Description of the Verse
Surah 9:29 is a significant verse in the Quran that has sparked extensive debate and analysis, especially regarding its implications for Muslim and non-Muslim relations. The verse reads:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture—[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”
This verse is part of Surah At-Tawbah (The Repentance), the ninth chapter of the Quran. Notably, this chapter is the only one in the Quran that does not begin with “Bismillah” (In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful). The chapter addresses issues related to warfare, treaties, and the treatment of non-Muslims during a time when the early Muslim community was expanding its influence. Surah 9:29 specifically addresses “the People of the Book,” a term that refers to Jews and Christians, instructing Muslims to fight these groups until they pay the jizyah, a tax imposed on non-Muslims under Islamic rule, and accept a position of subordination (“while they are humbled”).
Islamic Scholars’ Point of View
Islamic scholars have provided various interpretations of Surah 9:29, often emphasizing the historical context in which it was revealed. The verse is believed to have been revealed during a period when the Muslim community was engaged in conflicts with surrounding powers, including the Byzantine Empire. Scholars often interpret this verse as a defensive measure, aimed at securing the survival and expansion of the Islamic state amidst external threats.
The jizyah, mentioned in this verse, is viewed as a tax that non-Muslims were required to pay in exchange for protection and exemption from military service. This tax was part of a social contract between the Muslim state and its non-Muslim subjects, allowing non-Muslims to live peacefully under Islamic rule without being forced to convert. Some scholars emphasize that the imposition of the jizyah was not meant to humiliate non-Muslims but to integrate them into the Islamic state while maintaining their religious freedom.
The phrase “while they are humbled” has been widely discussed. Some scholars interpret it as requiring non-Muslims to acknowledge the authority of the Islamic state, while others suggest that it reflects their subordinate status in a Muslim-majority society. Modern scholars often argue that this verse should be understood within its historical context and not as a mandate for ongoing conflict. They highlight that other Quranic verses advocate for peaceful coexistence and respect for other faiths, suggesting that Surah 9:29 was specific to the circumstances of its time and should not be applied universally.
The True Issue: A Prophet’s Compromise
To understand the gravity of this verse, it’s important to ask: where is the evidence that this commandment might reveal Muhammad as a false prophet? It’s not simply the call to arms against Christians and Jews. Wars, after all, have been a constant in human history, and they will continue until the end of time. Nor is it merely the imposition of the jizyah, the tax that non-Muslims were required to pay under Islamic rule. The problem lies deeper, in what this arrangement implies about the nature of Muhammad’s mission.
If Muhammad were truly a prophet sent by God, how could he justify halting the spread of God’s message in exchange for a tax? The fact that he accepted a financial arrangement to allow others to continue practicing their own religions instead of uncompromisingly spreading the word of God is the critical point of contention. This act, is the true evidence against his prophethood. No prophet in the history of Judaism—figures who are revered for their unwavering commitment to delivering God’s message—ever made such a compromise. On the contrary, the prophets of the Old Testament were known for their relentless pursuit of their divine missions, often facing persecution and hardship without ever renouncing their duty.
A Prophet’s Mission: Uncompromising and Unyielding
Consider the story of Jonah (Yunus in Islam), who initially rebelled against God’s command. Jonah attempted to flee from his prophetic mission, but his defiance led to punishment—he was swallowed by a great fish and spent three days in its belly before repenting and fulfilling his duty. This story serves as a stark reminder that a prophet’s mission is sacred and non-negotiable.
Yet, Surah 9:29 presents a scenario where Muhammad, instead of insisting on the dissemination of God’s message, accepts a financial transaction as a condition for religious tolerance. This willingness to accept money in exchange for halting the propagation of faith is unprecedented among true prophets. It suggests a departure from the divine duty to convey God’s message to all people, regardless of personal or communal gain.
The Case Against Muhammad’s Prophethood
The acceptance of the jizyah as described in Surah 9:29 is a fundamental betrayal of what it means to be a prophet. True prophets are sent with a clear and uncompromising message, and they deliver that message without regard for personal benefit or the comforts of their followers. The notion that a prophet would allow others to continue in their ways for a price is viewed as a clear deviation from the prophetic tradition established in the Jewish scriptures. In light of this, critics argue that Muhammad’s actions, as prescribed in this verse, reveal him not as a true prophet, but as someone willing to compromise the divine mission for material gain. This act, stands as irrefutable proof that Muhammad was not sent by God, for no genuine prophet in history has ever bartered the word of God for wealth.
How Biblical Ignorance Leads to the Misrepresentation of True Prophets”
The unfamiliarity with the Bible among many Muslims makes it difficult for them to fully grasp the lives and missions of the true prophets as depicted in the scriptures. This lack of understanding can lead them to accept narratives that elevate a figure like Muhammad, who, from a Christian perspective, exhibits the characteristics of a band leader rather than a true prophet of God. Without a deeper knowledge of the biblical prophets, who were unwavering in their commitment to God’s message and often faced immense suffering without compromise, it’s easier for people to be misled by a story that confuses religious authority with political and military power.
The biblical prophets were not just spiritual leaders; they were figures who lived by divine commands, often in the face of great adversity. They did not seek power, wealth, or military conquest but remained steadfast in their devotion to spreading God’s message, even when it brought them into conflict with the rulers of their time. In contrast, Muhammad’s life, as depicted in Islamic tradition, includes both spiritual teachings and military campaigns, which from a Christian standpoint, creates a stark contrast with the lives of the biblical prophets.
This distinction is crucial in understanding why many view Muhammad not as a prophet in the traditional sense, but rather as a leader whose actions were often driven by the needs of his community in a political and military context. For Christians, this difference is key to understanding why Muhammad’s life and actions do not align with the prophetic tradition as established in the Bible. Jesus, for instance, made a clear separation between spiritual and worldly authority when He said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” This statement underscores the fundamental Christian belief that spiritual leaders are called to focus on divine teachings rather than worldly power. In contrast, Muhammad’s role often intertwined religious authority with political and military leadership, which, from a Christian perspective, diverges from the mission of a true prophet of God.