The 21st Century is not for Superpowers Shabir Choudhry, London. 20 Oct 2001

 The 21^st Century is not for Superpowers

Shabir Choudhry, London.       20 Oct 2001

 

America is known as the world’s only Superpower. There are many people, especially Muslims, who disagree with this title and claim that only the creator of this universe, Allah, is the Superpower. No earthly being, mortal in nature, could be bestowed this title of being a Superpower.

 

Dinosaurs ruled the earth for a long time, and it is up to us to decide whether to call them a superpower or a great power of the time; but when their time was up, they became extinct from the face of the earth. Apart from that, we have seen the rise and fall of great empires. Romans were the superpower of the time, and so were the Muslims and the British, just to mention a few, but with time, they all experienced a gradual decline.

 

With the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the 19^th century, a new balance of power emerged, especially after the French - German war of 1870s. There was no single power but several major powers which had alliances with each other, and that arrangement helped to maintain the balance of power and rule the world until the First World War. At that time, America did not have a big say in world affairs because of a policy of 'isolation', and also, America needed considerable time to recover from a disastrous Civil War. Among the major powers were Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Russia, although Russia's image of being a major power suffered a serious blow when the Japanese defeated them in a war in 1904.

 

The balance of power dramatically changed after the First World War, with America emerging as one of the few major powers with considerable say in world affairs. But still, at that time, there was no concept of a Superpower. It was the Second World War and its outcome that resulted in the emergence of two superpowers, and the world was divided into two major camps, even though some countries were considered as 'non-aligned'.

 

It is a law of nature that what goes up comes down, and nothing is eternal; the only thing permanent is the process of change. The Soviet Union saw its peak and had to experience decline and fragmentation, and America could not be an exception to the law of nature. America has seen its peak and earned the title of being the most powerful nation on earth - a 'Superpower' that could not be defeated.

 

After attaining the highest position - a peak - then there is nothing else to be achieved. After that, one could only endeavour to maintain that position as long as it is possible, but the law of nature gradually gets into a motion and then begins a journey in the opposite direction. Still, America is the strongest country in the world, but its image of being a 'Superpower' has already seen some cracks. One only has to look at America's departure from Somalia. America has the best military hardware and the biggest military machine, and they can afford to spend more than anyone else on defence, but what they can't afford is to lose American lives. Soon after, some American military personnel were killed in Somalia, and under pressure, the government decided to withdraw from there.

 

Despite that retreat, America decided to lead from the front, and with the help of NATO, managed to maintain its status of being a superpower be it Bosnia, Kosovo or East Timor. Of course, there was some tacit understanding with Russia - we look this way when you deal with Chechnya, and you do the same when it is our turn, wherever that may be. An American Professor, Daniel C. Maguire at Marquette University, in an article titled, 'America: A Superpower No More' wrote:

'When I boarded the Midwest Express plane to Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, at 8:00 am (Central Time), I had no idea that the definition of power on planet earth would be rewritten within the hour. I read the paper, enjoyed a nice breakfast, and felt quite secure. Why not? I was a citizen of the "world's last remaining superpower." 

 

This "superpower" was pouring into its "defence" budget some thirty million dollars an hour, nine thousand dollars a second to keep me safe. As we neared Washington, the pilot announced that the Washington airport was closed and we would be heading back to Milwaukee. Within minutes, he reported that the airport in Milwaukee was also closed, and we were to land at the closest airport, Columbus, Ohio.  Cell phones and television at the Columbus airport told us the news that our
Superpower status was a myth. In a superpower, the president would not have to hide out in Louisiana and Nebraska because of "credible evidence" that he could not return to the Capital; the congress would not be running from the Capitol Building; schools and businesses throughout a superpower could not be forced shut; I would not suddenly be looking up into a sky where no airplane could dare fly. These were the facts of this new world order. The Defence Department could not defend us-or its main temple, the Pentagon - from hatred and a mode of power that we had never before known.  It was not Pearl Harbour revisited. The bombers had left no return address. The instinct to retaliate with bombing is an anachronism. Fewer than twenty men had brought us to our national knees and raised the biggest question facing us in the twenty-first century, posed by a little girl and reported in the press:
"Why are they killing themselves and killing all those people?" '

 

This long quotation says a lot. It is clear that many Americans also believe that America is no longer a superpower and an invulnerable country. It was one thing for America to wage wars against other nations far away from its shores, but it is a completely different ball game when flames start reaching the American soil, and when, with only one strike, America's pride of being impregnable is buried under the rubble of the Pentagon.

