Overview (Verse 29)

A Fight Until Submission

Fight against those who — despite having been given Scriptures — do not truly believe in God and the Last Day, and do not treat as forbidden that which God and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth, till they [agree to] pay the submission tax with a willing hand, after they have been humbled. (Verse 29)

This verse and the ones that follow were meant to prepare the Muslims for their expedition to Tabūk and the confrontation with the Byzantines and their puppet regime of Christian Arabs, known as the Ghassānīd. This suggests that the descriptions we have here were true of the people on the other side of the confrontation. They simply show the reality of those people. These descriptions are not mentioned here as conditions for fighting the people of earlier revelations, but as qualities inherent in their distorted beliefs and the actual reality of those people. Hence they provide the justification for fighting them. The ruling also applies to all those who share the same beliefs and characteristics.

This verse specifies three such characteristics.

(1) They do not believe in God and the Last Day;

(2) they do not treat as forbidden what God has forbidden; and

(3) they do not believe in the religion of truth. The verses that follow show how these characteristics apply to them.

Firstly, the Jews claim that Ezra is the son of God, and the Christians assert that Christ is His son. These claims echo similar ones made by the pagans of former times. Hence, they are to be treated on the same basis as people who do not believe in God and the Last Day.

Secondly, they treat their rabbis and their monks, as well as Jesus Christ, as their Lords, in place of God. This is in total conflict with the principles of the faith of truth which is based on total submission to God alone, who has no partners. As they make such claims they demonstrate that they are idolaters who do not follow the true faith.

Thirdly, they try to put out the light of God’s guidance with their mouths. In other words, they are at war with the divine faith. No one is ever at war with the divine faith if he truly believes in God.

Fourthly, many of their monks and rabbis devour people’s property without any justification. They do so knowing that their claims to such property are false. Hence they do not treat as forbidden what God and His Messenger have made forbidden, whether we take this statement as referring to the Messenger sent to them or to the Prophet Muĥammad.

All these characteristics were true of the Christians in Syria and the Byzantines, as well as other Christians ever since Church Synods distorted the faith preached by Jesus Christ and claimed that he was the son of God and invented the concept of the Trinity, the conflict between the different sects and churches over the concept of Trinity notwithstanding.

What we have here then is a general order stating a universal rule that applies to all those among the people of earlier revelations who share the same characteristics as the Christians of Syria and Byzantium. This general application is not restricted by the exceptions the Prophet made with regard to how Muslims behave in war towards women, children, the elderly, or monks who stay in places of worship, on account of the fact that these are not fighters. Islam indeed does not allow attacks against such non-fighters whatever their religion may be.

These exceptions were not made by the Prophet because such groups did not launch an aggression, but rather because they do not normally launch any aggression at all. Therefore it is not right to try to interpret this exception as restricting the general order by saying that it applies only to aggressors, as done by those who adopt an apologetic attitude in trying to defend Islam. Aggression has been committed in the first place, against God’s Lordship of the universe and against human beings who are forced to submit to deities other than God. As Islam tries to defend God’s Lordship and human dignity, ignorance will try to stop it by aggression and war. This is the reality we have to realize.

This Qur’ānic verse commands the Muslims to fight against those among the people of earlier revelations who “do not believe in God and the Last Day.” A person who claims that Ezra or Jesus is the son of God cannot be described as a believer in God. The same applies to a person who says that the Christ is the Lord, or that God is one of a Trinity, or that He manifested Himself in Jesus. It further applies to all concepts formulated by the Synods, diverse as these concepts are.

Nor can we describe as believers in God and the Last Day those who say that they will suffer God’s punishment only for a few days no matter what sins they may commit because God loves them as His sons and daughters, or because they are God’s chosen people. The same applies to those who claim that all sins are forgiven through a holy communion with Jesus Christ, which is the only way to achieve forgiveness. Neither of these two groups can be described as believers in God or in the Last Day.

This verse also describes the people of earlier revelations as ones who do not treat as forbidden what God and His Messenger have made forbidden. Whether the term ‘His Messenger’ refers to the Messenger whom God sent to them in particular or to the Prophet Muĥammad, the import is the same. The following verses explain this by saying that they devour other people’s property by false claims, an action which has been forbidden in all divine messages and by all God’s messengers. Some of the clearest examples of this are usurious transactions, the sale of bonds of forgiveness by the Church, opposition to the divine faith with brutal force as well as trying to turn believers away from their faith. Another clear example is forcing people to submit to beings other than God, and forcing them to implement laws other than those revealed by God. All these examples are covered by the description: “who do not treat as forbidden what God and His Messenger have forbidden.” All this applies today to the people of earlier revelations as was applicable to them when this verse was revealed.

The Qur’ānic verse also describes them as not following `the religion of truth.’ This is clear from what we have already said. It is not part of the religion of truth to believe in the Lordship of anyone other than God, or to apply a law different from God’s law, or to accept legislation enacted by any authority other than God, or to submit to anyone other than Him. All these qualities are today true of the people of earlier revelations, as it was true of them then.

When Scriptures are Ignored

The condition which the Qur’ānic verse lays down for not fighting them is not that they should accept Islam. No. There is simply no compulsion in matters of faith, and no one is forced to accept Islam at any time. The condition is simply that they should pay the tribute, or the submission tax, with a willing hand and that they be utterly subdued. What is the purpose of this condition, and why is it the end at which all fighting must stop?

The answer is found in the fact that with such characteristics, the people of earlier revelations place themselves at war with the divine faith, both in belief and in practical terms. They are also at war with Islamic society because of the inherent conflict between the codes of living derived from the divine faith on the one hand and ignorance, or jāhiliyyah, on the other. As described in these verses, the people of earlier revelations belong to jāhiliyyah in both beliefs and practices. History also proves the nature of conflict, and the impossibility of coexistence between the two codes. The people of earlier revelations were determined in their opposition to the Islamic faith in the period preceding the revelation of this verse, and in the period following it, up to the present day.

