Slay the idolaters….but which idolaters?





Take the infamous verse 9:5:





Likewise with 9:29:







Verse 41 is about establishing Mohammed’s cut of the loot.
In verse 42 Allah reminisces about the Battle of Badr.




Likewise, they turned 8:60 from the 7th century:


into the decidedly 21st century:
























And by the various schools of Islamic Law, for instance:


What can we conclude then?







***  UPDATE  ***







6 thoughts on “Slay the idolaters….but which idolaters?

  1. Goliath

    I still think your general arguments have merit. The Quran by itself is pretty vague.


    Straining to be apologetic, it could still be argued that this verse was revealed around the time of the battle of the Trench when Mo and his followers were being surrounded and that success in the Earth means success in general (in Arabia) over his polytheistic enemies. It could be understood as rallying War-talk for the Battle of the Trench.

    After-all, who heard anyone before Mo (those who were before them) conquering the world and the Israelites who were temporarily blessed did not rule the world either?

    1. ECAW's blog Post author

      Straining indeed :)

      No, the Israelites never ruled the world but the Egyptians, Alexander, the Persians and the Romans conquered impressive chunks of the known world. And, in his letters, Mo did put the Byzantine and Persian emperors on notice that he had his eye on both their empires.

  2. Chauncey Tinker

    While I think this is a good debate to be having as this is the frequently expressed position of the apologists, I don’t agree with your arguments.

    It is the very vagueness of the Koran that is at the heart of the problem. I don’t think it can be proven completely one way or the other because the “instructions” from the “messenger” simply are not clear enough.

    For example you say “There is nothing which identifies all idolaters for all time” but surely there is also nothing (beyond the context of the previous verses) that identifies it as only applying to the idolaters in his time. You say “the standard translations say nothing about everywhere and forever” but neither do they say specifically just for Mo in Mo’s time.

    Ultimately what I find compelling is this:


    Mo spread Islam by killing and threatening people so Muslims are supposed to do the same. Again the apologists have a counter argument they say this pattern of conduct only refers to such things as how to worship and so forth, but again the statement is too vague for anyone to be sure that that is what it means. There’s no doubt in my mind that this statement CAN be interpreted as meaning all of Mo’s conduct should be emulated including all the violence etc., especially since that violence was supposedly commanded or praised after the event by Allah.

    1. ECAW's blog Post author

      Thanks for your response. I disagree with your first point. I think 9:1-4 clearly identify which idolaters Allah is talking about. If you think he is also referring to others in 9:5 (or perhaps even in 9:1-4) it is up to you to prove it not up to me to disprove it. That would be a bit like those discussions with religious believers of any kind who assert there is a God and then expect you to disprove it. The only arguments I have had so far involve what people (with various axes to grind) wrote about it hundreds of years later which seems to me only evidence about what they thought.

      I think we are more or less in agreement about the example of Mohammed. It is no stretch at all to find supremacism there implicitly. Even if Mo’s rampages were only ever local, it would be difficult to argue with those who come to the conclusion that Allah would approve of their playing out Mo’s murderous example on a larger stage, as those who created the later tradition appear to have done.

  3. Baucent

    Interesting angle ECAW. Yes perhaps limiting consideration to only the Koran, in defining Islam might suggest a limited vision for beyond the Arabian peninsular. But your own notes about the Prophet’s “threatening letters” suggests his meglomania was a work in progress. By the end of his career it appears he was a full blown supremacist. Why else would his followers pursue conquering of distant lands (at great personal risk) if it wasn’t the will of Allah?

    1. ECAW's blog Post author

      We are in complete agreement there Baucent. But of course we only have the texts to go on. Who Mohammed was and how the Koran really started out seem pretty obscure. Have you read Spencer’s “Did Muhammed Exist?”. He thinks the Koran may have started out as a Christian lectionary of all things!


Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s