 

This indeed hurt America. It shook the world and especially the American people. Like millions of other people, I was also shocked as so many innocent people lost their lives, but the thought of what the 'superpower' might do to restore its tarnished reputation sent shivers up my spine.

Those responsible for the tragic events of the 11^th September must be punished, but before that, their guilt has to be proved. Even if Osama Bin Laden is responsible for these events, a way could have been found to resolve the issue, as it was done with the accused of the Lockerbie incident. America and Britain waited for many years before Libyan leader Col. Gaddafi finally agreed to hand over those accused, which even included his own brother.

 

Many commentators think this time the agenda was completely different, and there was no time to wait. Whoever is the culprit of the incidents of 11^th September has provided America and Britain with an excuse to strike at Afghanistan. They had no time to establish guilt, nor did they care about it. The aim was obvious - destroy the Taliban government and with it, Osama Bin Laden's network; and replace it with a 'friendly regime' there.

 

This 'victory', on one hand, will restore America's image, and on the other hand, secure a route to energy reserves of Central Asia- a much bigger prize. Many think they wanted to have access and control of the oil and gas route from Central Asian countries. It is believed that these oil and gas reserves are much larger than those of the Middle East.

 

When the Americans and the British took their positions against one of the poorest countries in the world, many thought that with this military might, it would be a matter of days before the Taliban government, with very meagre resources, would collapse. Some even predicted that after a few days of hammering, Afghans would hand over Osama Bin Laden to the Americans.

 

All that has proved completely wrong. The bombing campaign has entered its fourth week. Every possible weapon from the air has been tried and 'tested'. Even a taste of a ground fight is also experienced. Despite claims that it was successful, ten days after the first ground encounter, there hasn't been another ground fight. This suggests that the first experience was not so good; otherwise, there would have been more ground fights to 'root out the Taliban government'. It also suggests that despite all the claims, the Taliban are still strong on the ground (the Taliban never claimed to fight in the air), and their performances against the Northern Alliance also prove that.

 

Isn't that another blow to America's image and prestige?  A 'superpower', with the help of so many others, fights an impoverished country for so long, and the expected victory is not in sight yet. No doubt they have successfully destroyed already destroyed the country with more than 1000 civilian casualties; successfully destroyed houses and some military installations, not to mention UN food stores. How many Taliban military personnel and what military hardware were destroyed is not yet known, but their performance indicates that they still have considerable left over to fight.

 

The Americans and the British will win this battle of overthrowing the Taliban government, but it is difficult to predict the outcome of this war, as it will continue even after the fall of the Taliban government. The war, in my view, perhaps after a lull, will escalate and lead to a wider conflict with unimaginable destruction. This war will surely lead to some geographical changes with new alignment and a new balance of power. In this new world, like in the Nineteenth Century, there would be no place for superpowers. The pendulum will swing again, and new 'major powers' will emerge to hold the balance of power, as it was before the First World War.

 

The author is the Director of the Institute of Kashmir Affairs, London

Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Āyat al Kursī Divine Sovereignty Knowledge and Absolute Authority, Holy Quran, 2:255 Dr Shabir Choudhry, London. An Analytical and Spiritual Study

 Āyat al Kursī Divine Sovereignty Knowledge and Absolute Authority

Holy Quran, 2:255

Dr Shabir Choudhry, London. An Analytical and Spiritual Study

Text in English

‘Allah! There is no god worthy of worship except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining. Neither drowsiness nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who could intercede with Him without His permission? He fully knows what is ahead of them and what is behind them, but no one can grasp any of His knowledge except what He wills to reveal. His Seat (Kursī) encompasses the heavens and the earth, and preserving them does not tire Him, for He is the Highest, the Greatest.’

