I’m asking for my own edification, not to start a debate. Would a reasonably objective reader of the Koran conclude that it prescribed violence? Is it pretty clear that jihad is meant to be an actual war rather than an “inner war?” How does the Koran compare to the Bible in this respect? Does Christianity come off as more tolerant?
I haven’t read the Qur’aan in full, but have read selected parts. My ex-wife’s sister’s husband is Lebanese and has an English translation at home; one night I started leafing through it as a result of a conversation with some ignorant cracker who asserted that the book said infidels should have their hands cut off if they refused to convert.
I cannot speak to the concept of jihad since I wasn’t looking for it specifically, but I can say that the strictest injuction I found against those who did not profess the faith was that faithful Muslims should not let their daughters marry one. Other than that, it was pretty much “live and let live, and if they want to convert, just make sure it’s what they really want to do and they understand what’s required of them as a Muslim”.
On the other hand, I do seem to remember a certain Yeshua ben Joseph saying he’d come to turn father against son, and not to preach peace but war.
I should clarify that those half-remembered words of Christ are from the Gospels, and are not found in the Qur’aan (though Christ does appear therein, asserting he performed miracles but that he is not the Son of God).
Here’s a link to a site where you can “browse” the Koran, if you’re interested. I did some browsing myself.
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html
Interesting reading, even though I have differing views.
Yogini
I don’t doubt you, but got a cite? It might come in handy during my eternal debates with my mom.
I couldn’t find it with www.biblegateway.com.
As long as we’re talking about non-Islamic holy wars, don’t forget Deuteronomy 13:6-10, that lovely bastilion of religious tolerance: “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known … thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.”
Lots of others, but that’s the first thing that always pops into my head whenever someone starts carping about Islam as an intolerant faith. Glass houses and stones, y’know?
Half-remembered quotes are the bane of the amateur researcher. Matthew 10:34-36 is the verse in question:
Though Christ is talking about a number of different subjects in Matt 10, the immediate context seems to be about acknowledging Christ as a prophet (and, perhaps implicitly, the Son of God; see Matt. 10:40). Immediately preceding the quotation, Christ says
Matt. 10:32-33
Therefore he sets up a scene in which families will be torn apart based on differences in religious beliefs; like any other part of the Scripture, IMO, that can be interpreted in many ways - from a heated argument that goes no further to violent conflict. In other words, we could point to the words of Christ in the Bible as a justification for religious intolerance and violence possibly resulting therefrom.
One more little interesting nugget for consideration. First, Matt. 10:41 -
Now, a passage from the Book of Marium in the Qur’aan, which goes into some detail about the birth of Isa, son of Marium (sound familiar?)
19.30, according to the passage numbering system
Of course, I’m going by a translation, and not the original Arabic (since I don’t speak it well enough yet) so I’d be interested in hearing what our proficient Arabic-speaking Dopers have to say about the verse. But it seems quite clear to me that Islam regards Christ a prophet just as much as the Christians do - just not as the Son of God.
Yeah, that sounds like my family…
Surah is a chapter, just an FYI. I’m aware that some of these are not violent in face value, but I believe they do shed light into the mind of the fundamentalist.
“The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam” (Surah 3:19)
“Say, ‘Obey Allah and the apostle.’ If they give no heed, then truly, Allah does not love the unbelievers.” (Surah 3:29)
“Men take authority over women… As for those who are disobedient, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” (Surah 4:34)
“Seek out your enemies relentlessly.” (Surah 4:104)
“The Jews and Christians say: ‘We are the children of God and His loved ones.’ Say: 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?” (Surah 5:18)
“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.” (Surah 5:51)
“Unbelievers are those who say: ‘God is one of three.’ There is but one God. If they do not desist from so saying, those of them that disbelieve shall be sternly punished.” (Surah 5:73)
“Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]…until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” (Surah 9:29)
“Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home.” (Surah 9:73)
“Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (surah 48:29)
“The Day of Resurrection will not arrive until the Moslems make war against the Jews and kill them, and until a Jew hiding behind a rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: ‘Oh Moslem, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’” (Sahih Bukhari 004.52.176)
“O Messenger! let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening to unbelief from among those who say with their mouths: We believe, and their hearts do not believe, and from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you; they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious; and as for him whose temptation Allah desires, you cannot control anything for him with Allah. Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.” (Surah 5:41)
“They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.” (Surah 5:72)
“And with those who say: “Lo! we are Christians,” We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefor We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork.” (Surah 5:14)
"Thus (will it be said): “Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire.” (Surah 8:14)
“O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.” (Surah 8:65)
“But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good: but fear Allah: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Surah 8:69)
kidcharlemagne said:
Huh? You posted a thread in Great Debates not to start a debate?
