Maybe you should read it. Then you’d know.
From the Koran:
“Fight all the non-believers.”
(Sura Toba 9:35)
“If you meet the non-believers then strike their necks.”
(Sura Muhammad 47:4)
“Fight the people that do not believe in Allah or Judgment Day.”
(Sura Toba 9:29)
“Fight them (non-believers) and God will torture them by your hands.”
(Sura Toba 9:14)
“Fight” in these quotes come from the same word as kill!!
Would anyone like to take a crack at an explanation of some of these passages from the Koran?
O Beleivers! Take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If any one of you takes them for his friends, he surely is one of them! 5:56
And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever you shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way. 9:5
Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the
truth. 9:29
Believers! wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbors, and let them find you rigorous. 9:124
God loves not the false, the Infidel. 22:39
Give not way therefore to the Infidels, but by means ot this Koran strive against them with a mighty strife. 25:54
Be not you helpful to the unbelievers. 28:86
Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other. 4:38
From Sura 48:29, “Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.”
The cliffs notes seem to be doing just fine for now…
Islam is no more and no less violent of a faith than Judiaism or Christianity. I can find passages at least as onerous in both the Hebrew and New Testaments.
When humans are committing atrocities they can find sacred text justifications if they want. Hebrews have done it; Christians have done; Hindus have done it; Muslims have done it.
When humans are committed to helping others they can also find inspiration in their faiths.
Bashing Islam and glorifying it are both unrealistic. It is us people that are scum or noble.
Sam Stone: Ah, interpretations. It’s all about the interpretations 
. To see a discussion on a couple of the passages you raised, in particular the first( see the section “Meaning of Friendship with non-Muslims” ), I put forward this link, yet again:
http://www.qaradawi.net/english/books/The-lawful&The-Prohibited-In-Islam/Chap4/chap4s5.htm
- Tamerlane
An analysis of the quoted passages from the Quran would require, I feel, someone with a better knowledge of Arabic than I have. I have to agree with DSeid, though, that this is all completely pointless since the kind of people who want to kill other people don’t really care how easy or hard it is to justify their actions according to their religion. I guess you could say that Hinduism is a less violent religion than Islam, but this didn’t make any difference to Indian Hindus at the time of the India/Pakistan partition in 1947.
All I can tell you is that I grew up in a Muslim country, I read the Quran, and I was taught by my elders that Jews and Christians would go to heaven and that it was wrong to lie, steal or take the life of another person. I’ll leave Tamerlane or Muslim Guy to discuss specific passages of the Quran.
In reading these, you need to remember two things about Islam and the Quran:
-
Islam makes a strong distinction between pagans and what it calls “People of the Book” (monotheists — Jews and Christians, with Hindus being added later). It is much harder on the former than the latter.
-
The Quran was written by a single man, within the lifetime of a single man (“created” would be more appropriate, as it was committed to memory and written down later). Thus, its attitude to various groups varied with the situation, the time, and what was happening to the fledgling group of Muslims at any particular time. Messages are given to specific people after specific events (those who fled from a battle, for example). You need to read with an eye to what is “situation specific” and what is more “permanent”. (Note: the belief that the Quran was dictated directly to the Prophet by an angel does not change any of the above).
There is no long document that cannot be taken out of context and used as an excuse to hate and kill. Stranger in a Strange Land was used to justify the Manson killings.
There’s a difference between a book that literally says to do repressive things, but can be *interpreted to suggest otherwise, and a book that doesn’t literally say repressive things, but can be interpreted that way.
Many of the explanations of these statements in Islam seem to me to be fairly large leaps of logic. For instance, on one of the links posted above, a scholar attempts to whitewash this statement:
By saying that it only applies to SOME Jews and Christians. Why? Well, because in other parts of the book the Prophet says to make friends with many people, so if we are to take this literally it would be a direct contradiction. But he offers no evidence why it is this statement that must be modified, and not the other one.
I grew up in a religious family, and attended churches and bible studies for most of my youth. Then I became an agnostic, largely because of what I saw in the church and read in the Bible that I couldn’t agree with. So I’m no apologist for the Bible, but for the life of me I can’t see the equivalent militant, violent things in the Bible. And the most violent passages are described as historical accounts, which had the blessing of God at one time, but then Christ came along and changed everything, and now he wants everyone to love everyone else. In other words, the Bible turns progressive and peaceful when it describes the ‘New Covenant’.
Sure, there were and are lots of people who used the bible to justify violence, but it’s not easy to do, and you can’t get there by just accepting literal passages as truth - you have to interpret it. I can’t think of a single statement in the bible that gives a direct command to believers like this:
I may not be getting the whole picture here, but I’m trying to learn. I just want to understand why, if Islam is obviously such a peaceful religion, the countries which practice it tend towards such violence. And why 17 out of 18 Muslim countries are not Democratic. And why Christianity does not seem to lead the disaffected and poor into terrorism the way Islam seems to (the IRA notwithstanding).