As the only religion of truth that exists on earth today, Islam takes appropriate action to remove all physical and material obstacles that try to impede its efforts to liberate mankind from submission to anyone other than God. That submission is translated in following the religion of truth, provided that every human being is given free choice. There must be no pressure either from the religion itself or from those forces putting up the physical obstacles.

The practical way to ensure the removal of those physical obstacles while not forcing anyone to adopt Islam is to smash the power of those authorities based on false beliefs until they declare their submission and demonstrate this by paying the submission tax. When this happens, the process of liberating mankind is completed by giving every individual the freedom of choice based on conviction. Anyone who is not convinced may continue to follow his faith. However, he has to pay the submission tax to fulfil a number of objectives:

Firstly, by paying this tax, known as jizyah, he declares that he will not stand in physical opposition to the efforts advocating the true Divine faith. Secondly, he contributes to the defence expenses for himself, his property, honour and family. Islam guarantees such protection for those who pay the jizyah to place themselves under Islamic protection. To ensure this, Islam defends those under its protection against all internal and external enemies with its own soldiers. Thirdly, he contributes to the treasury of the Muslim state which guarantees a decent standard of living for all those who are unable to work, including those who pay the submission tax, without any distinction between them and those Muslims who pay zakāt. We do not here want to enter into polemics on who should pay the submission tax and who are exempt from it, and how much each one or each category should pay, and the methods of imposing this tax and its collection. The whole question is not under discussion today as it was at the time when Muslim scholars gave their different rulings on these matters on the basis of scholarly discretion, or ijtihād. So today this question is considered historic rather than practical. Nowadays Muslims do not engage in jihād, because there is practically no Muslim community in the real sense of the term. Indeed the issue to be discussed is that of the existence of Islam and Muslims.

As we have said on several occasions, Islam takes a very serious approach which refuses to enter into any discussion of hypothetical matters. It is simply against the nature of this approach to engage in academic discussion on matters that have no practical relevance, since there is no single Islamic society that conducts all its affairs in accordance with God’s law. Indeed Islam has little time for people who occupy themselves with issues that are far removed from the realities of the present day. Such people are given a funny Arabic nickname which means `the hypothesists’, because they are always putting forward hypotheses and trying to find answers to them.

The starting point today is the same as it was in the early days of Islam. There must be a group of people, living in a certain area, who believe in the religion of truth and declare that they believe in God’s oneness and in Muĥammad as God’s Messenger. They also believe that all sovereignty belongs to God, which means that He alone has the authority to legislate. They implement all this in their lives and move on to implement Islam’s general declaration to liberate mankind. Only when this happens will there be a chance to implement Islamic rules governing the relations between the Muslim community and other societies and communities. At that time it is possible to enter such discussions about the rules that are applicable to situations that the Muslim community face in practice.

We have only discussed this verse in principle because it relates to a question of faith and to the nature of the Islamic approach. We limit our discussion to this aspect, without entering into the legal differences out of respect for the Islamic approach which is always serious, practical and realistic.

A Claim Only Unbelievers Make

As we have seen, God issued His order to the Muslims to fight the people of earlier revelations, i.e. the Jews and the Christians, “till they pay the submission tax with a willing hand, after they have been humbled.” (Verse 29) When this order was given certain circumstances, discussed in the Prologue to this sūrah, affected the Muslim community in Madinah at that time. These circumstances required that this order should be reiterated and emphasized. Its reasons needed to be clarified. The uneasiness felt by some Muslims about its purpose required reassurance. To obey this order meant opposing the Byzantines in southern Syria. Before the advent of Islam, the Arabs held the Byzantines in awe, particularly because they held control over the north of Arabia for a long time. Some Arab tribes collaborated with them, and they had a puppet state where the Ghassān tribe assumed power.

This was not the first encounter the Muslims had with the Byzantines. With Islam, God gave the Arabs a sense of dignity which enabled them to stand up to both the Persians and the Byzantines. Formerly, all the bravery they demonstrated was in internal conflict and the looting raids they launched against one another, tribe against tribe. Yet there was still a lingering fear of the Byzantines, particularly among those who had not yet acquired the true Islamic attitude. Moreover, the last major encounter with the Byzantines had not gone in favour of the Muslims. In that battle, the Byzantines and their Arab stooges marshalled large forces which some reports put at no less than 200,000 men.

All these circumstances, whether relating to the structure of the Muslim community at the time, or to the old fear of the Byzantines, or to the expedition itself which was termed ‘the expedition of hardship,’ and also the feeling that the Byzantines and the Christian Arabs allied with them followed earlier Scriptures required further clarification and more categorical statements to show that the fight against them was inevitable. All doubts had to be removed and unease needed to be countered with reassurance by explaining the reasons for that inescapable eventuality.

In this verse, the Qur’ān makes it clear why those people of earlier revelations were following deviant beliefs which echoed those of the Arab idolaters, Roman idolaters of old as also other nations and communities. They had not maintained the right faith which was outlined in their Scriptures. Hence they could not be considered as followers of any divine message, since they held beliefs contrary to all messages revealed by God. What is worth noting is the mention of the Jews and their assertion that Ezra was the son of God when these verses are meant to prepare the Muslims for a confrontation with the Byzantines and their Arab Christian allies. Most probably there are two reasons for this: The first relates to the fact that these verses are given as a general statement, and the order to fight the people of earlier revelations until they pay the submission tax with a willing hand and are subdued is also of general import. In view of this it is necessary to outline the ideological basis of this general order that applies to both Christians and Jews.

