You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Terror Networks
Does the Qur’an Teach Violence?
2004-05-23
This is the article Gentle was talking about in the comments below...
When we Muslims state that Islam is a religion of peace, we are not trying to prove something unreasonable or solve a crossword puzzle. Rather, we are just stating a fact backed by clear-cut evidence and unquestionable proofs. Even we don’t need to state this fact, for Islam, in itself, is self-explanatory, in terms of its meaning, its noble teachings and the core of its message conveyed by the Prophets Allah sent to mankind.
I guess it all depends on the meaning you assign the word "peace," doesn't it? That appears to shift from sect to sect within Islam, from Sufism's ability to get along with most other religions to Wahhabism's ability to get along with none, to include those holding different opinions within itself.
Shedding more light on this issue, here is the statement made by Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, in replying a similar question: “Thank you very much for your kind words that you do not hate Muslims. Hate is not good for any person. I want to assure you that we Muslims also do not hate non-Muslims, be they Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhist or followers of any religion or no religion. Our religion does not allow killing any innocent person regardless of his or her religion. The life of all human beings is sacrosanct according to the teachings of the Qur’an and the guidance of our blessed Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and upon all the Prophets and Messengers of Allah.
We're down to quibbling about semantics again, this time the definition of "innocent." Was it Sheikh Qaradawi's opinion is that there's no such thing as an innocent Israelis: all the men are subject to the draft, as are potentially all women. And the little kids are going to grow up, and then they'll be soldiers, too, so it's best to kill them now. Or was that another fatwah from some other renowned scholar?
The Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder, “
Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.” (Al-An`am: 151) and Allah says in the Qur’an, “Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand Qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law)” (Al-Isra’: 33). According to the Qur’an, killing any person without a just cause is as big a sin as killing the whole humanity and saving the life of one person is as good deed as saving the whole humanity. (See Al-Ma’idah: 32)
Oh, dear. More quibbles. Muslims can take infidels' lives and property in the course of jihad. It's not murder then. And seemingly anyone with a turban can declare jihad, at any time, for any reason.
However, your question is valid, then how come the Qur’an says, “kill them wherever you find them
” as it is mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah: 191 and Surah An-Nisa’: 89. The answer is simple and that is, you should read these verses in their textual and historical context.
"Kill them wherever you find them, anywhere from New York to Tel Aviv to Moscow to Madrid to Bali to Delhi to Bangkok and all the way back again to Lagos. Kill. Kill. Kill. It's the Muslim way, isn't it? Or should we have a nice hudna, that'll last until the next bus is blown up, or the next train or the next airliner?
You should read the whole verse and it is better that you read few verses before and few after. Read the full text and see what is said:
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” (Al-Baqarah: 190-194)
And never forget that it's always the other guy's fault. "Oppression," like so many other things withing Islam, has a flexible meaning. You can always find it, if you look hard enough. F'rinstance, in Thailand, which is a nice country, not oppressive to most people's eyes in the least, where Muslims have fired up the Motorcycles of Doom.
For your second quotation also read the full text:
“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them." (An-Nisa’: 89-91)
Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere?
Certainly not. You need a fatwah to do that. But fatwahs are cheap.
These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized.
We saw that on September 11th, three years ago. Those boys sure did know their Koran, didn't they?
It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted. It is true that some Muslims manipulate these verses for their own goals. But this is not only with Islamic texts, it is also true with the texts of other religions. I can quote dozens of verses from the Bible which seem very violent, if taken out from their historical context. These Biblical texts have been used by many violent Jewish and Christian groups. Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. Nazis used them against Jews. Recently Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians.
That's a fairly loose usage of facts. The Crusades were indeed religiously based, at least the first and second. None of the other examples is strictly driven by sectarianism. The Nazis tried to destroy the Jews on racial grounds. One could stop being a religious Jew and still be subjected to the "final solution." The Serbian offenses against the Bosnians were similar to the Serbian offenses against the Roman Catholic Croatians, and were driven more by tribal animosities than by religious; it wasn't the Bosnians practice of Islam so much as their historical association with the Turks. The ultimate defenders of the Bosnians were Christian — actually secular — Europe and the United States. The only example that actually holds water is the charge of Zionist use against the Paleos. But again, Zionism is a racial thing, demanding a homeland for the Jewish people, not particularly for the Jewish religion. Israel is chock full of not particularly religious Jews, and except for a few crackpots Israel's efforts to defend itself aren't couched in religious terms. In contrast, virtually all aggression by the Muslim world against the rest of us is specifically based in religion.
Let me mention just a few verses from the Old Testament and New Testament and tell me what do you say about them:
“When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. (Deutronomy 7:1-2)

“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you
 Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes (Deutronomy 20:10-17)

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, sparefor yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)
Those are Old Testament verses, dating from about 1100 B.C. The world outside the Arabian peninsula has progressed since then. We no longer think or act in those terms. Not even the Zionists.
Even in the New Testament we read the following statement attributed to Jesus saying to his disciples:
“I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)
Unlike the events in the Koran, that even didn't actually take place, did it? Christianity became arrogrant and brutal in its maturity, but the Church during Christ's time wasn't founded on bumping people off. It was three hundred years before Christianity became predominant within the Empire.
Excerpted, with slight modifications, from: http://pakistanlink.com/religion.html
Posted by: Gentle

#17  Peace be upon the 72 virgin insects that fly up the nose of each jihadee.
Posted by: Mark Espinola   2004-05-24 12:19:34 AM  

#16  Yeah. Condemning them in the next life, surely. But the action in Revelation is in this life. (3/4 of world pop killed - and He says HE does it {engineers it, I imagine - I don't like it either, but He didn't ask me. Funny thing about God - He thinks He's God})
Posted by: scott   2004-05-23 11:33:10 PM  

#15  I guess Muhammed didn't 'do' parables..lol
Kinda hard to focus on spiritual truths when you are collecting and servicing your sex-slaves concubines and rousing your mujahideen to kill kill KILL! fight for Allah. And coming up with shit like 72 virgins in heaven. And concentrating on how not to look like a liar when you change what 'Allah' sent down when it doesnt suit your own whims any longer.
Posted by: TS(vice girl)   2004-05-23 11:25:39 PM  

#14  Scott: You missed TS' and my points. He is talking about condemning people in the next life, not this life -- unlike a certain Arab "prophet."
Posted by: 11A5S   2004-05-23 11:22:03 PM  

#13  Sorry guys. Of course Jesus is condemning those who resist His rule. You can't equivocate that. It's the tenor of the entire book of Revelation. But it's a far cry between God (who I believe Jesus IS) condemning His enemies and people killing people in His name. That's not His teaching. Self-defense is another matter. As I understand, the commandment is best translated 'Thou shalt not murder'. But even still He warns that those who take the sword may die by it. I can accept that and favor justly using the sword when necessary.
Posted by: scott   2004-05-23 11:19:09 PM  

#12  ROFLMAO. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. After accusing us damn kaffirs of taking the Koran out of context, Mullah boy quotes the Gospels out of context. The passage from Like that he quotes is part of a parable. Here it is in its entirety:

The Parable of the Ten Minas

11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[1] 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.’ ”

The King in Jesus' parable is condemning his enemies (who sent the delegation in verse 14) who didn't want him to be king. Jesus is not literally condemning his opponents to death! I guess that hypocrisy is one of those words that don't translate into Arabic.
Posted by: 11A5S   2004-05-23 11:08:10 PM  

#11  â€œI tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)

Gentle...hello! this is a parable that Jesus is telling, Jesus is not asking for anyone to be brought before him to be killed!..maybe if Muslims were allowed to read the Bible they would know this.
Posted by: TS(vice girl)   2004-05-23 11:04:23 PM  

#10  Infidel Bob says:
Seems that what Allan wants is every infidel dead.
Then we're even - what this infidel wants is Allan dead.

Oh, wait.... He already is, and IN HELL waiting to welcome his deluded followers.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-05-23 11:03:55 PM  

#9  The interesting thing is that both here and in the long thread, Gentle doesn't condemn the actions of the murderers. They can't and still be true to the Quran. The murderers are following their book, and the mealy-mouthed ones know they're not.
Posted by: scott   2004-05-23 10:57:34 PM  

#8  If they would spend less time trying to convince the 'infidels' that Islam is peaceful, and more time trying to convince Muslims Islam is peaceful, especially their own children, there wouldn't be a problem.
But one thing is for sure, Islam will become peaceful, one way or the other.
Posted by: TS(vice girl)   2004-05-23 10:48:13 PM  

#7  Good idea.
Violence and all its forms are subjectively interpreted. To non-Muslims, the desired interpretation would be “Drop all of your beliefs in fighting against our oppression.”
Posted by: Fred   2004-05-23 10:44:01 PM  

#6  and the VP of the National Islamic Chaplain organization came out with an editorial on Islamonline saying that the Beheading of Nick Berg is.. that's right is.. consistent with Islam.

Its at: http://www.islamonline.net/English/Views/2004/05/article05.shtml##Samir%20Jerez

maybe I'll post it tomorrow as a news item
Posted by: mhw   2004-05-23 10:36:36 PM  

#5  Barbara and Mark --

Way to go! Agree entirely. Seems that what Allan wants is every infidel dead. Maybe Gentle could explain how sawing off Nick Berg's head with a dull knife promotes peace and love.
Posted by: Infidel Bob   2004-05-23 10:26:15 PM  

#4  In case anyone has forgotten, watch the WTC video again.

Those which demand the whole world become Muslim were the high-jackers & suicide pilots.
Posted by: Mark Espinola   2004-05-23 10:20:29 PM  

#3  
Does the Qur’an Teach Violence?
Does a pig wallow in mud? Does a bear shit in the woods? Are the Paleos murdering losers?

YES.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-05-23 10:12:04 PM  

#2  Islam is such a diverse religion. There is a branch that spends enormous time and effort telling us how peaceful Islam is by emphasizing the kinder Meccan verses. Then there is a branch which plots to kill us infidels. They emphasize the Medinan verses and say that the Meccan verses have been abrogated. The moderates in this latter branch want to wait until Islam is strong before killing us, the radicals want to kill as many infidels as possible as soon as possible. Such diversity.
Posted by: mhw   2004-05-23 10:10:05 PM  

#1  Oh, there it is! I was worried I was just being stupid and missing it! Gentle, go to that 130+ comment thread from earlier today and read what I said; I don't feel like repeating it again and I suspect that no one else wants to read it again/see me take up more space than usual.

As for that Bible verse, I just happened to have mine out (girlfriend had me reading something out of it earlier; she's trying hard to civilize me!), and I checked out the passage. Sorry, Gentle, but whoever wrote this did the same thing Muslims accuse others of doing time and time again: taking things out of context. That quote was indeed from Jesus, but he was telling a story, and one of the characters in the story said it. It's the end of the story of the talents (or mina, as my Bible translates it). I grant you it's a strange thing for the guy to say, but say it he did, and not Jesus himself with no other context.

And don't bring the Nazis up: the Arabs sympathized with their interest in destroying the Jews. Haj Amin and King Abdul Aziz of none other than Saudi Arabia, for instance (the latter sent his personal physician!).

There's a lot more, but I need to wade through the rest of the article in detail first.
Posted by: The Doctor   2004-05-23 9:52:41 PM  

00:00