According to Islamic tradition, this verse is regarded as the greatest in the Qur’an for its comprehensive description of Allah’s attributes.

Analytical and Spiritual Commentary

1. Absolute Monotheism (Tawḥīd)

The verse begins with a decisive affirmation of pure monotheism: Allah alone is worthy of worship. This statement establishes the theological foundation of Islam — rejecting all forms of association, intermediaries, or shared divinity.

The declaration emphasises that divinity is not merely a title, but an exclusive reality grounded in God’s absolute perfection and independence.

2. The Ever-Living and Sustainer of All (Al-Ḥayy, Al-Qayyūm)

Allah is described as:

• Al-Ḥayy (The Ever-Living) — His existence is eternal, without beginning or end.

• Al-Qayyūm (The Self-Subsisting Sustainer) — He maintains and sustains all existence.

Everything depends upon Him, while He depends upon nothing.

This establishes a clear distinction between Creator and creation: all created beings are contingent and finite, whereas Allah alone possesses necessary existence.

3. Divine Perfection — Beyond Human Limitation

“Neither drowsiness nor sleep overtakes Him” symbolises absolute vigilance and perfect awareness.

Human beings require rest because of limitation and fatigue. Allah’s knowledge and power never diminish.

Spiritually, this reassures believers that divine care is constant and uninterrupted.

4. Universal Sovereignty

“To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth”

Ownership here implies authority, governance, and ultimate accountability.

Everything in existence operates within divine order — natural laws, moral consequences, and spiritual realities.

Nothing exists outside His domain.

5. Conditional Intercession

“Who can intercede except with His permission?”

This challenges the belief that saints, idols, or other beings possess independent power to influence divine judgment.

Intercession exists only within divine will, emphasising God’s ultimate authority.

It reinforces personal responsibility and the direct connection between human beings and their Creator.

6. Perfect Knowledge — Past, Present, and Future

Allah’s knowledge encompasses all dimensions of time and existence.

Human knowledge is limited and partial, while divine knowledge is complete and absolute.

“No one can grasp His knowledge except what He wills”

This encourages humility in intellectual pursuits and reminds believers that human understanding is always incomplete.

7. The Kursī — Symbol of Authority

“Kursī” (Seat or Throne) symbolises divine authority and sovereignty over the universe.

Classical scholars interpret it as representing the vastness of divine dominion beyond human comprehension.

The phrase “preserving them does not tire Him” emphasises effortless divine control over cosmic order.

8. Transcendence and Majesty

“The Most High, the Greatest”

These attributes highlight divine transcendence — Allah is beyond comparison, limitation, or dependency.

Recognition of divine greatness cultivates humility, moral awareness, and spiritual consciousness.

Comparative Reflections (Classical & Modern Scholars)

Ibn Kathīr: Describes Āyat al-Kursī as the most exalted verse due to its comprehensive presentation of divine attributes.

Al-Ṭabarī: Emphasises that the verse establishes both theological clarity and spiritual reassurance.

Al-Rāzī: Notes the philosophical depth of the verse in explaining the relationship between divine knowledge and human limitation.

Modern scholars interpret the verse as a synthesis of theology, metaphysics, and spirituality — presenting a coherent worldview where divine knowledge, power, and mercy govern existence.

Sufi interpretations emphasise inner surrender to divine will and constant remembrance (dhikr), seeing the verse as a source of spiritual protection and tranquillity.

Theological and Ethical Implications

1. God-Consciousness (Taqwā)

Awareness that Allah continuously observes creation encourages ethical conduct and moral responsibility.

2. Intellectual Humility

Human knowledge is limited; recognition of divine omniscience promotes openness and reflection.

3. Spiritual Security

Believers find reassurance that the universe is not chaotic but sustained by divine wisdom.

4. Moral Accountability

Since Allah possesses ultimate authority, human beings are responsible for their choices and actions.