OK first thing to realise is that islam is not just the quran, it’s the hadiths too. The hadiths are stories about Mohammed and sayings of Mohammed that didn’t make it into the final quran. There are strong hadith and weak hadith, the strong hadith are the ones that are more reliable.
Different groups of muslims believe different hadiths but almost all believe in some of them. There are very few quran-only muslims in the world. This is important because some of the wilder stuff appears in the hadith but not in the quran. For example, the idea that apostates should be killed doesn’t appear in the quran - it’s in the hadith.
No. Jihad is both an inner struggle and, when necessary, an actual war. However bear in mind that islam has lots of rules. Lots and lots of rules. Naturally therefore it has rules of war. It has rules on when to start a war, when to finish a war, your conduct during the war. It tells you when you will win a war and when you will lose a war (you will win if you have at least half the strength of your opponent, God will take up the slack).
Finding violent quotes in the quran isn’t hard. For example, with reference to unbelievers the quran says:
These verses may sound violent but it’s important to note a couple of things. Firstly the concept of abrogation. That is, certain verses of the quran are believed to have been abrogated (nullified) by later verses. Secondly there is historical context. Some of the verses are claimed by muslims to refer to specific battles which Mohammed was involved in at the time and are not meant to be taken as injunctions for all time. I seem to recall that Mohammed was involved in about 60 wars so there’s plenty of scope for historical context there.
One assumes that most mainstream muslims believe that most of these violent verses have either been abrogated or were specific to a particular battle. Extremist muslims presumably believe that some of these are still in force.
I dunno but I think it is relevant to point out that comparing the bible with the quran is of limited use.
Firstly, islam is not just the quran, it’s the hadiths too. Whereas christianity and judaism are totally contained in the bible.
Secondly, the mode of revelation is relevant. The bible is not really a book, it’s a library. It’s lots of different people writing down their revelations over the course of 2000 years. The quran was revealed to one man over one lifetime.
Thirdly, the format is different. Whereas the bible is really a series of anecdotes, the quran is the unadulterated word of God speaking directly to us in the first person. Issuing commands left, right and centre. Thus the quran is considerably more “in your face” than the bible.
Personally, I think that islam’s susceptability to violent interpretations is due largely to its “in your faceness”. The whole “unadulterated word of God speaking directly to us in the first person” deal. It’s hard to disagree with God when you’ve got his very words written down right there in front of you.
Apart from orthodox jews and some christian fringe groups, I don’t think that most christians and jews consider the bible to be the word of God as much as the will of God. That is, the bible is not really a bare list of orders and commands direct from God to the same extent the quran is.
Maybe he thought it would turn into a debate. In any case, this should be bumped.
Well, if I had asked it in GQ, I would have gotten “This should probably be in GD but…” I indicated that the question was for my own edification rather than debate because: 1. I didn’t offer a view on the issue myself; 2. I was looking for a moderate, reasonable view rather than those seeking to find exceptions in another’s arguments. I apparently achieved my objective because your post is more enlightening than it is argumentative. That was an
excellent post, thanks.
Thank you as well Necro Romancer.
Clearly this is not part of the Qur’aan. Why did you choose to stuff it in the middle of a number of quotes therefrom? And where did you get it?