The second reason is that the Jews had to be included in this order because they were in a position to put up obstacles to impede the Muslim expansion into southern Syria. They had moved from Madinah to areas close to Syria after a hard fight against the Muslims which had led to the evacuation of the tribes of Qaynuqā` and al- Nadīr.

The Christian claim that Jesus Christ is the son of God is well known. This has been their belief ever since Paul distorted the Christian faith. On the other hand, the claim by the Jews that Ezra was the son of God is not known today. What we find today in Jewish religious writings about Ezra is a description which shows him as a skilful scribe of the Torah and that he dedicated himself to the pursuit of knowledge of the Lord’s law. Nevertheless, the fact that the Qur’ān attributes to them this assertion that Ezra was the son of God is irrefutable evidence that at least some of them, particularly the Jews of Madinah, used to believe so and that this was commonly accepted among them. The Qur’ān faced the Jews and the Christians in an open and clear way. Had there been anything untrue in what it attributed to them, they would have found in it a valid argument to support their denial of the truth of the Prophet’s message.

The late Shaikh Rashīd Riđā’ gives a useful summary about Ezra’s position and status as viewed by the Jews and adds his own comments. It is useful to quote a few of these paragraphs here so that we have an insight into what the Jews believe.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia (1903 edition) mentions that Ezra marks the springtime in the national history of Judaism. “The flowers appear on the earth” refers to Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra was worthy of being the vehicle of the Law, had it not been already given through Moses. It was forgotten but Ezra restored it. But for its sins, Israel in the time of Ezra would have witnessed miracles as in the time of Joshua... Ezra re-established the text of the Pentateuch, introducing therein the Assyrian or square characters, apparently as a polemical measure against the Samaritans. He showed his doubts concerning the correctness of some words of the text by placing points over them... the beginnings of the Jewish calendar are traced back to him.

In the Dictionary of the Bible, Dr George Box says that Ezra was a Jewish priest, a famous scribe who lived for a time in Babylon in the reign of Artaxerxes, of the long hands. In the seventh year of his reign he permitted Ezra to take a large number of the Jewish people to Jerusalem around 457 BC. (Ezra p. 7) The journey took them four months...

In Jewish tradition, Ezra’s position is comparable to that of Moses and Iliya. It is said that he founded the large assembly, collected the books of the Holy Book, introduced the Chaldean alphabet in place of the old Hebrew alphabet, and wrote the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah of the Old Testament. The book of Ezra (pp. 4: 8, 6: 19 and 7: 1-27) is written in the Chaldean language because when the people returned from exile, they could understand Chaldean better than Hebrew.’

It is widely known to historians, including Jews and Christians, that the Torah which Moses wrote and kept in or near the casket was lost before the time of Solomon. When the casket was opened during his reign, there was nothing in it other than the two tablets containing the ten commandments,25 as seen in the first book of Kings. It was Ezra who, after the end of slavery, wrote the Torah and other things in Chaldean letters, and the Chaldean language mixed with whatever was left of the old Hebrew, which the Jews had largely forgotten. The people of earlier revelations maintain that Ezra wrote it as it originally was, having been inspired by God. But this is not accepted by other communities. Many objections are raised which we find at the appropriate place in specialized books, even those authored by them, such as Dhakhīrat al-Albāb for Catholics, written originally in French. The author devotes Chapters 11 and 12 to objections to the view that the five books were those of Moses. Concerning this, he says: `It is mentioned in the book of Ezra (4: 14.21) that all holy books were burnt with fire at the time of Nebuchadnezzar, when he said: “The Law is burnt, and no one knoweth the works that thou hast done,26 or what thou art about to do.”27 It is added that with inspiration by the Holy Spirit, Ezra re-wrote the five books burnt with fire, and he was assisted by five contemporary scribes. Therefore, we see St Thertholianus, St Irinaous, St Ironemus, St John the Golden, St Basilius and others call Ezra `the one who revived Jewish holy books’28

Shaikh Rashīd Riđā’ further: This is sufficient for our purposes. We wish to make it clear that all the people of earlier revelations are indebted to Ezra with regard to the foundation of their faith and their holy books. We wish also to show that this foundation is feeble, relying on weak support. This has been clearly shown by European freethinking scholars.29 Under his entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica his writing of the law — confirmed in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah — is mentioned. Then the entry says that later reports claim that he did not merely re-write for them the law that had been burnt, but also all the Hebrew books which had been lost. He further re-wrote 70 unauthorized books. The writer of the entry comments that this legend about Ezra has been written by some historians of their own accord, relying on no other reference. Hence, modern writers consider it as mere fabrication.

To sum up, the Jews venerated and still venerate Ezra, to the extent that some of them call him the son of God. We do not know if using this description was a kind of honouring Ezra, in the same way as Israel, David and others were honoured, or it was akin to what their philosopher Philo later claimed. This latter claim is close to Indian philosophy, which is the origin of Christian beliefs.30 Qur’ānic commentators are in agreement that the claim attributed to the Jews about Ezra being the son of God was made by some Jews, not all of them.

The Jews who said this were some of those who lived in Madinah. It is the same as the Qur’ānic reference: “The Jews say: ‘God’s hand is shackled!’ It is their own hands that are shackled. Rejected [by God] are they for what they say. Indeed, both His hands are outstretched. He bestows [His bounty] as He wills.” (5:64) The same applies to others whom the Qur’ān mentions in the following verse: “God has certainly heard the words of those who said: ‘God is poor, and we are rich.— (3:181) These people uttered this mouthful in reply to God’s invitation: “Who is it that will offer up to God a goodly loan, which He will amply repay?” (57:11) It may be that some earlier ones said the same thing, but it was not reported to us.