Relevance to the Contemporary World

1. Stability in an Uncertain World

The verse provides psychological comfort by affirming that ultimate control lies with a just and wise Creator.

2. Ethical Framework

Recognition of divine oversight discourages injustice, exploitation, and moral corruption.

3. Intellectual Balance

Encourages the pursuit of knowledge while acknowledging the limits of human reason.

4. Spiritual Protection

Many Muslims recite Āyat al-Kursī regularly for spiritual reassurance and protection. END.

 

--

Dr Shabir Choudhry

 Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) said: "Say what is true, although it may be bitter and displeasing to people."

Analysis of Surah An-Nur, Ayah 26 Misuse of Religion and the Need for Contextual Understanding: A Qur’anic Perspective. Dr Shabir Choudhry, London

 Analysis of Surah An-Nur, Ayah 26

Misuse of Religion and the Need for Contextual Understanding: A Qur’anic Perspective

Dr Shabir Choudhry, London

The verse in question reads:

“Al-khabīthātu lil-khabīthīn, wal-khabīthūna lil-khabīthāt…”

 

“Impure women are for impure men, and impure men are for impure women…”

Analysis of Surah An-Nur (24:26)

It is extremely important to see the context of this verse, which was revealed after the false accusation against Aisha bint Abu Bakr, the wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

The surrounding verses (24:11–26) deal with:

• false accusations of immorality
• slander
• protection of honour
• moral integrity of believers

Therefore, this verse is not a general rule about marriages. It is part of a defence of moral character.

The common cultural interpretation is incorrect:

“Bad women marry bad men, and good women marry good men”

This is not universally true in this world, and the Qur’an itself disproves this idea.

Misuse of Religious Understanding

One of the greatest challenges facing Muslim societies today is not a lack of religious knowledge, but the misuse and misinterpretation of that knowledge. Religious texts are often quoted selectively, removed from their context, and presented in ways that reinforce cultural assumptions rather than reflect the true spirit of Islam. This problem becomes particularly serious when such misinterpretations lead to injustice, fear, or moral confusion.

Two widely circulated ideas illustrate this problem clearly. The first concerns the interpretation of a verse from Surah An-Nur (Ayah 26), often translated as:

“Impure women are for impure men, and impure men are for impure women.”

The second is a popular statement wrongly attributed to Al-Ghazali:

“Zina (adultery) is a debt that will be repaid through one’s daughter.”

Both are frequently repeated, yet both are deeply misunderstood—and in the second case, entirely baseless.

The Importance of Context in Understanding the Qur’an

The Qur’an cannot be understood correctly without paying attention to context (siyaq wa sabaq)—the verses that come before and after, as well as the historical circumstances in which a verse was revealed. Ignoring context often leads to distorted meanings.

The verse in question (24:26) appears in the passage dealing with a major moral crisis in early Islamic history known as the Incident of Ifk (false accusation). This incident involved Aisha bint Abu Bakr, who was falsely accused of immoral conduct.

The Qur’an strongly condemned this slander and declared her innocence. The verses surrounding 24:26 emphasise the gravity of false accusations, the need for evidence, and the moral responsibility of believers to protect one another’s honour.

In this context, the statement “impure women are for impure men…” does not establish a general rule about marriage. Rather, it affirms a moral principle: those who engage in slander and impurity are aligned with one another, while those who are pure are free from such accusations. The verse concludes by affirming that the righteous are innocent of what the slanderers claim.

Qur’anic Evidence Against the Misinterpretation

Therefore, the common cultural interpretation—that good people will always marry good people in this world—is neither supported by the context of the verse nor by reality. The Qur’an itself provides multiple examples that righteousness and disbelief can exist within the same household, which directly challenges the simplistic idea that “good people are always paired with good people” in this world.

This is how Qur’an provides clear examples that contradict such a simplistic reading:

• Pharaoh was an arrogant nonbeliever who proclaimed himself a god, yet his wife was a believer and a pious woman.
• Noah was a Holy Prophet, but his wife was not a believer.
• Likewise, the wife of Prophet Lot was also among those who disbelieved, despite being married to a prophet.

