Talk:Sword Verse

Surah 9 is addressed to the Muslims of Muhammad's (as) time when the Pagans broke the peace treaty with the Muslims and killed innocent Muslims. Because of this incident, Muslims were commanded to kill the Pagans and cease when they joined them. Armyrifle 14:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations are needed to include information like this in the article.--Sefringle 17:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

True. I've found an article about this from a webstie called Muslim Access. [1] I'll add it in Armyrifle 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem. I don't see an author. How am I to know it is written by a scholar?--Sefringle 21:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see this 'justification' and 'context' mentioned very commonly, but I never see where the context came from, or any hadith supporting the context. It appears to me that this is a modern justification, and should only be included in the article in that form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.211.13 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Merger

Unless someone can find a lot of sources, this article will never be more than a stub. Best to merge it with Surah Tawba. Note: I am not proposing the deletion of any content, just the relocation of it.Bless sins 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose While this still is a stub, many, if not most of the articles about specific quran verses are stubs. Verse 9.5 is regularly quoted by critics to say that muslims support terrorism. While we may not wish to include non-scholarly criticisms of the verse, it is still very notable and worth keeping this article because of them.--Sefringle 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be merged. Just because it is picked out in debates does not mean it cannot be included in the context of the full description of sura At-Tawba. A separate section in the At-Tawba article commited to only this verse is wiser and would not lose the importance of this verse. More importantly, since the At-Tawba article itself is a stub including this verse in it would benefit both of the articles. 23:54, 11 Dec 2007 (Anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.155.136 (talk)

If, as is suggested here, the context of the verse is important, then I think that is another plus for the merger.--12.47.123.121 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

'The Qur'an', M. A. S. Abdel Haleem

The new translation 'The Qur'an' by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, explains this and a number of other common issues of translation and context in his introduction and footnotes. Interestingly, he also notes that the nature of Arabic to English translation also tends to obfuscate some of the intended meaning unless very great care is taken. One example is that backward references ('he', 'they', 'them', 'it') - if translated directly - often seem in the English to refer to a diferent subject than is the case in the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.211.79 (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Christian hate mongers, stop adding the "Jesus and the bible sword verse" links it has;

1. Nothing to do with the article.

2. It links to the writings of a Christian amatuer with no scholarly qualification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.161.196 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

English

The introductory statement that the verses "have been a subject of controversy by many critics of Islam over the years" is bad English. It should read either "have been a subject of controversy over the years", or "have been a subject of criticism by many commentators on Islam over the years". I prefer to first option. The verses are controversial - though they shouldn't be, but that is another discussion203.184.41.226 (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

History of interpretations

the much better-developed article at de-wiki cites actual tafsir which does seem to go to the effect that the verse was interpreted as mandatory warfare against all "idolators" until they accept Islam, at least from the 8th century, explicitly by Wahb (and by extension in "Wahhabism"), and into the 13th century, and possibly down to the 19th century (Muhammad ash-Shawkani).

So when, if ever, did the opinion that "no, this is a very specific case, only applicable to the treaty broken by the Quraysh" appear in tafsir? We have ample reports on this being argued by modern apologetics, in essays aimed at western audiences. Ok, so was this interpretation ever taught within Islamic tradition, or did you just make it up on the spot because you needed to address some "criticism"? If the former, let's have some references to literature, where was this discussed among Islamic scholars and who took the "purely against treaty-breakers" view? It is possible that the "defensive" view arose in Ahmadiyya, perhaps in the 19th century? The earliest reference we have though is from 1936. This makes sense, as Ahmadiyya is rather far off the mainstream and does indeed tend to go out of its way to come up with the most peaceful interpretations of the "Jihad means love and kindness" type. --dab (𒁳) 14:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Serious issues.

This article has some serious issues. It claims that 9:5 is the 'Sword verse', however here's no consensus amongst Islamic scholars on which verse is to be considered 'Sword verse'. They mentioned 4 verses all from the ninth chapter as possible candidates: At-Tawba: 9:5, 9:36, 9:41, 9:29. Also the first citation isn't defined. --HakimPhilo (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thats not dispute, it just means there’s multiple sword verses and this was mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah. Plus most of the early scholars of Islam referred to 9:5 as the sword verse, like Al Shafi’i and Ibn Hazm so we’ll stick with this tradition. Maalik Serebryakov (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

NPOV dispute over the serious deficiencies of the article in terms of secular opposition to the verse. DrStrauss (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverts by Cluebot

Cluebot just reverted 3 edits by me. Someone please add them back if it is acceptable.-Kafir2 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Huh, that's an odd false positive. I've reverted its edits and gone ahead and reported them as false positives. Thanks! Perryprog (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.-Kafir2 (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Surat Al Tawbah English translation

in literal arabic translation Al Tawbah التوبة means The Repentance, it has nothing to do with a sword.. 103.152.112.109 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Im sorry i was rash when i said surat Al Tawbah doesn’t mean sword

Yes Al Tawbah means The Repentance, and I thought this article was talking about the surah, not a single verse from it. I deeply apologize. I wanted to delete my past discussion but I couldn’t know how. I will be more carful now on and try not to be rash in this website that many people in the world are so reliant upon for information. 103.152.112.109 (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)