Questions to Jojo and Necro Romancer: Are there not quotes of a similar tone and caliber in both the Old and New Testaments? If it is easy for Islamic fundamentalists to use such quotes from the Qur’ann (and the hadiths) to justify whatever actions they take, would it not be as easy for Christian fundamentalists to use similar Bible quotes to justify their actions?
It’s a hadith. But considering Muhammed and the Muslims had some early battles with Arab Jewish tribes, it’s not surprising it’s in there.
I think this quote says a lot about Islam & violence:
Oh, wait; that’s from the Bible. I guess I meant it says a lot about violence and Christianity.
A quick search for the word Jew in the link OneYogini provided above reveals nothing at all similar in tone or content towards Jews. If someone wants to make the point about whether or not the Qur’aan condones or prescribes violence, they shouldn’t be quoting the hadiths. Those are regarded as the words of Muhammad - see this Wikipedia article) for further reference.
I think the argument that one can find quotations preaching war and merciless violence against the enemies of the faith in both Great Books of three of the world’s major religions, has been made quite adequately. And yet we haven’t seen any examples of someone like Pat Robertson orchestrating hijacks of Egypt Air jets to fly them into the Saudi Royal Palace or the Burj al-Arab hotel in Dubai. So the difference has to lie elsewhere, outside of the books that form the foundation of these religions.
It’s certainly not the “Middle Eastern” mind. Islam covers a swath of territory from Morocco to Pakistan - one-and-a-half times wider than the United States - and if we here in the US don’t act with one mind and one heart, there’s certainly no way in hell Islam’s going to succeed at getting all its followers to do it.
Nevertheless, individual minds can be strongly influenced; so we’d need to look for something exerting that kind of strong influence on the minds of the Muslim population. One very good way of doing that is through propaganda. And obviously, the more financial and political backing that propaganda has, the more effective it is. So a country, say, with a serious amount of money to its credit and firm state control over the mass media would be very effective in spreading fundamentalist religious propaganda, should its ruling government choose to do so.
Therefore, we’d need to look for a rich country with a powerful domestic government that holds a highly conservative form of Islam as its official faith as a possible source of fundamentalist propaganda and education that could be spread beyond its borders. And who has even stronger allies that might be willing to overlook this adherence to fundamentalism while it combats the same fundamentalism elsewhere.
Osama bin Laden, unquestionably an extreme fundamentalist, studied in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia holds the Wahhabist doctrine as its official faith. Wahhabism is a highly conservative form of Islam that holds itself as the one true religion - even other non-Wahhabist Muslims are destined for the Lake of Fire - and this doctrine is taught to Saudi children almost from day one. Is it any wonder that young minds taught to hate right from the beginning will grow up to commit horrific acts? Should we blame the book those teachers use, when it is so obviously not interpreted in the same way by the vast majority of others who profess the same faith? I, for one, think not. The blame lies elsewhere.
It would be more accurate to say a “highly conservative perversion of Islam” - most muslims that I know would agree with this. Even conservative and devout muslims.
Wahhabism is an evil that is bringing terrible ill to the whole world, east and west. It is unjustifiable under any interpretation of the Quran, or study of the life of the Prophet Mohammed. (He married an older businesswoman who was very much his mentor, his daughter was a renowned teacher who people visited from far and wide, and his later wife Ayesha was also a teacher and respected figure).
The minds of general muslims are not perverted by Wahhabism, even those muslims that right now dislike and distrust the West. I don’t know what can save Saudi from itself, but hopefully in my lifetime the dark oppressive veil of a perverted creed will no longer overshadow the lives of people there.
FWIW, I wasn’t asking the question in an attempt to find a reason why Islamic militants often resort to violence. Passages that prescribe violence are interpreted as allegorical by those who want peace and literal by those who want war. It’s pretty safe to say that Polycarp had a different take on the bible than a Grand Inquisitor. Nevertheless, I think an objective person can give a reasonable, fair assessment of how a reasonable, fair person might interpret the two.
Olentzero said:
In principle, you are right but it doesn’t happen like this in reality for a number of reasons.
