It's not just apostates, it's anyone they classify as kafiri...which is pagans, polytheists, atheists, and idolaters. Which is the marching orders from the end of Muhammad's life, which is why abrogation is an important concept to understand to understand Islamic jurisprudence.
Anyone who has made a serious effort to study Islam knows that abrogation is a very complex and controversial subject. Very few verses found in the Qur'an have been agreed on as being abrogated among scholars, and of those that have, none override the verses that teach tolerance, coexistence, and peace. A far more important concept in understanding Islamic jurisprudence is puting things in historical and cultural context when reading any Islamic texts.
Islamic jurisprudence is heavily regulated until modernists have sought to re-write Islamic history. They say "the doors of ishtijad are closed" and defer to classic interpreters, who unanimously agreed that ayat like 9:29 were unlimited calls to war until the end of time "when there is no more fitnah."
The Muslims that were being spoken to in the Qur'an and the classic scholars lived in a different culture, at a different point in time, and were facing unique situations. You can't read the Qur'an, hadiths, or the tasfirs from a modern perspective, you have to read them through a historical lens, if not, you will continue to misinterpret what they are saying.
The violent verses found in the Qur'an don't abrogate the verses of peace because of the context they were written in. There are certain situations where the verses of peace apply, and others where the verses of violence apply, therefore, each verse has a specific context and application. In other words, each verse in the Qur'an is to be applied to its appropriate situation. For example, when Qur'an 9:5 says
"When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush," it is dealing with a specific event at a point in history when Meccan pagans were breaking their peace treaties and declaring war on the Muslims, so that verse would not negate the peaceful verses in the Qur'an since it is very specific to it's intent and the point in history it was to be applied.
the Qu'ran cannot be interpreted without the hadith because it is almost entirely without context, and the actions of Muhammad are the baseline for how Muslims are supposed to behave...and he'd fit more with ISIS than with the Ahmadi.
Neither the Qur'an nor the hadith can be properly interpreted without putting them into the historical and cultural context they were written in.
According to Islamic teachings, Muslims are to emulate Muhammad's character traits like honesty, compassion, and humility and his ethical principles. Muslims understand the historical context in which the Qur'an was written. They see his actions as a warrior to have been appropriate for situations Muslims faced in the 7th century and not as mandates for Muslims to follow in 2025.
Perhaps I should have added "or pay the jizya" since that is what Islam calls for, modernist whitewashing not withstanding.
You do realise that Muslims also had to pay taxes (zakāt)? And the tax was for the betterment of society as a whole. Would it be fair for non-Muslims to live in an Islamic state and receive all of the benefits and protections offered by that state without any contribution to the costs involved?
Nope, it's what Muslims are called to pursue until there is no more "fitnah", the whole world is divided into "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb" and the only question about implementation is which part of the program is active.
In very simple terms, Dar al Islam (House of Islam) historically was a Muslim land with a Muslim government where Islamic law governed. Dar al Harb (House of War) was a land not under an Islamic government or Islamic law, which was openly hostile towards Muslims. Since there are no countries or states that fit these definitions today, the terms are no longer used by Muslims for the most part.
Yeah, an islamist apologetics site is not the best way to get accurate information about things that aren't flattering to Islam. But hey, not everyone has the time to actually read the hadith and sira, as well as the ishtijad which is mostly in disagreement with those claims until recent attempts at whitewashing.
You're just falling for Islamist apologist propaganda.
The only people who talk about jizyah, abrogation, the division of the world into dar-al-Islam and dar-al-harb, and cite Qur'an 9:29 as an open-ended command to Muslims to fight until the end of time today are Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists. So when someone like yourself presents Islam the way you have in this thread and others, it's clear to me, as someone who has a strong background in Islam, that your understanding of this religion comes from those sources and not the actual teachings and understanding of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims adhere to.
