Islam critiqued surfs through Quran; 9:29 is unjust and violent?

In answer to the video "Surah 9:29 in Context"

Until 9:29, the sura Tawba prescribed divine punishment upon 3 groups; the hypocrites among the Muslims, the treacherous warmongers among the idolaters, and those idolaters insisting on their pagan practices within the sacred precincts of Mecca. 

No punishement is prescribed on the peaceful idolaters beyond Mecca, as well as those in Mecca that refrain from their rituals at the sacred sites re-dedicated strictly to the Islamic religion. They are to be left unharmed as mentionned earlier.

Nor is there until now any legal directive towards the remaining non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, whether in Mecca or beyond. This included the people of the book (Jews and Christians) or the followers of other belief systems, or even atheists 

9:29"Fight those who believe not in God and nor in the Last Day and nor do they forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden and nor do they follow the religion/DEEN of truth from among the people of the book, till they give the compensation with a willing hand, while they are humble".

This verse, as attested by the prophetic practice, is not restricted to the people of the book. It covers any religion that was and could potentially fall under Muslim rule as a result of provoked warfare. The verse mentions 4 categories;

1- Those who do not believe in God 

2- Those who reject the resurrection 

3- Those who regard as lawful what Allah and the prophet have forbidden. Those that pass the 2 preceding criteria by believing in God and the concept of resurrection, should adhere to Islam as the only reasonable spiritual reality. If they make the choice not to, then they are believers in one of the many man made religions that does not forbid what Allah has forbidden through His prophet in the Quran and sunna. Or they might be from the people of the book, believers in God and the resurrection. Being sincere in their faith, they should, like the aforementioned group naturally enter the fold of Islam. The Quran speaks of them, those that remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced, praiseworthy reading and understanding of their books led many of them to eventually believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. But those that make the choice not to, they remain as people of the book who despite their sincerity in faith, do not regard as forbidden what Allah and His messenger forbade.

4- Those who do not follow the DEEN of truth from among the people of the book. The root D-Y-N means rule or debt or any obligation. It may be summarized as "system". It is used this way in the Quran 9:36,12:76 classical literature and even in common Arabic speak. Whenever the preposition "mina" is used before a composite entity, or a group, and that this entity is given a qualification, then "mina" carries the meaning of "among", pointing to a portion from among that composite entity 4:46,160,5:5,23,41,57,107,8:65,57:10. "The Deen of truth" in that phrase cannot refer to Islam as a religion. One cannot speak of a portion from among the people of the book as being followers of Islam while others reject it. This speaks of the Jews and Christians whom the Quran in many places condemns as sinful, insincere to the truth of their own books. The praiseworthy among them, followers of "the deen of truth" were those included in the 3rd category.

None of the groups above are to be fought until they become Muslims. Rather until they pay the jizya in submission to the Islamic rule. That subjection is in relation to the Islamic system which they are now bound to, being permanent non Muslim residents under protection of the Muslim state. The majority of Muslim scholars have understood the passage in that way. See for example al-Shafi'i, Al-Umm, Vol. 4, Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi's Tafsir Vol. 10 or Fatani, Ikhtilaf al-Darin p48. This is also seen by the fact that the musta'min (a non Muslim temporary resident) is not subjected to the Islamic legal system nor the jizya, according to the Hanafi school. That subjection has thus nothing to do with humiliation, as some have interpreted, and without any evidence in the prophetic practice nor that of the first caliphs. Humiliation does occur however, when those non-Muslim residents of the Islamic state refuse to pay government taxes to the point they have to be forcefully made to. Just as Muslims, shortly after the prophet's death had to be fought, humbled, and forced to pay the government taxes under Abu Bakr's caliphate.

The order to fight therefore isnt motivated by a choice of creed otherwise the mere paying of a tax would not have been enough to end the fighting, rather a forceful conversion would. Yet that option is never proposed in the verse. The only issue for them is explicitly spelled out; Payment of taxes and submission to the laws of the religious state they live in as members of a different religion on whom different rights and obligations apply. The governement has actually more to gain in wealth and manpower if they convert, especially in early times when Muslims were a minority in these newly conquered lands. Yet they are told to keep their religion and autonomy instead.