Ibn Isĥāq and others report: “Sallām ibn Mishkam, Nu`mān ibn Awfā, Abū Anas, Shās ibn Qays and Mālik ibn al-Sayf said to the Prophet: `How can we follow you when you have abandoned our qiblah [i.e. the direction faced in prayer] and you do not accept that Ezra was the son of God.”

It is well known that some Christians who claimed that Jesus was the son of God were originally Jews. Philo, a Jewish philosopher from Alexandria who was a contemporary of Jesus, says that God has a son who is His word with which He creates all things. Hence, it is perfectly possible that some Jews claimed prior to the advent of Islam that Ezra was the son of God.

By quoting this Jewish assertion in this context the Qur’ān makes clear that some of the people of earlier revelations held such distorted beliefs as could not fit with their being believers in God or their following the religion of truth. These are the main characteristics which form the basis for the ruling given to the Muslims to fight them. The purpose of such a fight is not to compel them to be Muslims, but to subdue them so that they do not stand in opposition to Islam and so that they accept its authority. Thus individuals would be free of all influences restricting their freedom to make a choice to believe in God and follow His message.

As we have said, the Christian assertion about Jesus being the son of God is very widely known. Indeed all Christian churches have been making this assertion ever since Paul distorted the message of Jesus Christ which, like all divine messages, was based on God’s oneness. The Church Synods carried the distortion further and practically killed the concept of God’s oneness.

For a summary of Christians’ beliefs we will similarly quote from Shaikh Muĥammad Rashīd Riđā’s commentary on the Qur’ān, Al-Manār. Under the heading ‘Trinity’, we read: The Trinity is a term used by Christians to refer to three manifestations of God. These are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is part of the teachings of the Catholic and Eastern Churches, as well as almost all Protestants. Those who adhere to this concept allege that it is absolutely in line with the Holy Bible. Scholars of Divinity have written extensively in interpreting and explaining this concept, based on the teachings of the old Synods and the writings of the former fathers of the Church. Much of their writings discuss the way the second manifestation was born and how the third manifestation came about, and the relationships of the three manifestations, their distinctive qualities, names and titles. The term, `Trinity’, is not used in the Bible. No verse of the Old Testament specifically mentions the Trinity. Yet old Christian writers cite many verses that refer to a collective presence of God. The point here is that if these verses admit more than one interpretation, they cannot be cited as clear evidence in support of the concept of the Trinity. They are used as reference to clear revelations they believe to be included in the New Testament. Two large sets of verses from the New Testament are quoted in support of this concept. The first set consists of verses that mention the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together, and the second mentions them separately, emphasizing some of their attributes and the relationship between them.

Dispute about the three persons of the Trinity started at the time of the Apostles. Most probably it emanated from the ideas of Hellenic philosophers. Theophilus, the second century Bishop of Antioch, used the Greek word trinus, while subsequently Tertiliyanus was the first to use its synonym trinitas, which means three. Much dispute about this concept took place prior to the Council of Nicea, particularly in the East. The Church branded many views as heretic. Among these were the views of the Abionians who believed that Christ was no more than a human being, the Sabilians who believed that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were three different manifestations by which God shows Himself to people, the Airisis who believed that the Son was not ever present like the Father; rather, the Father created the Son before creating the universe. Hence, the Son has a lower status and is subject to the Father’s will, and the Macedonians deny that the Holy Spirit is a person of God.

The Church concept was approved by the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, and the Constantinople Synod in 381. Both ruled that the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal to the Father in the Trinity, and while the Son was born through the father before the start of time, the Holy Spirit emanated from Him. The Toledo Synod of 589 CE also ruled that the Holy Spirit emanated from the Father. The Latin Church unanimously accepted this addition and held on to it. As for the Greek Church, it showed little resistance at the beginning, but later gave its argument against changing the law, considering that as heresy.

The phrase ‘And also from the Son’ continues to be a barrier preventing the unity between the Greek and Catholic Churches. The writings of the followers of Martin Luther and the Reformist churches adopt the same concept of the Trinity as the Catholic Church. However, beginning with the thirteenth century, a large number of divinity specialists have opposed this, as also some new groups such as the Susinians, Germans, Unitarians and the Universalists, who all consider that concept contrary to the Holy Bible and to reason. Suweid Tiragh makes the Trinity the Christ given a tri-mark. He speaks of one in three, not three in one. What he understands is that the divine in Christ is the Father, while the divine which is in union with the human in Christ is the Son, and the divine that emanated from Him is the Holy Spirit. The influence of the rationalists on the Protestant and Reformist churches weakened the Trinity concepts among many German divines.

Kant considers that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit signify three essential attributes of God, which are power, wisdom and love, or three main activities, which are creation, protection and control. Both Higgins and Shling tried to establish an abstract basis to the concept of the Trinity, and they were followed by later German divines who tried to defend the concept on abstract lines. Some divines who rely on the Scriptures do not strictly follow the Church line as stated by the Nicea and Constantinople Councils. In later years many tried to defend the views of the Sabilians in particular.

Indeed, no longer do any Christian churches believe in the religion of truth based on God’s oneness; nor do they accept that nothing and no one is similar to Him in any way, or that He does not beget anyone; limitless indeed is He in His glory.

It is often mentioned that some groups of Christians, particularly those referred to in Islamic literature as the Arīsīs, believed in God’s oneness. To say this is inaccurate. This group is not unitarian in the sense we find in the divine faith. Their concepts are rather confused. While they state that, unlike God, Jesus Christ is not eternal — which is true — they also claim that he is the Son, and that he has been created by the Father before the universe. All this has nothing to do with the proper concept of God’s oneness.

Indeed a clear verdict has been given by God that those who say that Christ is the son of God, or say that Christ is God, or say that God is one of a Trinity are unbelievers. The same faith cannot lead to belief and unbelief at the same time. No one can simultaneously be a believer and an unbeliever.

