u/AliveManufacturer855

[removed]

I have a question regarding Qur'an 9:29 and the classical understanding of jihad.

Many modern Muslims argue that Qur'an 9:29 refers only to a specific historical conflict involving hostile groups among the People of the Book and is not a universal command against Jews and Christians.

However, I have encountered several arguments that seem to support a broader interpretation:

1. Qur'an 9:29 appears to use general religious categories ("those who do not believe... from among the People of the Book") rather than naming a specific nation or tribe, leading some to argue that the ruling is universal rather than limited to a particular historical group.
2. Classical tafsir works, such as the tafsir of Ibn Kathir, appear to interpret the verse as legislation concerning fighting the People of the Book until they submit to Islamic political authority and pay jizya.
3. Early Muslim conquests against the Byzantine and Sasanian Empires are often cited as evidence that the Companions understood this verse as permitting or requiring warfare against non-Muslim states even when those states had not directly attacked Muslims.
4. Some hadith reports, such as the narration in Sahih al-Bukhari (3159), contain statements like: "Our Prophet ... has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya."
5. Some classical jurists from the four Sunni madhhabs are said to have held that jihad against non-Muslim political entities could be initiated by Muslims and was not limited to self-defense.

My questions are:

• Are these claims about the classical scholarly position accurate?
• Did the majority of classical Sunni scholars understand Qur'an 9:29 as a universal command concerning the People of the Book?
• If so, what textual evidence led them to that conclusion?
• How do scholars who limit the verse to a specific historical context respond to these classical interpretations?
• If the verse was intended only for a particular conflict, why did so many classical exegetes and jurists understand it more broadly?
• What is the strongest evidence, from the Qur'an, hadith, and early Islamic history, for a contextual reading versus a universal reading?

I am trying to understand whether the dominant classical interpretation was universal, whether that interpretation is still considered authoritative today, and how modern contextual interpretations address the classical evidence.

I have a question regarding Qur'an 9:29 and the classical understanding of jihad.

Many modern Muslims argue that Qur'an 9:29 refers only to a specific historical conflict involving hostile groups among the People of the Book and is not a universal command against Jews and Christians.

However, I have encountered several arguments that seem to support a broader interpretation:

1. Qur'an 9:29 appears to use general religious categories ("those who do not believe... from among the People of the Book") rather than naming a specific nation or tribe, leading some to argue that the ruling is universal rather than limited to a particular historical group.
2. Classical tafsir works, such as the tafsir of Ibn Kathir, appear to interpret the verse as legislation concerning fighting the People of the Book until they submit to Islamic political authority and pay jizya.
3. Early Muslim conquests against the Byzantine and Sasanian Empires are often cited as evidence that the Companions understood this verse as permitting or requiring warfare against non-Muslim states even when those states had not directly attacked Muslims.
4. Some hadith reports, such as the narration in Sahih al-Bukhari (3159), contain statements like: "Our Prophet ... has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya."
5. Some classical jurists from the four Sunni madhhabs are said to have held that jihad against non-Muslim political entities could be initiated by Muslims and was not limited to self-defense.

My questions are:

• Are these claims about the classical scholarly position accurate?
• Did the majority of classical Sunni scholars understand Qur'an 9:29 as a universal command concerning the People of the Book?
• If so, what textual evidence led them to that conclusion?
• How do scholars who limit the verse to a specific historical context respond to these classical interpretations?
• If the verse was intended only for a particular conflict, why did so many classical exegetes and jurists understand it more broadly?
• What is the strongest evidence, from the Qur'an, hadith, and early Islamic history, for a contextual reading versus a universal reading?

I am trying to understand whether the dominant classical interpretation was universal, whether that interpretation is still considered authoritative today, and how modern contextual interpretations address the classical evidence.

Don't you think some hujurs are spreading misleading narratives about Bangladesh and Islam?

did this sub added BD and PAK in India's map?

Im from BD

February: 45 rape cases
March: 57 rape cases
April: 60–65 rape cases (unofficial reports)