Converting to Islam, something that isnt incumbent upon them, would end the command to fight them should they insist on not paying the jizya. But they will not escape being fought should they refuse honoring the duties that fall upon them as Muslims, including contributing financially to the functioning of the Islamic state, as well as obligations that did not apply to their former religious communities, like military service. There really is no true incentive for them to leave their religion which is why the option is never proposed in the verse.

The verses that follow illustrate some of the transgressions of the people of the book, and their causes, such as deification of prominent personalities, blind following of their religious leaders etc, while no blame is placed on them for not following Islam. These dark deviations in religion will never extinguish the light of guidance, no matter how much the disbelievers among the people of the book dislike it 9:32. The verse employs the image of a person attempting to extinguish a strong light with a blow from the mouth, to illustrate the relative feebleness of his position.

The passage ends with the reiteration of a prophecy made long before 48:28,61:9 regarding the prevailing of the deen/way of truth sent by the One true God over all other ways no matter how much the polytheists dislike it 9:33. The wording of this verse is very appropriate since it specifically mentions the polytheists, followers of non-divine religions, as disliking the establishment of the deen of truth. The people of the book, sincere to their scriptures as pointed earlier, will not dislike the establishment of a Godly system, since it does not only mean establishing Islam, but also exposing and establishing the truth of their own religion 

5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize".

The Jizya is a collective tax, not a head tax. It is imposed on the people of dhimma, the diminutive for dimmat Allah wa rasulih, the protection of God and His messenger. This connection demonstrates the significance of the dhimmis, making them eligible for protection under divine obligation. The prophet applied the command upon Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and according to some scholars like abu Hanifa, the pagans, based on a prophetic saying 

"If they (Arab polytheists) accept the dhimmah contract (aqd al-dhimmah), then inform them that they have the same rights and duties as Muslims". 

The jizya imposed on them is a collective tax because it is agreed upon by mutual consultation, not arbitrarily decided by the Muslim state. Each individual was imposed depending on his financial capacity. The benefits which the government offers in exchange of the due jizya, are matters of communal and national interest - defending the territory from outside aggression, establishing security, maintaining the environment, building infrastructure, etc., not the sort of benefits you can opt out of. The earliest Muslim rulers even appointed a portion of the Muslim zakat to feed the needy among the people of the book, even though they were exempted from paying the jizya. When a Jew came asking the caliph Umar for money, he said 

"go find him and those like him, and give them out of the public treasury". 

It is known that together with the needy, the clergy was also exempted from the tax by the Muslim authorities. And yet they fully benefited from government services, including military protection and infrastructure. These exception to the rule of 9:29 are based upon strong and firm unconditional principles as regards the Muslim duty towards the weak in any society, and the preservation of the worship sites of the people of the book where the name of Allah is mentionned. There is thus a strong Quranic basis for the policy of most Muslim rulers, including as early as the caliph Umar, of being selective in the application of the jizya upon the people of dhimma. 

Even though Jizya it is not a personal head tax, for the sake of argument, one can either pay taxes willingly, or be punished through several forceful means including jail in case of refusal, or leave the country. In a secular state the issue is pretty much the same. Special taxes will apply to alien residents, who in addition to having to compensate the state for providing them with benefits of all kind, must also exempt themselves from the obligations and rights that apply to the citizen of that state (military service, various taxes on salaries, financial regulations etc). Paying that tax will protect them from being pursued and punished by that government. 

Some insidious critics like calling it "protection money". Every taxation system in the world is in fact aimed at providing protection; either by financing a system that preserves the well-being of the society as a whole, or by protecting against punishment, since failing to pay results in sanctions. Jizya is the rightful compensation demanded from the dhimmi, in exchange of the exemption from the laws, rights, obligations, penalties etc of that state religion in matters that do not concern the society as a whole. That is because the sharia for Muslim governance of non-Muslim citizens is that non-Muslims should not be forced to follow the moral laws dictated in the Quran. 

