above all else fights in the way of God." Here, as in the case of the previous hadith, there is an incorrect treatment of the Prophet's utterance - taking his words out of their context, which gives them a completely different connotation. According to the relevant testimony21, the Prophet was asked about a battle that was acceptable to God ("What battle is a battle in the way of God?"), and He rejected vanity, self-interest, revenge, and other such motives, and uttered these words. Therefore, the purpose of this hadeeth is not to encourage believers to go to war for spreading the faith, but to warn them against pursuing an inappropriate goal in war.

There are other ahadiths in the militaristic arsenal, which, however, are not included in any of the six generally recognized codes. Among them: "I was raised up (in one version added: before [doomsday] To worship the one God who has no partners... " (X 5093-5094). The very refusal of the canonical tradition to recognize such hadiths frees us from the need to discuss them. Regarding the above-mentioned hadeeth, we will limit ourselves to noting that the Qur'an never describes the Prophet's mission in such militant terms, but, on the contrary, testifies about him as follows: "We have raised you up as a messenger, / Only for the mercy of all people" (21:107).

So, not a total war for spreading the faith, as the militantists claim, but only a forced war in defense of the faith or in the name of freedom of faith - this is the true commandment of the Holy Scripture of Muslims. The Koran is a message of peace, tolerance and cooperation, strongly rejecting any attempts to impose its ideology and values on others.

19 For this reason, al-Asqalyani writes in his commentary on Hadith B 25, some people deny the authenticity of this hadith; Ibn Hanbal did not include it in his compilation.

20 The word "polytheists" instead of the word "people" appears in one version of the hadith given by Abu Dawud (D 2641).

21 B 123, 2801, 7458; M 1904.

page 82

list of literature

Aliev A. The Koran in Russia: a source of knowledge or an object of myth-making? Moscow, 2004.

Al-Askalyani. Fatah al-Bari bi-sharh Sahih al-Bukhari. Beirut, 1990.

Dozi R. Islamskoe verouchenie i bogopochitanie [Islamic doctrine and Worship] / / Krymskiy A. E. Istoriya moslemstva [History of Islam], Moscow, 2003 (preprint 1904 ").

The meaning and meaning of the Qur'an. Vol. I-IV. Translated by A. S. Al-Mansi and S. Afifi. [Under the auspices of] the Islamic Congress, Moscow, 2002.

Ibn al-Qayyim. Hidayat al-khayara fi ajwibat al-yahud wa-n-nasara. Medina, b. g.

Ibn Kathir. Al-Bidaya wa-n-nihaya. Beirut, 1990.

Ibn Kathir. Tafsir al-Qur'an al - ' azim. Riyadh, 1999.

Koran, translated by I. Y. Krachkovsky, Moscow, 1986.

Koran / Translated by G. S. Sablukova, Moscow, 1991.

Koran / Translated by D. N. Boguslavsky, St. Petersburg, 1995.

Koran / Transl. and comm. V. Porokhovoy. Moscow, 1997.

Koran / Translated and translated by N. O. Osmanova, Moscow, 1999.

Al-Marginani. Al-Hidaya. Beirut, b. g.

Al-Muntahab. Interpretation of the Holy Quran. [Under. under the auspices of]. al-Azhar, Min. waqfs and the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs of the Republic of Egypt. Cairo, 2000.

Programs for the study of Sharia sciences. Islamic Affairs of Saudi Arabia, Moscow, 2000.

The Holy Quran / Transl. and comm. by M. Ali. USA: Lahore INC., 1997.

Semantic translation of the Holy Quran / Translated by E. Kuliev. [Under the auspices of] Min. islamic Affairs of Saudi Arabia. Medina: 1425x [2004-2005 "".].

At-Tabari. Jami 'al-bayan' an ta'wil ai al-Qur'an. Beirut, 1988.

Permanent link to this publication: