And what I meant by the fight used in 9:29, was that fight is not ONLY used for the physical violence, but rather any fight against disbelievers whether through violence or not violence. When a muslim debates a non muslim to defend his way of life, he is fighting a Jihad. When a muslim decides not to drink alcohol while some schoolmates try to convince him otherwise, he is fighting a Jihad. When a muslim prays in a public school even though they do not allow him to, he is fighting a Jihad for Allah (swt). And when a muslim goes to war against disbelievers to defend his people from oppression, that is also a Jihad. My point is that Jihad is a term that applies in many different circumstances, and the same goes with 9:29 of the Noble Quran. Back to surah 9, sami goes over the historical context of the surah to show how it was used. Because, if Surah 9:29 applied in every case, then the prophet would surely have used 9:29 when he returned in the conquest of Mecca. He could have fought and killed all unbelievers if that was what the verse meant, but when you dive into the historical context as Sami has done, you see quite otherwise.
Absolutely hilarious. I've already shown that Allah himself defines the "fighting" in Surah 9 as involving "slaying" and "being slain," yet Samatar wants to interpret this as "debating"? How many people have a debate where one side gets up and starts killing until they get killed?
But there are even bigger problems for Samatar. Like Sami Zaatari, Samatar tries to convince us that the "fighting" of Surah 9:29 may refer to peaceful "fighting," i.e. praying in a public school, debating, or not drinking. Here are a two irrefutable difficulties:
(1) The Qur'an claims to be perfectly clear in its commands. If Allah had meant something other than actual fighting, couldn't he have used those words? If he had meant "debate the unbelievers," couldn't he have said that? He might have saved hundreds of millions of lives! By telling us that Allah meant something other than what he actually said, Samatar is telling us that Allah isn't clear! So the Qur'an claims to be perfectly clear in its commands, but it isn't clear at all. Hence, the Qur'an is false.
(2) Notice what the verse actually says. Muslims are to "fight" those who don't believe in Allah, "until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." Now for a reality check. Are people ever going to pay the Jizyah because a Muslim is praying in a public school? No. Are people ever going to pay the Jizyah because a Muslim refuses to drink alcohol? Absolutely not. Has anyone in history ever paid the Jizyah because of a debate? Not a single person. People pay the Jizyah to avoid being killed. So if the verse commands Muslims to fight people until they pay the Jizyah, it's obviously referring to fighting them until they pay to avoid being killed.
Samatar adds the absurd notion that "if Surah 9:29 applied in every case, then the prophet would surely have used 9:29 when he returned in the conquest of Mecca." Utter ignorance. When Muhammad conquered Mecca, 9:29 hadn't even been "revealed" yet! So how would Muhammad have applied a verse that hadn't yet been revealed? This is just getting silly!
So here's where we are. (1) The Qur'an claims to be perfectly clear in its commands. (2) The Qur'an commands Muslims to fight unbelievers. (3) Allah defines the "fighting" of Surah 9 as something that involves "slaying" and "being slain." (4) The "fighting" of Surah 9:29 is something that would compel non-Muslims to pay tribute to Muslims in order to avoid it. (5) Muhammad himself believed that this was a command to fight unbelievers simply for being unbelievers. (6) After receiving this "revelation," Muhammad launched a military campaign against the Romans (rather than, say, calling for public debate). (7) Samatar is so embarrassed by what his religion teaches, he's willing to ignore all of this and say, again and again, that when Allah commands Muslims to fight the unbelievers, he may have something peaceful in mind (though Allah apparently lacked the ability to communicate these peaceful intentions).
This is the great dilemma faced by Westernized Muslims. They believe their religion comes from God, yet they are utterly repulsed by what their religion teaches. So they cling to ridiculous reinterpretations in an effort to rescue their god and their prophet. Welcome to Islam.
Our response is simple. If Muslims like Samatar want to reinterpret the clearest teachings of the Qur'an, then we get to do the same. If Allah said "fight" when he really meant "debate," then Allah is the worst communicator in history, and his words are practically meaningless. Hence, when Allah says that Jesus didn't die on the cross, and didn't claim to be divine, and isn't part of the Trinity, I'm going to reinterpret Allah's words. The Qur'an actually teaches that Jesus died on the cross, that he rose from the dead, and that he is the second person of the Trinity. Muhammad was a Bible-carrying, Gospel-preaching Christian. Samatar can't prove me wrong, because his quotations from the Qur'an are worthless, for his god has a speech disorder.