The idea that this model oppressed non Muslim dhimmis to the point they preferred conversion is unfounded, without any historical and documented basis. It wasnt therefore a system aimed at enriching anyone, but a legitimate compensation for concrete services and exemptions. That is why non-Muslims that volontarily participated in the military were exempted from the tax. Those that paid the tax and werent properly served were refunded. For instance when Muslim ruled Syria was threatened with invasion by the Romans and the Muslim ruler doubted whether he would be able to protect the non-Muslims of that region, he hastily returned their jizya money which was supposed to be partly aimed at guarantying their protection. Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah told the Christians they would be bound by the agreement again only if he is able to fend off the Roman invasion. The Christians consequently prayed for Muslim victory, knowing that the Romans would never behave with them in such a manner.
 
Under that system, non Muslims enjoy complete religious autonomy as long as it does not conflict with the state religion. For example selling alcohol publicly. Dhimmis may deliberate, individualy deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, again, so long as no conflict occurs between the 2. For example it is well known that Christian and Jewish elites enacted laws preventing their people from resorting to a Muslim judge in cases where their own laws were unfavorable.

Islam critiqued sees God's hand in action; Allah fights through the believers?

In answer to the video "Muhammad in John 16:2"

Of course that God fights through the believers, inflicting His punishment on a nation of rejecters and transgressors as He did aforetime. In 8:17,9:14,59:2 the prophet and the believers are told that although they were physically waging war against their enemies, it was ultimately Allah who was smiting, not them. This is according to the Quranic principle that God, being the origin and sustainer of all causality, encompassing every happening by His will and power, is the indirect cause of every occurence.

In this case, God could have exacted His retribution on a nation of rejecters by unleashing calamities and cataclysms, but He has willed to do it differently with the Muslims 47:4, giving them the opportunity to increase in obedience to Him with this ultimate test of selflesness. God desired to achieve the same purpose in the times of Moses and the prophets after him, through whom He was fighting the enemy

Joshua10:14,42,23:3,10,1Sam17:47,2Sam23:9-12,Deut2:31-33,Ezek25:14,Ex12:12-23,Isa45:1,Zech14:3,Neh4:14,,Ps89:24,Ps18:35-48"The God Who grants me vengeance and destroys peoples instead of me".

The Psalmist refers to the Israelites' conquest of Canaan with these words

Ps44:4"For not by their sword did they inherit the land, neither did their arm save them, but Your right hand and Your arm and the light of Your countenance, for You favored them".

The HB speaks of the same phenomenon through non-Jewish nations namely the Persians ruled by Cyrus Jer51:20-24 or the Babylonians incited to destroy the Egyptians and were thus doing God's "smiting" concretely Ezek32:11-15, or through pagan nations raised to destroy the Jews themselves through whom YHWH was acting Ezek5:17,6:3,38:1-4,Amos6:11-14,9:1-4etc.

Islam critiqued defends the Jewish nation; YHWH the destroyer of His people?

In answer to the video "Muhammad in John 16:2"

When Jesus supposedly said that a time will come where those killing Jews will think they are doing God's work, did he known that in the HB, doing God's work doesnt preclude killing in general, and more specifically killing Jews? Firstly, at the hands of the pagan nations whom YHWH himself instigated against his "chosen race". These powerful enemies of theirs through whom God was acting to punish and destroy the Israelites, desecrate their most sacred places are referred to by God in both the Quran and the Hebrew Bible as "My servants" Jer25:9,27:6,32:3,Lam1:13,15,2:1-10etc because they were performing God's will, under His complete control, and are thus rewarded for it Ezek29:19-20.

It is also in a sense a reproof to the Jews who, despite their transgressions, still considered themselves God's chosen, His prefered and exalted servants. Yet here God calls pagan nations His servants instead of them. He summons, not His chosen race, but His pagan servants to perform His justice and inflict His punishements on those very people claiming to be God's servants. This happened a few times, where people were killing Jews and were certainly doing God's work. But for the vast majority of their history, Jews were murdered by God-loving Christians who thought they were doing God's work. For over 2000 years Jews have been subjected to humiliating abasement, mass expulsions, rounding up, forced conversions, false accusations and calumnies, extortions and indiscriminate mass killings.