Overview (Verse 29)

A Fight Until Submission

Fight against those who — despite having been given Scriptures — do not truly believe in God and the Last Day, and do not treat as forbidden that which God and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth, till they [agree to] pay the submission tax with a willing hand, after they have been humbled. (Verse 29)

This verse and the ones that follow were meant to prepare the Muslims for their expedition to Tabūk and the confrontation with the Byzantines and their puppet regime of Christian Arabs, known as the Ghassānīd. This suggests that the descriptions we have here were true of the people on the other side of the confrontation. They simply show the reality of those people. These descriptions are not mentioned here as conditions for fighting the people of earlier revelations, but as qualities inherent in their distorted beliefs and the actual reality of those people. Hence they provide the justification for fighting them. The ruling also applies to all those who share the same beliefs and characteristics.

This verse specifies three such characteristics.

(1) They do not believe in God and the Last Day;

(2) they do not treat as forbidden what God has forbidden; and

(3) they do not believe in the religion of truth. The verses that follow show how these characteristics apply to them.

Firstly, the Jews claim that Ezra is the son of God, and the Christians assert that Christ is His son. These claims echo similar ones made by the pagans of former times. Hence, they are to be treated on the same basis as people who do not believe in God and the Last Day.

Secondly, they treat their rabbis and their monks, as well as Jesus Christ, as their Lords, in place of God. This is in total conflict with the principles of the faith of truth which is based on total submission to God alone, who has no partners. As they make such claims they demonstrate that they are idolaters who do not follow the true faith.

Thirdly, they try to put out the light of God’s guidance with their mouths. In other words, they are at war with the divine faith. No one is ever at war with the divine faith if he truly believes in God.

Fourthly, many of their monks and rabbis devour people’s property without any justification. They do so knowing that their claims to such property are false. Hence they do not treat as forbidden what God and His Messenger have made forbidden, whether we take this statement as referring to the Messenger sent to them or to the Prophet Muĥammad.

All these characteristics were true of the Christians in Syria and the Byzantines, as well as other Christians ever since Church Synods distorted the faith preached by Jesus Christ and claimed that he was the son of God and invented the concept of the Trinity, the conflict between the different sects and churches over the concept of Trinity notwithstanding.

What we have here then is a general order stating a universal rule that applies to all those among the people of earlier revelations who share the same characteristics as the Christians of Syria and Byzantium. This general application is not restricted by the exceptions the Prophet made with regard to how Muslims behave in war towards women, children, the elderly, or monks who stay in places of worship, on account of the fact that these are not fighters. Islam indeed does not allow attacks against such non-fighters whatever their religion may be.

These exceptions were not made by the Prophet because such groups did not launch an aggression, but rather because they do not normally launch any aggression at all. Therefore it is not right to try to interpret this exception as restricting the general order by saying that it applies only to aggressors, as done by those who adopt an apologetic attitude in trying to defend Islam. Aggression has been committed in the first place, against God’s Lordship of the universe and against human beings who are forced to submit to deities other than God. As Islam tries to defend God’s Lordship and human dignity, ignorance will try to stop it by aggression and war. This is the reality we have to realize.

This Qur’ānic verse commands the Muslims to fight against those among the people of earlier revelations who “do not believe in God and the Last Day.” A person who claims that Ezra or Jesus is the son of God cannot be described as a believer in God. The same applies to a person who says that the Christ is the Lord, or that God is one of a Trinity, or that He manifested Himself in Jesus. It further applies to all concepts formulated by the Synods, diverse as these concepts are.

Nor can we describe as believers in God and the Last Day those who say that they will suffer God’s punishment only for a few days no matter what sins they may commit because God loves them as His sons and daughters, or because they are God’s chosen people. The same applies to those who claim that all sins are forgiven through a holy communion with Jesus Christ, which is the only way to achieve forgiveness. Neither of these two groups can be described as believers in God or in the Last Day.

This verse also describes the people of earlier revelations as ones who do not treat as forbidden what God and His Messenger have made forbidden. Whether the term ‘His Messenger’ refers to the Messenger whom God sent to them in particular or to the Prophet Muĥammad, the import is the same. The following verses explain this by saying that they devour other people’s property by false claims, an action which has been forbidden in all divine messages and by all God’s messengers. Some of the clearest examples of this are usurious transactions, the sale of bonds of forgiveness by the Church, opposition to the divine faith with brutal force as well as trying to turn believers away from their faith. Another clear example is forcing people to submit to beings other than God, and forcing them to implement laws other than those revealed by God. All these examples are covered by the description: “who do not treat as forbidden what God and His Messenger have forbidden.” All this applies today to the people of earlier revelations as was applicable to them when this verse was revealed.

The Qur’ānic verse also describes them as not following `the religion of truth.’ This is clear from what we have already said. It is not part of the religion of truth to believe in the Lordship of anyone other than God, or to apply a law different from God’s law, or to accept legislation enacted by any authority other than God, or to submit to anyone other than Him. All these qualities are today true of the people of earlier revelations, as it was true of them then.

When Scriptures are Ignored

The condition which the Qur’ānic verse lays down for not fighting them is not that they should accept Islam. No. There is simply no compulsion in matters of faith, and no one is forced to accept Islam at any time. The condition is simply that they should pay the tribute, or the submission tax, with a willing hand and that they be utterly subdued. What is the purpose of this condition, and why is it the end at which all fighting must stop?

The answer is found in the fact that with such characteristics, the people of earlier revelations place themselves at war with the divine faith, both in belief and in practical terms. They are also at war with Islamic society because of the inherent conflict between the codes of living derived from the divine faith on the one hand and ignorance, or jāhiliyyah, on the other. As described in these verses, the people of earlier revelations belong to jāhiliyyah in both beliefs and practices. History also proves the nature of conflict, and the impossibility of coexistence between the two codes. The people of earlier revelations were determined in their opposition to the Islamic faith in the period preceding the revelation of this verse, and in the period following it, up to the present day.