Your question is a good question because it points out a common area of misunderstanding that affects both muslims and christians. The important thing to grasp is that muslims think about their holy book in a different way to the way christians think about their holy book. I see this misunderstanding often when muslims ask questions of christians but I can tell from their question that they don’t really understand how christians think about the bible. Likewise when christians ask questions of muslims, I can often tell that they don’t really understand how muslims think about the quran.
Your question is a good example of this kind of misunderstanding. I’m not criticising you, just giving you my opinion. Of course, the bible is full of violent quotes but the bible isn’t the unadulterated word of God speaking directly to us in the first person, like the quran claims to be.
This “in your faceness”, this immediacy, is not present in the bible. The bible has an epic sweep - immense. It tells of grand wars and movements of people across large periods of time. It contains songs and poems, allegories, factual accounts. It’s got everything.
The quran, on the other hand is just one book covering a period of 20 years or so. You cannot really compare the bible with the quran. The quran is God talking to YOU personally saying “you must do this, you must do that”, the bible isn’t.
OK you could argue that the bible IS God speaking directly to YOU but even if you accept this you have to agree that it does it in a very different way to the way the quran does it. The violent quotes in the bible are just pebbles in a vast sea of verbiage. Large parts of the bible are not meant to necessarily be acted upon by us today. Parts of the bible are just there to add colour and context to it’s core teachings.
By contrast, none of the quran is there to add colour. It is ALL valid, every word because it’s all the word of God. Even those parts that have been abrogated were valid once, before they were abrogated. So this means that the violent quotes in the quran have just as much doctrinal importance as every other part of the quran. If they have been abrogated then muslims no longer consider themselves bound by these quotes but they were bound by them once. Back when they were valid, muslims would have been bound by them.
Most of the bible is the OT and this covers a period of time when there were no christians. So christians could not possibly have ever been bound by things in Leviticus because they weren’t around at the time. So God’s commands in Leviticus were not aimed at christians, in contrast ALL the commands in the quran are aimed at muslims.
I don’t know if I’m explaining this very well. All I’m trying to say is that yes there are violent quotes in the bible but I think it’s mistake to equate these with the violent quotes in the quran. The bible and the quran are completely different books, they are understood differently by their followers.
I’m not saying that the quran is therefore more violent than the bible because many of the violent quotes in the quran are no longer valid for whatever reason. I’m saying that (I think) equating the bible with the quran is a mistake. The sweep and authorship of the bible is grandiose, epic. The sweep of the quran is much more modest, incomparable to the bible.
And the way muslims understand the quran is different to the way christians understand the bible. The quran is much more “in your face”, much more stern.
You point the finger of blame at the wahabbi but I’m not so sure. They are partly to blame, of course, but I wouldn’t ignore the influence of the quran quite so readily. As I’ve tried to explain above, the quran is a very formal, stern book. It’s God speaking directly to us, issuing orders.
This is not the first time in history that muslims have got uppity. Islam has a tradition of warrior priests. Consider the 19th century madhi revolt in Sudan - they were not wahabbi. I wonder whether these things are not cyclical in nature. It’s in the nature of islam to do this every so often.
Islam can almost be interpreted as a doomsday cult because it has a very heavy emphasis on the Day of Judgement and the coming of the mahdi etc. The only thing that perhaps stops it from being a fully fledged doomsday cult is that it doesn’t give a precise date for the day of judgement.
Doomsday cults generally give us a particular date for when the end will come. This is quite lucky because it means that, once that date has passed and nothing has happened, we can all point at them and laugh. Islam doesn’t give a date - it just says it’s very near. The problem with this is it means the end is ALWAYS nigh. There is never a time when the end is not nigh. So you end up in a perpetual “end is nigh” state.
This is just the nature of islam. It’s a big mistake in my opinion but there you go. So if you combine all these factors together:
- Islam’s heavy emphasis on the day of judgement
- the “in your face” language used in the quran
- the stern, must be obeyed or else, teachings of the quran
- wahabbi influence
- money from oil
- poverty and lack of education
- fiery sermons at friday prayers
- lack of responsible leaders in the muslim world
you get trouble.