These examples demonstrate that moral character and marital pairing do not always align in worldly life.

The Fabrication of Religious Statements

The second idea—that “zina is a debt that will be repaid through one’s daughter”—is even more problematic. It has no basis in the Qur’an and no authentic foundation in the teachings of the Holy Prophet. It is often wrongly attributed to Al-Ghazali, although such attribution is highly questionable.

More importantly, this statement directly contradicts a fundamental Qur’anic principle found in Surah Fatir:

“And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another.”

Ayah 18 (35:18)

 

To ensure that there is no ambiguity in this matter, Allah Almighty, once again, in Surah An-Najm asserted:

“That no soul bears the burdens of another soul.”

Ayah 38 (53:38)

This principle appears clearly and explicitly in both Surahs mentioned above. This is divine justice—not the justice of a worldly, shortsighted authority.

These verses clearly establish:

• individual accountability
• no transfer of sin from one person to another

This principle forms a cornerstone of Islamic teaching. Each person is accountable for their own actions, and no one—whether a child, parent, or relative—can be punished for the sins of another.

To suggest that a daughter would suffer as a consequence of her father’s sin is not only unjust but also a violation of Qur’anic justice. It reflects cultural attitudes rather than divine teaching and risks promoting fear, guilt, and oppression—particularly against women.

Religion, Culture, and Responsibility

These examples highlight a broader issue: the confusion between religion and culture. Over time, cultural beliefs can become intertwined with religious language, giving them an appearance of legitimacy. When such ideas are repeated without scrutiny, they can shape social attitudes in harmful ways.

Islam, however, places great emphasis on justice, dignity, and personal accountability. The teachings of the Qur’an consistently call for reflection, critical thinking, and fairness. Blind acceptance of inherited ideas—especially when they contradict clear Qur’anic principles—undermines the very purpose of divine guidance.

The Need for Intellectual Honesty

Correcting these misunderstandings requires more than simply quoting verses. It requires:

• careful attention to context
• awareness of historical background
• distinction between authentic teachings and cultural additions
• intellectual honesty and moral courage

Only through such an approach can the true message of Islam be understood and applied.

Conclusion

The misuse of religious texts is not a minor issue; it has real consequences for individuals and societies. Misinterpretations can lead to injustice, distort moral values, and damage the credibility of religion itself.

A proper understanding of the Qur’an—grounded in context, reason, and ethical reflection—reveals a message that is deeply concerned with justice, truth, and human dignity. It is therefore the responsibility of scholars, writers, and thoughtful individuals to challenge misconceptions and present a clearer, more faithful understanding of the faith.

In doing so, they not only defend the integrity of religion but also contribute to a more just and enlightened society. END

 

 

 

Qazi can do anything. A Story from a social media and my analysis. Dr Shabir Choudhry, London.

 Qazi can do anything. A Story from a social media and my analysis.

Dr Shabir Choudhry, London.

A man brought a slaughtered chicken to a poultry seller’s shop and said,

“Brother, please cut this chicken into pieces.”

The shopkeeper replied,

“Leave the chicken here and come back after half an hour to collect it.”

By coincidence, the city judge (Qazi) came to the same shop and said to the shopkeeper,

“Give me this chicken.”

The shopkeeper replied,

“This chicken is not mine; it belongs to someone else, and I don’t have another chicken to give you.”

The Qazi said,

“No problem, just give me this chicken. When the owner comes, tell him that the chicken flew away.”

The shopkeeper said in surprise,

“How can I say that? The man himself slaughtered the chicken. How can a slaughtered chicken fly?”

The Qazi replied,

“Listen carefully to what I say. Just give me this chicken and tell its owner that his chicken flew away. At most, he will bring a case against you to me.”

The shopkeeper said,

“May God protect everyone’s honour,”

and handed the chicken over to the Qazi.

The Qazi left with the chicken.

After a short while, the owner of the chicken returned and asked,

“Have you cut the chicken?”

The shopkeeper replied,

“I had started cutting it, but your chicken flew away.”