And finally, if violence is such anathema to true Muslims, why am I not hearing strong condemnation from the ranks of Muslim clerics? Their response to this seems to be tepid at best.
Not likely. See this article originally published in the Atlantic Monthly:
The author makes a good case that the Koran had many authors and editors and evolved over generations, much like the Bible. There are those who maintain that Islam was developed primarily as an instrument of Arab imperialism. I tend to agree with them.
Sam, I can’t answer all of your questions, and to tell you the truth I also feel that Christianity places more emphasis on peace than Islam does. But I don’t think that has anything to do with the violence you see in countries which practice Islam. Please keep in mind that many of these countries are third world countries. Christian countries seem to me to have been just as violent and barbaric in the past. They just developed an understanding of and a desire to protect human rights earlier than people in other parts of the world. For example, Hinduism is a very peaceful religion, but when the English arrived in India they were shocked to find that widows were forced by their in-laws to throw themselves on their husbands’ funeral pyres. Nowadays, most Hindus would never dream of doing such a thing. But at the time I’m sure that the English thought of the Indians as cruel, godless barbarians.
Most Muslim nations are simply less developed than Western (non-Muslim) nations. For this reason also, they have not yet embraced democracy, just as most European nations were not democracies a couple of hundred years ago. Pakistan, for example, attempted democracy for about ten years. It failed because 90% of the population is illiterate. Many of them live in rural areas and do not own a television. They have no idea who to vote for. The elections were a farce. This had nothing to do with religion, as Islam prizes education and learning very highly.
I don’t think Islam leads poor people into terrorism. I believe that these people are motivated by their political differences. But I agree that they do use certain aspects of Islam as justification for their acts. Perhaps if they were Christians this would be harder for them to do.
First of all, there are more than 18 Muslim countries in the world. Maybe you’re thinking of Arab countries.
As to your main point…
What you were taught (that the violent stuff was G-d’s command at the time, but it’s not now) was an interpretation, the same way that scholar you mentioned was interpeting the Koran (to say the same thing, actually; that G-d’s commandments to not befriend Jews and Christians were true at the time, but not now.)
pennylane,
HARDER FOR CHRISTIANS TO USE THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY VIOLENCE?!
(falls on floor laughing)
And you’ve read it?
I suggest that you look at a history of the past two millenia. From Constaninople to Pope Urban to intrademoniational persecutions which resulted in the birth of the United States to … all quoted chapter and verse to prove that God was on their side.
Maybe the easiest thing to do here is to acknowledge that all religious books can be interpreted to support violence, by cherry-picking quotes here and there. Contrast that with the way all religions preach peace and tolerance, and you have an inherent contradiction problem.
IMO, Islam is inherently as violence-oriented as Christianity or Judiasm, but it’s misinformed Western stereotypes that focus on the bombings and ignore the goodwill aspects.
Even so, I’m happy to remain an atheist – I alone am answerable to my actions, not something I can fob off to an imaginary “higher power”.
The Bible consistently preaches, peace, love, tolerance, forgiveness, repentance, and leaving judgment and condemnation to God.
As a student of the Bible I have never encountered a passage that advocated me (or any other Christian) to carry out God’s judgment for Him.
In fact, it is strictly forbidden.
If people use the Bible to justify their evil deeds they are deluding themselves. The Bible says that we are all sinners and need to work on repentance. No one is higher than another. Islam, through the Koran, preaches that all non-believers of Allah and Mohammed are inferior and worthy of death.
People can use any book to justify any action. But the clear difference is that in the Koran, Muslims are commanded to carry out God’s judgments for Him.,
The Bible consistently preaches, peace, love, tolerance, forgiveness, repentance, and leaving judgment and condemnation to God.
As a student of the Bible I have never encountered a passage that advocated me (or any other Christian) to carry out God’s judgment for Him.
In fact, it is strictly forbidden.
If people use the Bible to justify their evil deeds they are deluding themselves. The Bible says that we are all sinners and need to work on repentance. No one is higher than another. Islam, through the Koran, preaches that all non-believers of Allah and Mohammed are inferior and worthy of death.
People can use any book to justify any action. But the clear difference is that in the Koran, Muslims are commanded to carry out God’s judgments for Him.
If you want to say that the Bible does justify persecution I want to see some verses. I could care less what Constantine or Urban did. They obviously had other motives. I would just as easily dismiss Atta and the other idiots as being on the lunatic fringe of Islam if I did not read, with my own eyes, in the Koran, commandments to smite the non-believers.
I am a Christian whose childhood was spent in the Mid-East.
Any verses I can think of off the top of my head, you’ll undoubtedly have some spin for. Since it’s clear that no amount of evidence will change your mind, why do you ask for it?
Sam Stone: First off sorry for cherrypicking your comments and changing the sequence in my following reply. It was just easier to order my thoughts that way.