As the only religion of truth that exists on earth today, Islam takes appropriate action to remove all physical and material obstacles that try to impede its efforts to liberate mankind from submission to anyone other than God. That submission is translated in following the religion of truth, provided that every human being is given free choice. There must be no pressure either from the religion itself or from those forces putting up the physical obstacles.

The practical way to ensure the removal of those physical obstacles while not forcing anyone to adopt Islam is to smash the power of those authorities based on false beliefs until they declare their submission and demonstrate this by paying the submission tax. When this happens, the process of liberating mankind is completed by giving every individual the freedom of choice based on conviction. Anyone who is not convinced may continue to follow his faith. However, he has to pay the submission tax to fulfil a number of objectives:

Firstly, by paying this tax, known as jizyah, he declares that he will not stand in physical opposition to the efforts advocating the true Divine faith. Secondly, he contributes to the defence expenses for himself, his property, honour and family. Islam guarantees such protection for those who pay the jizyah to place themselves under Islamic protection. To ensure this, Islam defends those under its protection against all internal and external enemies with its own soldiers. Thirdly, he contributes to the treasury of the Muslim state which guarantees a decent standard of living for all those who are unable to work, including those who pay the submission tax, without any distinction between them and those Muslims who pay zakāt. We do not here want to enter into polemics on who should pay the submission tax and who are exempt from it, and how much each one or each category should pay, and the methods of imposing this tax and its collection. The whole question is not under discussion today as it was at the time when Muslim scholars gave their different rulings on these matters on the basis of scholarly discretion, or ijtihād. So today this question is considered historic rather than practical. Nowadays Muslims do not engage in jihād, because there is practically no Muslim community in the real sense of the term. Indeed the issue to be discussed is that of the existence of Islam and Muslims.

As we have said on several occasions, Islam takes a very serious approach which refuses to enter into any discussion of hypothetical matters. It is simply against the nature of this approach to engage in academic discussion on matters that have no practical relevance, since there is no single Islamic society that conducts all its affairs in accordance with God’s law. Indeed Islam has little time for people who occupy themselves with issues that are far removed from the realities of the present day. Such people are given a funny Arabic nickname which means `the hypothesists’, because they are always putting forward hypotheses and trying to find answers to them.

The starting point today is the same as it was in the early days of Islam. There must be a group of people, living in a certain area, who believe in the religion of truth and declare that they believe in God’s oneness and in Muĥammad as God’s Messenger. They also believe that all sovereignty belongs to God, which means that He alone has the authority to legislate. They implement all this in their lives and move on to implement Islam’s general declaration to liberate mankind. Only when this happens will there be a chance to implement Islamic rules governing the relations between the Muslim community and other societies and communities. At that time it is possible to enter such discussions about the rules that are applicable to situations that the Muslim community face in practice.

We have only discussed this verse in principle because it relates to a question of faith and to the nature of the Islamic approach. We limit our discussion to this aspect, without entering into the legal differences out of respect for the Islamic approach which is always serious, practical and realistic.

A Claim Only Unbelievers Make

As we have seen, God issued His order to the Muslims to fight the people of earlier revelations, i.e. the Jews and the Christians, “till they pay the submission tax with a willing hand, after they have been humbled.” (Verse 29) When this order was given certain circumstances, discussed in the Prologue to this sūrah, affected the Muslim community in Madinah at that time. These circumstances required that this order should be reiterated and emphasized. Its reasons needed to be clarified. The uneasiness felt by some Muslims about its purpose required reassurance. To obey this order meant opposing the Byzantines in southern Syria. Before the advent of Islam, the Arabs held the Byzantines in awe, particularly because they held control over the north of Arabia for a long time. Some Arab tribes collaborated with them, and they had a puppet state where the Ghassān tribe assumed power.

This was not the first encounter the Muslims had with the Byzantines. With Islam, God gave the Arabs a sense of dignity which enabled them to stand up to both the Persians and the Byzantines. Formerly, all the bravery they demonstrated was in internal conflict and the looting raids they launched against one another, tribe against tribe. Yet there was still a lingering fear of the Byzantines, particularly among those who had not yet acquired the true Islamic attitude. Moreover, the last major encounter with the Byzantines had not gone in favour of the Muslims. In that battle, the Byzantines and their Arab stooges marshalled large forces which some reports put at no less than 200,000 men.

All these circumstances, whether relating to the structure of the Muslim community at the time, or to the old fear of the Byzantines, or to the expedition itself which was termed ‘the expedition of hardship,’ and also the feeling that the Byzantines and the Christian Arabs allied with them followed earlier Scriptures required further clarification and more categorical statements to show that the fight against them was inevitable. All doubts had to be removed and unease needed to be countered with reassurance by explaining the reasons for that inescapable eventuality.

In this verse, the Qur’ān makes it clear why those people of earlier revelations were following deviant beliefs which echoed those of the Arab idolaters, Roman idolaters of old as also other nations and communities. They had not maintained the right faith which was outlined in their Scriptures. Hence they could not be considered as followers of any divine message, since they held beliefs contrary to all messages revealed by God. What is worth noting is the mention of the Jews and their assertion that Ezra was the son of God when these verses are meant to prepare the Muslims for a confrontation with the Byzantines and their Arab Christian allies. Most probably there are two reasons for this: The first relates to the fact that these verses are given as a general statement, and the order to fight the people of earlier revelations until they pay the submission tax with a willing hand and are subdued is also of general import. In view of this it is necessary to outline the ideological basis of this general order that applies to both Christians and Jews.

