Am I correct in my interpretation, or does 9:4 supersede 9:5 and 9:8?
Any help someone who is more familiar with islam would be appreciated,
Cheers,
Stublore
Hi Stublore!
The Quran contains the doctrine of abrogation, by which any verse coming later supersedes the earlier verses:
So 9:4 does not supercede 9:5 & 9:8, but 9:5 & 9:8 supercedes 9:4.
"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?" (Qur'an 2:106).
If anything the Koran makes clear that it is whole and complete--which means that no later part can supercede any earlier part, or vice versa.
Qur'an 2:106, as well as by Qur'an 16:101: "When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not." Note that 16:101, as well as 2:106, refers to the substituting of revelations -- that is, words of Allah, and probably portions of the Qur'an (although the Hadith Qudsi are also considered to be divine revelation, on par with the Qur'an, but they constitute only a small part of the Hadith).
There is wide disagreement among Muslim theologians as to precisely which verses have been abrogated and which others have replaced them. Still, it has been a mainstream notion in Islamic theology that if a verse revealed at Mecca contradicts another revealed later at Medina, the Medinan verse takes precedence.
Many traditional Islamic theologians and Qur'an commentators argue that violent material, such as sura 9, abrogates more relatively tolerant material such as sura 109. This is not a newly-minted view "cherry-picked" by Osama bin Laden; it is in fact a very ancient view. When discussing why Muhammad didn't begin sura 9 with the customary invocation bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim, "in the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful," an intriguing answer comes from a Qur'an commentary that is still highly valued today in the Islamic world, Tafsir al-Jalalayn. This is a fifteenth-century work by the renowned imams Jalal al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Mahalli (1389-1459) and Jalal al-Din Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Suyuti (1445-1505). The invocation, suggests this tafsir, is security, and [Sura 9] was sent down when security was removed by the sword.
Security's removal by the sword meant specifically the end of many treaties the Muslims had made with non-Muslims. Another still-influential Qur'an commentator, Ibn Kathir (1301-1372) quotes an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, to establish that the Verse of the Sword, sura 9:5 ("slay the unbelievers wherever you find them") 'abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.' He adds from another authority: "No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Baraah was revealed." And yet another early commentator, Ibn Juzayy (d. 1340) agrees that one of this verse's functions is 'abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur'an.'
Hope this helps!
Topic: Hadith Question Help please