A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád': Showing that all the Wars of Mohammad Were Defensive; and; that Aggressive War, or Compulsory Conversion, is not; Allowed in The Koran - 1885Cherágh Ali
Islamic
A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád': Showing that all the Wars of Mohammad Were Defensive; and; that Aggressive War, or Compulsory Conversion, is not; Allowed in The Koran - 1885
Cherágh Ali
Islam -- Apologetic works; Islam -- Relations; Jihad; War -- Religious aspects -- Islam
Limited, or _Conditional_. |General, or _Absolute_.
---------------------------------+---------------------------------------
|
Sura XXII, 39-42. |Sura II, 245, (read together with 247.)
Sura II, 186-189. |Sura IX, 124.
" " 212. |
" " 214. |The context, parallel passages
Sura IV, 76, 77, 78, 86. |and their history, show them
" " 91, 92, 93. |to be limited and conditional,
Sura VIII, 39-41, 58-66. |in conformity with the general
" " 73, 74. |scope of the Koran.
Sura IX, 1-15. |
" " 29, 36. |
|
_Quoted in pages_ 16-25, 35. |
|
[Sidenote: 93. Rule of interpretation.]
Now, there are only two verses in the Koran (Sura II, v. 245, and Sura
IX, v. 124) containing an absolute or non-conditional injunction for
making war against the unbelievers. Perhaps you may be able to detach
some more sentences, or dislocate some half verses from amongst those
given under the head of conditional. But these absolute, as well as
those detached and dislocated parts of some other verses will not, by
any rule of interpretation, show absolute injunction to wage war against
the unbelievers without any provocation or limitation. There is a rule
in the exegesis of the Koran, as well as in other Scriptural
interpretations, that when two commandments, one conditional, and the
other general or absolute, are found on the same subject, the
conditional is to be preferred, and the absolute should be construed as
conditional, because the latter is more expressive of the views of the
author than the general which is considered as vague in its expression.
The rule is:--Where a passage which is ambiguous, or which contains any
unusual expression, or in which a doctrine is slightly treated, or is in
general terms, must be interpreted agreeably to what is revealed more
clearly in other parts, or where a subject is more clearly discussed. A
single or general passage is not to be explained in contradiction to
many others restricted, conditional, and limited consistently with them,
and with proper reservations.
[Sidenote: 94. The Common Law and its commentators.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account