The second reason is that the Jews had to be included in this order because they were in a position to put up obstacles to impede the Muslim expansion into southern Syria. They had moved from Madinah to areas close to Syria after a hard fight against the Muslims which had led to the evacuation of the tribes of Qaynuqā` and al- Nadīr.

The Christian claim that Jesus Christ is the son of God is well known. This has been their belief ever since Paul distorted the Christian faith. On the other hand, the claim by the Jews that Ezra was the son of God is not known today. What we find today in Jewish religious writings about Ezra is a description which shows him as a skilful scribe of the Torah and that he dedicated himself to the pursuit of knowledge of the Lord’s law. Nevertheless, the fact that the Qur’ān attributes to them this assertion that Ezra was the son of God is irrefutable evidence that at least some of them, particularly the Jews of Madinah, used to believe so and that this was commonly accepted among them. The Qur’ān faced the Jews and the Christians in an open and clear way. Had there been anything untrue in what it attributed to them, they would have found in it a valid argument to support their denial of the truth of the Prophet’s message.

The late Shaikh Rashīd Riđā’ gives a useful summary about Ezra’s position and status as viewed by the Jews and adds his own comments. It is useful to quote a few of these paragraphs here so that we have an insight into what the Jews believe.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia (1903 edition) mentions that Ezra marks the springtime in the national history of Judaism. “The flowers appear on the earth” refers to Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra was worthy of being the vehicle of the Law, had it not been already given through Moses. It was forgotten but Ezra restored it. But for its sins, Israel in the time of Ezra would have witnessed miracles as in the time of Joshua... Ezra re-established the text of the Pentateuch, introducing therein the Assyrian or square characters, apparently as a polemical measure against the Samaritans. He showed his doubts concerning the correctness of some words of the text by placing points over them... the beginnings of the Jewish calendar are traced back to him.

In the Dictionary of the Bible, Dr George Box says that Ezra was a Jewish priest, a famous scribe who lived for a time in Babylon in the reign of Artaxerxes, of the long hands. In the seventh year of his reign he permitted Ezra to take a large number of the Jewish people to Jerusalem around 457 BC. (Ezra p. 7) The journey took them four months...

In Jewish tradition, Ezra’s position is comparable to that of Moses and Iliya. It is said that he founded the large assembly, collected the books of the Holy Book, introduced the Chaldean alphabet in place of the old Hebrew alphabet, and wrote the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah of the Old Testament. The book of Ezra (pp. 4: 8, 6: 19 and 7: 1-27) is written in the Chaldean language because when the people returned from exile, they could understand Chaldean better than Hebrew.’

It is widely known to historians, including Jews and Christians, that the Torah which Moses wrote and kept in or near the casket was lost before the time of Solomon. When the casket was opened during his reign, there was nothing in it other than the two tablets containing the ten commandments,25 as seen in the first book of Kings. It was Ezra who, after the end of slavery, wrote the Torah and other things in Chaldean letters, and the Chaldean language mixed with whatever was left of the old Hebrew, which the Jews had largely forgotten. The people of earlier revelations maintain that Ezra wrote it as it originally was, having been inspired by God. But this is not accepted by other communities. Many objections are raised which we find at the appropriate place in specialized books, even those authored by them, such as Dhakhīrat al-Albāb for Catholics, written originally in French. The author devotes Chapters 11 and 12 to objections to the view that the five books were those of Moses. Concerning this, he says: `It is mentioned in the book of Ezra (4: 14.21) that all holy books were burnt with fire at the time of Nebuchadnezzar, when he said: “The Law is burnt, and no one knoweth the works that thou hast done,26 or what thou art about to do.”27 It is added that with inspiration by the Holy Spirit, Ezra re-wrote the five books burnt with fire, and he was assisted by five contemporary scribes. Therefore, we see St Thertholianus, St Irinaous, St Ironemus, St John the Golden, St Basilius and others call Ezra `the one who revived Jewish holy books’28

Shaikh Rashīd Riđā’ further: This is sufficient for our purposes. We wish to make it clear that all the people of earlier revelations are indebted to Ezra with regard to the foundation of their faith and their holy books. We wish also to show that this foundation is feeble, relying on weak support. This has been clearly shown by European freethinking scholars.29 Under his entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica his writing of the law — confirmed in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah — is mentioned. Then the entry says that later reports claim that he did not merely re-write for them the law that had been burnt, but also all the Hebrew books which had been lost. He further re-wrote 70 unauthorized books. The writer of the entry comments that this legend about Ezra has been written by some historians of their own accord, relying on no other reference. Hence, modern writers consider it as mere fabrication.

To sum up, the Jews venerated and still venerate Ezra, to the extent that some of them call him the son of God. We do not know if using this description was a kind of honouring Ezra, in the same way as Israel, David and others were honoured, or it was akin to what their philosopher Philo later claimed. This latter claim is close to Indian philosophy, which is the origin of Christian beliefs.30 Qur’ānic commentators are in agreement that the claim attributed to the Jews about Ezra being the son of God was made by some Jews, not all of them.

The Jews who said this were some of those who lived in Madinah. It is the same as the Qur’ānic reference: “The Jews say: ‘God’s hand is shackled!’ It is their own hands that are shackled. Rejected [by God] are they for what they say. Indeed, both His hands are outstretched. He bestows [His bounty] as He wills.” (5:64) The same applies to others whom the Qur’ān mentions in the following verse: “God has certainly heard the words of those who said: ‘God is poor, and we are rich.— (3:181) These people uttered this mouthful in reply to God’s invitation: “Who is it that will offer up to God a goodly loan, which He will amply repay?” (57:11) It may be that some earlier ones said the same thing, but it was not reported to us.