The owner said in astonishment,

“How is that possible? I slaughtered it myself! How could it fly?”

An argument started between them, which soon turned into a quarrel. Finally the owner said,

“Let’s go to court and see the Qazi.”

So, both of them headed towards the court.

On the way, they saw two men fighting, one a Muslim and the other a Jew. While trying to separate them, the shopkeeper’s finger accidentally struck the Jew’s eye, causing him to lose his eye. The people caught the shopkeeper and said they would take him to court.

Now, two cases had been filed against the shopkeeper.

As the people were taking him towards the court, he managed to break free and run away. But when people chased him, he ran into a nearby mosque and climbed its minaret.

When people began climbing the minaret to catch him, he jumped down. Unfortunately, he landed on an old man, who died as a result.

Now the old man’s son also joined the others, and they all took the shopkeeper to the Qazi.

When the Qazi saw the shopkeeper, he laughed, because he remembered the chicken. But he did not yet know about the other two cases.

When he was told about all three cases, he held his head in frustration. Then, after turning a few pages of some books, he said,

“We will decide each case separately.”

First, the owner of the chicken was called.

The Qazi asked,

“What is your claim against the shopkeeper?”

The man replied,

“Sir, he stole my chicken. I slaughtered it myself and gave it to him. He says the chicken flew away. How can a dead chicken fly?”

The Qazi asked: “Do you believe in Allah and His power?”

The man said, “Yes, of course.”

The Qazi replied,

“Is Allah not capable of bringing rotten bones back to life? If Allah can do that, then what difficulty is there in your chicken coming back to life and flying away?”

Hearing this, the owner of the chicken fell silent and withdrew his case.

The Qazi said, “Bring the second claimant.”

The Jew was brought forward. He said: “Your Honour, this man poked his finger in my eye and I lost it. I want to poke his eye and make him lose it as well.”

The Qazi thought for a moment and said,

“The compensation for a non-Muslim against a Muslim is half. Therefore first this Muslim will destroy your other eye, and then you may destroy one of his eyes.”

The Jew immediately said,

“No, leave it. I withdraw my case.”

The Qazi then said,

“Bring the third case.”

The son of the dead man came forward and said,

“Your Honour, he jumped on my father and caused his death.”

The Qazi thought for a moment and said,

“Go to that same minaret. You should climb it and jump onto this man in the same way he jumped on your father.”

The young man said,

“But Your Honour, if he moves to the side, I might fall and die!”

The Qazi replied,

“That is not my problem. My job is to deliver justice. Why didn’t your father move aside?”

Hearing this, the young man also withdrew his claim.

Conclusion:

If you have a chicken to give to the Qazi, he will know every trick to save you.

Analysis

This story is a satirical folk tale that criticises corruption, misuse of authority, and manipulation of religious or legal reasoning. Below is a short commentary you could attach when sharing it, which explains the deeper meaning.

The Deeper Meaning of the Story

At first glance, the story appears humorous and absurd. However, it contains a powerful social and political message.

The central character in the story is the Qazi (judge), who represents the authority responsible for delivering justice. In principle, a judge should act with fairness, impartiality, and moral responsibility. Instead, the Qazi in the story uses clever arguments, selective religious reasoning, and legal technicalities to protect himself and avoid responsibility.

The first case illustrates how religious belief can be manipulated. When the owner of the chicken argues that a dead chicken cannot fly, the Qazi invokes belief in God’s power to resurrect the dead. By turning a theological truth into a legal argument, he confuses the claimant and forces him to withdraw his case.

The second case highlights inequality in the legal system. The Qazi cites a rule that the compensation for a non-Muslim is half that of a Muslim, and twists it in such a way that the victim would suffer even greater harm. Faced with this absurd logic, the complainant abandons the case.

The third case shows how justice can become dangerously mechanical when it ignores fairness and common sense. By insisting that the son of the deceased must repeat the same action that caused his father’s death, the judge again ensures that the complainant withdraws.

In all three cases, the Qazi avoids delivering real justice. Instead, he uses authority, legal language, and intellectual tricks to silence those seeking justice.

