Does the Koran Say That It is Ok to Kill Non Muslims?

Factual Questions
41

Major Feelgood: Unfortunately in this case that’s not an option, as the Sunni tradition really doesn’t have a real clergy in the Christian sense. There is no church hiearchy at all. Though some pre-20th century governments, like the Ottomans, maintained appointed government posts with religious authority, those were purely internal to the country in question and had no real ‘scriptural’ authority.

The Shi’ites DO have a clergy of sorts, with some degree of loose hiearchy. But as Osama bin Laden and his followers are not Shi’ite ( in fact they are active oppressors of indigenous Afghan Shi’ites ), pronouncements from that camp won’t accomplish much of anything.

  • Tamerlane
42

I don’t pretend to know much about that religion, but in a way, do they not consider this to be a battle or sorts?

43

Yes and no. The faithful are strongly encouraged to read and study the Koran. But many in these countries are poor and illiterate. And the only “true” Koran is the one written in classic Arabic which distances many even further, though certainly translations are discussed.

I don’t have my Short History of Islam handy, so I’m going from memory here, but I recall reading that there was a school of thought in early Islam which took a more liberal approach to interpreting the Koran, but that was officially “closed” in the 10th or 11th C. Can someone with better knowledge confirm / correct this?

(And just so nobody is confused: the Koran was written in the 7th C.)

44

No offense intended, Saxman, but I think you’re a little off point. The OP was whether Islam enjoins the killing of nonbelievers, not how it says to treat noncombatants. To me, at least, those are different issues.

I found an article titled “The Religious and Moral Doctrine On Jihad” at http://www.islaam.com/ilm/ibnta.htm. Of course, one website doesn’t represent all of Islam, but the site as a whole doesn’t seem to me to be exceptionally fundamentalist or radical. Someone more familiar with Islam than I am would be in a better position to evaluate that. Anyway, you can read the article for yourself, but here are some quotes – fair use, I hope, and not too far out of context. All the parenthical notes, except the one noted, are in the original.

“That then is the jihad against the unbelievers (kuffaar), the enemies of God and His Messenger. For whoever has heard the summons of the Messenger of God, Peace be upon him, and has not responded to it, must be fought, “until there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely.” [K., 2:193, 8:39].”

“As for the People of the Book <Christians and Jews – note by Whiffet> and the Zoroastrians (Majoos), they are to be fought until they become Muslims or pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled.”

“Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely [2:189, 8:39] and God’s word is uppermost [9:40], therefore, according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare].”

“The most serious type of obligatory jihad is the one against the unbelievers and against those who refuse to abide by certain prescription of the Sharee`ah, like those who refuse to pay zakaat, the Kharijites and the like. This jihad is obligatory if it is carried out on our initiative and also if it is waged as defence.”

“So the latter [form of jihad] consists in defense of the religion, of things that are inviolable, and of lives. Therefore it is fighting out of necessity. The former [type of jihad], however, is voluntary fighting in order to propagate the religion, to make it triumph and to intimidate the enemy, such as was the case with the expedition to Tabook and the like.”

The article does say that captured persons should not be harmed, but this protection apparently doesn’t extend to male combatants who are captured:

“The Sharee`a enjoins fighting the unbelievers, but not the killing of those who have been captured. If a male unbeliever is taken captive during warfare or otherwise, e.g. as a result of a shipwreck, or because he lost his way, or as a result of a ruse, then the head of state (imaam) may do whatever he deems appropriate: killing him, enslaving him, releasing him or setting him free for a ransom consisting in either property or people. This is the view of most jurists and it is supported by the Koran and the Sunna.”

45

Beruang: Are you referring to the Mu’tazila school of thought?

http://members.tripod.com/SuzyAshraf/htm/tazilites.htm

whiffet: I think there is no question that the Koran sanctions the use of violence against those “that make war against Muslims for religious reasons or drive them from their homes” as one cite I’ve seen ( and posted ) put it.

The pertinent question though, remains as such - Are Muslims enjoined to kill unbelievers as a matter of course? The answer to that being NO.

Remember that Islam was originally a purely ethnic religion that sought converts only among other Arabs. Indeed, the unexpected conversion of large numbers of non-Arabs ( mostly Persians ) in the century after Islam expanded beyond the Arabian penninsula and Syria ( which was already largely Arab due to immigration before Islam arose ), caused a great deal of social stress. Islam was looking to propagate the faith among Arabs and eliminate threats to the new Muslim state. But is was seeking neither to convert, nor exterminate, the non-Arab, non-Muslim subjects it acquired. There is no general clause in Islam that requires any such action. In fact there are clauses in the Koran the specifically abjure it ( at least for the Ahl al-dhimma or “protected peoples”, specifically Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians ).

Now if you want to make the case that Islam is inherently non-egalitarian because it places Muslims above other people, you’ll get no argument from me. But that tends to be a feature of all Judeo-Christian religions ( and most religions period ).

Just as an aside, I haven’t poked too thoroughly into the site you linked to and I’m not a scholar of the Koran in any real sense - But some of those pulled quotes can’t be from from the Koran. The Kharijites mentioned in one of them, for example, were an Islamic sect that arose from a split in the early Shi’ite camp during the first fitna ( civil war ) during the reign of the fourth Caliph, Ali. I think you just have one ( though perhaps a widely accepted, I don’t really know ) view from a particular sect or theologian. I doubt the Kharijites, who considered themselves the only ‘true’ Muslims, would have accepted that the Koran specifically enjoined Muslims to war on them :wink: .

  • Tamerlane
46

Tamerlane, I didn’t mean to give the impression that all those quotes were from the Quran. They’re just from the body of the article.

To me, some of those statements do sound like they advocate unprovoked or least pre-emptive attacks on unbelievers – for instance, the one about “defensive” versus “voluntary” jihads. But I suppose, if someone is so inclined, they could interpret any mention of fighting or opposition or jihad in the way Bernard Lamy uses ‘fighting’ in "l’art de parler* – purely figuratively and metaphorically, and to indicate seriousness of purpose.

*A 1675 work on rhetoric and perhaps the first to use the term “persuasion” in a modern way.