Ibn Isĥāq and others report: “Sallām ibn Mishkam, Nu`mān ibn Awfā, Abū Anas, Shās ibn Qays and Mālik ibn al-Sayf said to the Prophet: `How can we follow you when you have abandoned our qiblah [i.e. the direction faced in prayer] and you do not accept that Ezra was the son of God.”

It is well known that some Christians who claimed that Jesus was the son of God were originally Jews. Philo, a Jewish philosopher from Alexandria who was a contemporary of Jesus, says that God has a son who is His word with which He creates all things. Hence, it is perfectly possible that some Jews claimed prior to the advent of Islam that Ezra was the son of God.

By quoting this Jewish assertion in this context the Qur’ān makes clear that some of the people of earlier revelations held such distorted beliefs as could not fit with their being believers in God or their following the religion of truth. These are the main characteristics which form the basis for the ruling given to the Muslims to fight them. The purpose of such a fight is not to compel them to be Muslims, but to subdue them so that they do not stand in opposition to Islam and so that they accept its authority. Thus individuals would be free of all influences restricting their freedom to make a choice to believe in God and follow His message.

As we have said, the Christian assertion about Jesus being the son of God is very widely known. Indeed all Christian churches have been making this assertion ever since Paul distorted the message of Jesus Christ which, like all divine messages, was based on God’s oneness. The Church Synods carried the distortion further and practically killed the concept of God’s oneness.

For a summary of Christians’ beliefs we will similarly quote from Shaikh Muĥammad Rashīd Riđā’s commentary on the Qur’ān, Al-Manār. Under the heading ‘Trinity’, we read: The Trinity is a term used by Christians to refer to three manifestations of God. These are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is part of the teachings of the Catholic and Eastern Churches, as well as almost all Protestants. Those who adhere to this concept allege that it is absolutely in line with the Holy Bible. Scholars of Divinity have written extensively in interpreting and explaining this concept, based on the teachings of the old Synods and the writings of the former fathers of the Church. Much of their writings discuss the way the second manifestation was born and how the third manifestation came about, and the relationships of the three manifestations, their distinctive qualities, names and titles. The term, `Trinity’, is not used in the Bible. No verse of the Old Testament specifically mentions the Trinity. Yet old Christian writers cite many verses that refer to a collective presence of God. The point here is that if these verses admit more than one interpretation, they cannot be cited as clear evidence in support of the concept of the Trinity. They are used as reference to clear revelations they believe to be included in the New Testament. Two large sets of verses from the New Testament are quoted in support of this concept. The first set consists of verses that mention the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together, and the second mentions them separately, emphasizing some of their attributes and the relationship between them.

Dispute about the three persons of the Trinity started at the time of the Apostles. Most probably it emanated from the ideas of Hellenic philosophers. Theophilus, the second century Bishop of Antioch, used the Greek word trinus, while subsequently Tertiliyanus was the first to use its synonym trinitas, which means three. Much dispute about this concept took place prior to the Council of Nicea, particularly in the East. The Church branded many views as heretic. Among these were the views of the Abionians who believed that Christ was no more than a human being, the Sabilians who believed that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were three different manifestations by which God shows Himself to people, the Airisis who believed that the Son was not ever present like the Father; rather, the Father created the Son before creating the universe. Hence, the Son has a lower status and is subject to the Father’s will, and the Macedonians deny that the Holy Spirit is a person of God.

The Church concept was approved by the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, and the Constantinople Synod in 381. Both ruled that the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal to the Father in the Trinity, and while the Son was born through the father before the start of time, the Holy Spirit emanated from Him. The Toledo Synod of 589 CE also ruled that the Holy Spirit emanated from the Father. The Latin Church unanimously accepted this addition and held on to it. As for the Greek Church, it showed little resistance at the beginning, but later gave its argument against changing the law, considering that as heresy.

The phrase ‘And also from the Son’ continues to be a barrier preventing the unity between the Greek and Catholic Churches. The writings of the followers of Martin Luther and the Reformist churches adopt the same concept of the Trinity as the Catholic Church. However, beginning with the thirteenth century, a large number of divinity specialists have opposed this, as also some new groups such as the Susinians, Germans, Unitarians and the Universalists, who all consider that concept contrary to the Holy Bible and to reason. Suweid Tiragh makes the Trinity the Christ given a tri-mark. He speaks of one in three, not three in one. What he understands is that the divine in Christ is the Father, while the divine which is in union with the human in Christ is the Son, and the divine that emanated from Him is the Holy Spirit. The influence of the rationalists on the Protestant and Reformist churches weakened the Trinity concepts among many German divines.

Kant considers that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit signify three essential attributes of God, which are power, wisdom and love, or three main activities, which are creation, protection and control. Both Higgins and Shling tried to establish an abstract basis to the concept of the Trinity, and they were followed by later German divines who tried to defend the concept on abstract lines. Some divines who rely on the Scriptures do not strictly follow the Church line as stated by the Nicea and Constantinople Councils. In later years many tried to defend the views of the Sabilians in particular.

Indeed, no longer do any Christian churches believe in the religion of truth based on God’s oneness; nor do they accept that nothing and no one is similar to Him in any way, or that He does not beget anyone; limitless indeed is He in His glory.

It is often mentioned that some groups of Christians, particularly those referred to in Islamic literature as the Arīsīs, believed in God’s oneness. To say this is inaccurate. This group is not unitarian in the sense we find in the divine faith. Their concepts are rather confused. While they state that, unlike God, Jesus Christ is not eternal — which is true — they also claim that he is the Son, and that he has been created by the Father before the universe. All this has nothing to do with the proper concept of God’s oneness.

Indeed a clear verdict has been given by God that those who say that Christ is the son of God, or say that Christ is God, or say that God is one of a Trinity are unbelievers. The same faith cannot lead to belief and unbelief at the same time. No one can simultaneously be a believer and an unbeliever.