An excellent question and one that is being pursued in Milo’s thread below.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=90732
Whelp, you’ll never hear me, at least, calling Islam inherently peaceful. Of all the major religions in the world, it is undoubtedly among the most ( if not THE most ) militant there is. It was a religion that was born in struggle. Active, military struggle. And the Koran reflects this in both language and theme. The fact that the infant Muslim state morphed into an Imperial power so near-instantaneously ( largely for pragmatic reasons - booty from conquest and the perks of a privileged status ensured the loyalty of recently and very shakily converted Arab tribes ), speaks to this. It’s one of the features about Islam I find less attractive ( though as I said, I don’t have a problem with a defensive creed ).
I am willing to say, as I did above, that it is not inherently bloodthirsty. That is, it does not command the wholesale slaughter of innocents just for the crime of non-belief. But there’s quite a wide range between “peaceful” on the one hand and “bloodthirsty” on the other.
As far as violence, especially terrorism, goes - Well, IMHO modern violence is a phenomena that derives from the last 200 years of history ( as filtered through an Islamic lens, of course ), rather than purely from Islamic ideology. One might as well ask why Latin America or Southeast Asia has such a storied history of violence and dictatorships. Border conflicts aside ( endemic to any Imperial power ), the history of Islamic states records long periods of relative peace and prosperity. Which isn’t to say Islamic history isn’t replete with many, many acts ( sometimes every day acts ) of horrific brutality - It certainly is. But then, so are the histories of all peoples.
Well others have mentioned aberrations such as the Christian Identity Movement and others that preach virulent, violent racism. And one can find massive examples in history - To throw out an odd one, the T’ai P’ing rebellion in 19th century China.
Still your point is well-taken. I think the militant language of Islam does lend itself more easily to this sort of thing, than Christianity does.
I think you’re being unfair here. I could be wrong, but my impression is that that piece was written for other Muslims. It’s not an attempt to whitewash nasty passages for the consumption of the infidels - It’s an clarify for other Muslims what this passage means ( at least to this scholar ). Maybe he’s full of shit and self-deluding - But I think that is sincere belief you’re seeing, not an attempt to weasel.
Which has been my point all along. I hate when I get the feeling that I’m coming off as an apologist for violence and intolerance. I don’t want to whitewash Islam’s shortcomings. Ultimately, all I have wanted to do here at the SDMB, is two drive home two points:
1.) Islam is not a monolith. Muslims all over the world disagree, often profoundly, over their faith and what it entails.
2.) The vast majority of Muslims do not think it’s just fine and dandy to slaughter innocents in the name of their religion.
That’s it. Otherwise I can come up with all sorts of personal and historical quibbles with Islam. For every Akbar the Great declaring that the jizya on Hindus in India was contrary to the wishes of God, there was a al-Hakim persecuting Christians. I’ll reiterate - I’m not Muslim. Because - I don’t believe in God, I find many of the practices of Islam confining and personally inconvenient, and I have moral problems with some elements of Islam ( and some elements of all Judeo-Christian religions, generally ).
But in the interest of fairness, what I don’t want to see accepted unchallenged are comments like this…
…which are only half right. The Koran DOES essentially say non-Muslims are inferior ( as many Christians believe non-Christians are inferior, or at least are doomed to hell - same thing ), a concept I find offensive. But it DOES NOT say they are all worthy of death. Muslims did not and do not go around slaughtering non-Muslims just for the crime of not being Muslim. Rather the Koran specifically condemns such mindless thuggery.
The problem is that people are people - i.e. hypocrites. The Koran also enjoins Muslims not to fight other Muslims. That one has been consistently ignored for millenia, no matter how much lip service is paid to it. People will find whatever justifications they can, wherever they can, to make themselves feel better about their actions.
The fact that there are Muslims on this board who do not feel the need to go out and murder non-Muslims means what? That they are just bad Muslims? Or does Islam encompass the totality of the human experience, including nobility and tolerance, as well as evil?
Anywho, sorry if I come off ranty or preachy, that wasn’t my intention . And double-sorry if I seem to be whitewashing. I don’t want anyone to take my word as gospel. Just to take it as another possible viewpoint.
- Tamerlane
My point simply is that anyone can justify their actions by any book. I think you would agree on that point. But that alone should have no bearing on the book itself. The book must be judged by what is inside. As we have seen in this thread there are many verses (and I could post more if you’d like) in the Koran that not only condone violence against non-Muslims but advocate it!! And putting it into context actually amplifies that fact. No spin is needed to read something at face value.
However, the Bible does not condone, and forbids, persecution of others. Unless you can point to a verse, passage, or book in the Bible that advocates violence or condemnation then that accusation is idle.
[aside]
Having been raised in the Mid-East I have nothing but fond memories of my friends there. Most of whom did not actively follow the Koran. Also keep in mind that most people in the Mid-East are illiterate and are unable to read the Koran to be horrified by it.
[/aside]
Yes, anybody can use any religious book to justify bad actions. That is a truism, I don’t think any rational person would argue with that. But objectively, does one religious book make it a lot easier to justify bad actions than another? That’s really the heart of my question on this thread.