The Moral

The story ends with a simple but powerful message:

When power and justice are controlled by those who benefit from corruption, the law becomes a tool of protection for the powerful rather than a shield for the weak.

The humorous conclusion— “If you have a chicken to give to the Qazi, he will know every trick to save you”—symbolises bribery and influence. It reminds us that when corruption enters the justice system, truth and fairness become secondary.

Relevance Today

Although this story belongs to traditional folklore, its message remains relevant in many societies. It warns that:

• Justice can be manipulated through technical arguments.
• Authority can misuse religion or law to justify unfair decisions.
• Corruption often protects those who hold power.

For this reason, the story is not only a joke but also a sharp social critique of unjust systems.

 

Understanding Quran 9/29 in Its Historical Context. Dr Shabir Choudhry, London.

 Understanding Quran 9/29 in Its Historical Context

Dr Shabir Choudhry, London.

The verse:

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the tax willingly while they are humbled.”

— Qur’an 9:29

This verse has often been misunderstood when read without reference to its historical context and the circumstances in which it was revealed.

To understand the verse properly, it is important to recognise that Qur’anic revelations often addressed specific political and military situations faced by the early Muslim community.

The Historical Situation

This verse appears in Surah At-Tawbah, a chapter revealed during a period of intense political and military conflict between the early Muslim community in Medina and various hostile forces in Arabia and its surrounding regions.

By this time, the Muslim community led by the Holy Prophet Muhammad had established a fragile political order. However, several tribes and external groups repeatedly violated treaties and alliances made with the Muslims.

In particular, tensions were growing with forces aligned with the Byzantine Empire, which controlled territories north of Arabia and whose Arab allies sometimes clashed with the Muslims.

Many historians connect this verse with the events that led to the Expedition of Tabuk.

The Meaning of “Fight”

The command to “fight” in this verse must be understood in the context of political conflict between states and communities, not as a universal command against all non-Muslims.

Throughout the Qur’an, warfare is generally presented as a response to aggression, treaty violations, or existential threats.

For example, other verses emphasise:

• “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress.” (2:190)
• “If they incline toward peace, then incline toward it.” (8:61)

These passages indicate that warfare was understood primarily as defensive or political, not simply religious coercion.

The Concept of Jizya

The verse refers to the payment of jizya, a tax levied on non-Muslim communities living under Muslim political authority.

Historically, jizya functioned as:

• a political tax in exchange for protection
• an alternative to military service
• a form of recognition of the authority of the state

Muslims themselves were required to pay zakat, which functioned as a religious tax. In many cases, zakat was actually higher than jizya.

Thus, jizya was not simply a punishment for disbelief but part of the administrative and fiscal structure of the early Islamic state.

The Phrase “While They Are Humbled”

The phrase, sometimes translated as “while they are humbled”, has generated considerable debate.

Some classical jurists interpreted it as a requirement for political submission to the authority of the state. Others argued that the verse simply refers to the formal recognition of the authority of the Muslim government.

Modern scholars often emphasise that the phrase reflects the language of political dominance common in ancient treaties and imperial systems, rather than a permanent theological requirement for humiliation.

A Broader Qur’anic Perspective

It is important to read this verse alongside other Qur’anic statements about religious freedom and coexistence, such as:

• “There is no compulsion in religion.” (2:256)
• “To you your religion, and to me mine.” (109:6)

These verses suggest that the Qur’an does not require forced conversion but allows the continued existence of different religious communities.

Conclusion

When read within its historical and political context, Qur’an 9:29 does not represent a general command to fight all non-Muslims. Rather, it addresses a specific moment in the development of the early Muslim state when military conflict with hostile groups had become unavoidable.

The verse outlines a political arrangement in which non-Muslim communities could continue to practise their religion while living under Muslim governance, provided they recognised the authority of the state and contributed to its financial obligations.

Understanding this context is essential to avoid misinterpretations that detach the verse from the historical realities in which it was revealed. END

Dr Shabir Choudhry is a London-based political analyst, author, and expert on South Asian affairs, with a focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir.

Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com