Bible loving Christians were after "Christ-killers" who got what they deserved. What is even more disturbing is that this type of behavior was viewed as theologically and eschatologically justified and positive, in the sense that Christians were being "loving" and "charitable" by inciting Jews to be healed from their cursed and harmful faith. Here is a timeline of Jewish persecution https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/historyjewishpersecution/.

As a side note Jewish "persecution" began since before any Temple was standing, such as in ancient Egypt. Contrary to what this youtuber is clumsily trying to portray, 99% of such persecution as well as the killings from that time till now comes from non-Muslims.

But what is most important to note is the Jewish persecution and genocides of other people, through divinely ordained commands still applicable and compulsory to this day, as well as the persecution and killing of Jews by Jews throughout their biblical history.

As to recent times, the Arab nations had no "Jewish problem". They've been living side by side with them for centuries, even helped them escape the Nazis, especially in North Africa. Its not German antisemitic propaganda that turned the tide, causing Nazis and Arabs to ally, rather the shared hatred of the colonizers (British, French or Italian) and opposition to fascism and communism. It is known that the Arab elites did not endorse Nazism either, just as Hitler despised the Arabs. The Mufti of Jerusalem on the other hand had a "Jewish problem" (the massive influx of Jews into Palestine in the late 30s), combined with hatred of the British who opposed their nationalism. When Jews were targeted by Arabs in Arab lands, it was to prevent their emigration to Palestine, by sympathizers of the Mufti. There were no genocidal attacks/pogroms except for the event of Baghdad in '41, again in the backdrop of the politics of the time, blaming the Jews for the British invasion (they were seen as allies in relation to Palestine). But the scale of victims and damage to property is widely disputed, and some Iraqis risked their lives to hide Jewish neighbours. Although the authorities did not immidiately intervene, they eventually conducted an investigation, even executed army officers. Sure, life for a Jew in Arab lands was sometimes far from perfect, just like Muslim life is far from perfect in Israel (killings, destruction of land and property etc). But how many antisemitic incidents throughout ancient history until the 20th century came from Muslims, and were actually ordered by the authorities (as is done today in Israel)? Compare it to the scale of antimuslim attacks in Israel's short history.

Islam critiqued finds compromising clue; 2:187 elaborating on previous revelation?

In answer to the video "Allah's Confusing Ayah"

This verse touches upon the issue of piecemeal revelation. One of the aspects of that process was to guide the nascent Islamic movement in all its stages to suit its requirements on different occasions. It did so for example by elaborating on certain previous concise statements, either by a longer revelation in a different place or by addition of relevant information within the same previously revealed verse. We have classical examples reported in the hadith books, like 2:187 and 4:95 where the scribe present, who was being dictated the concise then more elaborate revelation, describes how the event occured supernaturally. It is a Quranic principle that one should not ask about things that if answered would render a simple directive complicated. But one may ask while revelation is descending and will be answered 5:101 as documented regarding ibn Um Maktum's concern upon hearing verse 4:95. The difference between the 2 attitudes is that of sincerity. The first one hears a directive, reflects on it and comes back after a while with conjecture, as if he is trying to avoid it. On the other hand the one expressing a concern directly when hearing a command does so out of genuine concern for a condition preventing him from immediately implementing the directive. 

The gradual revelation, progressive elaboration also gives the audience the feeling that it is being closely followed, listened to, attended to and corrected by its Sustainer, answering relevant questions of law or theology, questions by the believers or disbelievers alike, providing strong argument in favor of the truths it propounds or to counter false notions

25:32"And they do not bring to you an example except that We brought to you the truth and best of explanation".

Again this is not a strange phenomenon in the prophetic history, especially when it comes to the issue of further elaboration/explanation of a previous concise statement or ruling. See Jn3 for example. For a very detailed explanation of what piecemeal revelation consists of, this youtuber and others can go back to a previous video.