# Koran forbids killing innocent civilians **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 17, 2015, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804 "2015-11-17T16:37:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2015, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804/21 "2015-11-18T18:41:45Z")
Christianity may have moved on in general but there is no shortage of Christans ready to pull it backwards if they ever get their hands on the levers of powers. Fanaticism is not the property of any one religion. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2015, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804/22 "2015-11-18T20:51:48Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > LOL. As with the Tanakh (the book of Joshua is a fine example), plain-text reading of holy scripture for Jews, Christians and Muslims has gobs of examples for why non-believers should be slaughtered. > > Jews and Christians have, on average, moved on from using scriptures to defend slaughtering non-believers and find more secular reasons–at least, for public consumption–to kill others. > > Islam as a rule is well behind that secular curve. Islam-majority countries generally do not separate church and state and instead consider the state as a major institution to promote Islam. Within Islam, change has been slower to discard scripture as justification for societal behavior. > > As science plugs along and more people realize the various holy writs were just one guy’s opinion (and not a conduit to some Greater Truth from Above), the gentlest mechanism of discarding plain texts is to put them “in context.” This strategy is applied by all religions as they evolve, because it’s easier than just calling bullshit on holy texts revered by the preachers and masses within a religion. > > If you are a Muslim inclined to kill non-believers, you make the context of a verse suggesting they be killed to be a general defense of Islam, under which guideline any non-believing party by definition opposes Islam. So it’s fine to bump off a two-year old with a suicide vest. > > If you are a Muslim not inclined to kill non-believers, you make the context of a verse suggesting they be killed to be a narrow defense against specific attack situations. So it’s not fine to bump off non-believers except in a military-type defense. > > It’s human nature to defend one’s religion and its holy texts because that is inculcated into children from birth. Unfortunately, the nutcases who wrote the original texts are no longer around to “interpret” them, so the plain text gets bandied about in diametrically opposed defenses of behavior all the time. > > The Qur’an generally supports killing of those who oppose Islam. It takes quite a lot of wiggling to get around that, and as with the Johua’s armies and the Crusaders of yore, it has not been historically difficult to use that support as a religious defense for killing. > > It’s nice to see part of the Islamic world catching up with Judaism and Christianity to allow evolution of the religion toward interpretations “in context” that move away from plenary dictums from Above to kill non-believers. Islam is still a few hundred years behind in this evolution, but perhaps the pace will accelerate as science and education move people off of holy writ as the mechanism by which one decides how to behave. > > I look forward to a day when we kill one another just because we don’t like what’s happening, instead of killing one another because our holy writ says to do so. 😃 I take it you have not heard of Hadiths and Tafsir … basically, there is a tradition of interpretation of the Koran that has always existed and goes back to the very beginnings of Islam. Suffice it to say that Daesh’s interpretations of the text are far from the mainstream of Islam. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804/23 "2015-11-18T23:35:53Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > This is from the English translation of the scholars letter to the DAESH rebuking them for violating the long established Islamic traditions about war, it is a translation from the Arabic risala and is in the style of the argument internal to scholars, meant to convince of course not Baghdadi, but those who might be fooled into thinking the DAESH. > the point of the letter sent was to highlight with learned islamic references that to behave in the way that the DAESH behaves means\*\* to rip text out of long established context and to ignore what has been considered - and for centuries, not just some dressing fad for you - to be the letter and the spirit.\*\* [QUOTE=NB] I can’t imagine that such a moderate reading will have any effect on the group itself and won’t teach moderate muslims anything other than what they already know. Are the quotes in the letter actually from the Koran? And can ISIL in response not simply dig up quotes from the book itself that suits their purpose and thus play a game of infallability “top trumps”. [/QUOTE] Of course they can: [A response to the open letter written to the Khalifah Al-Baghdadi (Part 1 – Hijrah) – Abul-Khattab Al-Janubi](https://musacerantonio.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/a-response-to-the-open-letter-written-to-the-khalifah-al-baghdadi-part-1-hijrah-abul-khattab-al-janubi/) > [@](#): > > the letter attempts to claim that hijrah has been abrogated based upon a single ḥadīth. It tries to suggest that hijrah is no longer a part of Islam, rather it is solely a thing of the past and any command to migrate is no longer relevant, all based upon this following ḥadīth of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: > > ‏لاَ هِجْرَةَ بَعْدَ الْفَتْحِ وَلَكِنْ جِهَادٌ وَنِيَّةٌ وَإِذَا اسْتُنْفِرْتُمْ فَانْفِرُوا > > “There is no hijrah after the conquest of Makkah, however Jihad and intention remain, and if you are called to go forth in fighting then go forth.” [Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhārī 2783] > > The attempt to use this ḥadīth in isolation to suggest that hijrah has ended and no longer exists is quite shameful, especially coming from a group of people claiming to be scholars. \*\*What is perhaps ironic is that in their letter they warn against the exact thing that they have done here, and that is giving religious opinions without considering the entire Revelation, as well as considering what is general and what is specific. \*\*It is sufficient to quote the following authentic ḥadīth of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to prove that hijrah has not ceased and will not cease until the Last Day: > > ‏ لاَ تَنْقَطِعُ الْهِجْرَةُ حَتَّى تَنْقَطِعَ التَّوْبَةُ وَلاَ تَنْقَطِعُ التَّوْبَةُ حَتَّى تَطْلُعَ الشَّمْسُ مِنْ مَغْرِبِهَا > > “Hijrah will not end until repentance ends, and repentance will not end until the sun rises in the west.” [Sunan Abī Dāwūd 2479] A longer point by point response:[Debunking The Letter Of The Wicked Scholars To Amirul Muhmineen – Part 1 By Shaikh Abdullah Faisal](http://www.authentictauheed.com/2015/02/notes-debunking-letter-of-wicked.html) [MUSLIM SCHOLARS VS. ISIS](http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/10/is-the-muslim-scholars-open-letter-to-isis-really-enough) > [@](#): > > The statement is ambiguous in crucial areas, which not only weaken its argument, but also question whether it is truly a rigorous and valid refutation of ISIS’s deeds and claims. In what follows, I will focus only on two of them: the concept of jihad and the restoration of the Muslim caliphate. While this letter claims to present the correct version of the Muslim teaching, its imprecise description of important areas makes it subject to different, and sometimes opposite, understandings, leaving the reader, especially the non-Muslim, puzzled regarding correct Islamic teaching. > > First, concerning the concept of jihad, the letter reads: “The word ‘jihad’ is an Islamic term that cannot be applied to armed conflict against any other Muslim.” Okay, but what about non-Muslims? Can jihad be applied against them? The letter, though recommending jihad as a form of self-piety or a way to strive against one’s ego, does not specify against whom armed jihad should be applied. This leaves the door open for interpretation. > > Moreover, it states that “All Muslims see the great virtue in jihad,” and does not explain what “the jihad against the enemy” really means. In fact, the letter applauds and praises the “intentions” of the members of ISIS, noting, “it is clear that you [Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi] and your fighters are fearless and are ready to sacrifice in your intent for jihad.” The approval sends mixed signals. At the end, the reader doesn’t know what to think. Is armed jihad forbidden only against Muslims? The letter seems to convey so. If this is a true Islamic teaching, then it is seriously damaging to free societies, especially if we consider the non-Muslim groups marauded and slaughtered by ISIS under the banner of jihad. > > Second, regarding the restoration (or reestablishment) of the Islamic caliphate, the letter affirms that “There is [an] agreement (ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the [Muslim] Ummah . . . [which] has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE.” This is a serious point. In their attempt to refute ISIS’s claims regarding the caliphate, the Muslim scholars seem to affirm the ideology of the caliphate with some restrictions. They continue: “a new caliphate requires consensus from Muslims and not just from those in some small corner of the world.” This is puzzling. Does it mean that the restoration of the Muslim caliphate is an obligation upon the Muslim community worldwide these days? Is it only a matter of “consensus”? The letter does not specify. What one may understand of such statements is that ISIS’s caliphate is rejected by some other “Muslims” mainly because there is no “consensus” about it, but the Muslim caliphate and its restoration is a real Muslim commitment, and only needs an agreement among the Muslims in order to reestablish it. > > What the signers forget is that, historically speaking, it is difficult even to argue that there was a “consensus” among the Muslims in previous caliphates. On the same day of Muhammad’s death, Muslims disagreed about the caliph, and that is for the most part the reason why we have the Shia–Sunni division among Muslims today. Thus, the Muslim scholars, in their attempt to refute ISIS’s claims, create even more serious questions about Muslim teaching and ideology regarding the restoration of the caliphate. > > The ambiguity in this letter reflects the sensitive and critical situation of the Muslim scholars who signed it, and stems probably from at least three reasons: 1) It is obvious that original Muslim texts include statements and stories that could support ISIS’s claims and deeds if interpreted literally, so Muslim scholars try to be both sensitive in choosing their words and selective in their quotations from sacred texts, which results in ambiguity in some cases; 2) Scholars realize that outright denunciation of ISIS’s interpretation is quite difficult, as such interpretations run throughout Muslim history, in addition to the fact that Abu Bakr himself holds a PhD in Islamic Studies; and 3) In the Muslim perception and mindset, the concept of one unified umma (community) obliges Muslims to defend and support their Muslim fellows all the way. The letter is obviously well intentioned, but it is a mistake to consider it an actual objective refutation of the scriptural justifications that ISIS uses for it’s savagery, rather than the ad hoc, stop gap measure that it is. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2015, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804/24 "2015-11-18T23:44:10Z")
> [@Sigene](#): > > I keep hearing this point, and I just have to respond to it with a question. > > How does one define ‘innocent civilians’? > > I would argue that it is very easy for the killers to define those who were murdered as NOT innocent civilians…and therefor deserving of death. > > I don’t know why I haven’t heard anyone else make that counter argument, but it seems clear as day to me. > > I don’t know where to put this, so I figured Great Debates was the best The Koran orders the “faithful” to slaughter anyone who they can’t convert. [http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm](http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm) ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804/25 "2015-11-19T01:54:26Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > The Koran orders the “faithful” to slaughter anyone who they can’t convert. > [http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm](http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm) Seriously, can’t you find a source that’s just a _little_ less unabashedly biased and hateful? ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804/26 "2015-11-19T03:17:36Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Seriously, can’t you find a source that’s just a _little_ less unabashedly biased and hateful? If it is in there, it only shows that the radicals have plenty of inspiration for their Quran too. What do moderates do with scriptures such as those? Whether it’s moderate or radical scholars, I imagine each group can probably do with the Quran, what Christians and other religious groups can also do with their holy writs; each can justify basically any cause getting it to say whatever they would like for it to say by proof-texting select scriptures promoting their point of view, while ignoring other scriptures which would advocate the exact opposite, also probably claiming the other side has misinterpreted the true meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804/27 "2015-11-19T06:02:53Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > You missed an opportunity there to say “no magic bullet”, surely that would have more in keeping with the SD style of black humour? > > I think you are right though. This sort of intervention and this sort of message to the young and disaffected is one way among many of reducing the number of potential recruits. It isn’t a quick fix unfortunately. > > Also, it may only be my perception but I think the moderate muslim majority are getting far better at denouncing islamic terrorism loudly and publically. I’d imagine that it pisses them off that they have to do it in the first place but, it is necessary and welcome. They’ve been denouncing it for awhile. Beyond that, yeah, you’re right that such quotes probably aren’t going to change any ISIS/DAESH member’s moods, but why is that remotely surprising. Is there anyone so stupid that they think that the Crusaders who engaged in widespread mass murder had never read the Sermon on the Mount? On the contrary, they could probably all quote it verbatim in multiple languages. People who think that differences between Muslims and Christians are due to passages in the text tend to be overly deterministic. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804/28 "2015-11-19T11:49:16Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > The letter is obviously well intentioned, but it is a mistake to consider it an actual objective refutation of the scriptural justifications that ISIS uses for it’s savagery, rather than the ad hoc, stop gap measure that it is. “objective refutation”? what does this even mean in the context of the theological texts… in any religion? Other than we see you are the apologist for the Takfiri murder theological point of view. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804/29 "2015-11-19T13:23:10Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > “objective refutation”? > > what does this even mean in the context of the theological texts… in any religion? Something that made some sort of logical sense would be a nice start. One can objectively prove lots of things about theological texts, ie we can objectively prove that the Koran contains many references to the Arabian pennensula. But we can’t objectively prove that it does not support ISIS’s actions. > [@](#): > > Other than we see you are the apologist for the Takfiri murder theological point of view. Oh is that right? Now merely noting that a point of view exists is being an apologist for it? LOL nice response! It’s especially ironic after I have pointed out to you that this letter you are referring to actually praises ISIS ("fearless and are ready to sacrifice in your intent for jihad.” ) and agrees with their goal of establishing a caliphate. But I guess for you a response that scolds them for attacks on Muslims is sufficient. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804/30 "2015-11-19T13:29:54Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > One can objectively prove lots of things about theological texts, Oh my what insight… of banal non relevance. > [@](#): > > It’s especially ironic after I have pointed out to you that this letter you are referring to actually praises ISIS ("fearless and are ready to sacrifice in your intent for jihad.” ) and agrees with their goal of establishing a caliphate. But I guess for you a response that scolds them for attacks on Muslims is sufficient. Sane and non-deranged people of ordinary intelligence can read the letter and understand it is trying to be genuinely convincing rather than acting like the crazy street preacher screaming at the sinners that they are Evil Evil Evil. I find the letter pragmatic in trying to actually achieve an effect rather than playing to the already convinced, a [practical and rational approach… in contrast with other practices pretending here. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804/31 "2015-11-19T14:21:56Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > People who think that differences between Muslims and Christians are due to passages in the text tend to be overly deterministic. Quoted for emphasis! But really, it seems to be all the rage with those attacking religions for any reason. They tend to take the text totally literally and point out how contradictory, crazy, or evil the text is. Which may well be true, but it is not a good attack on the religion - most of which have evolved quite sophisticated systems of commentary, interpretation and analysis that make the religion actually practiced far more, and quite different, from that contained in the original text. There are of course exceptions - literalists of various stripes do exist, and they tend to be noisy. Thus you get the odd phenomenon of modern-day anti-religious types insisting, along with the fundamentalists, that the (often deeply unpleasant) fundamentalists represent the “true” interpreters of the religion, rather that the (often far more humane and admirable) mainstream, because their vision is a simple-minded application of the text - often, cherry-picking the very nastiest bits for emphasis. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804/32 "2015-11-19T16:07:48Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Oh my what insight… of banal non relevance. > > Sane and non-deranged people of ordinary intelligence can read the letter and understand it is trying to be genuinely convincing rather than acting like the crazy street preacher screaming at the sinners that they are Evil Evil Evil. > > I find the letter pragmatic in trying to actually achieve an effect rather than playing to the already convinced, a [practical and rational approach… in contrast with other practices pretending here. You know, the ‘banal non relevance’ thing I could let slide as attacking the post. But the ‘Sad and non-deranged’ bit is really attacking the poster. Warning issued. Don’t do it again. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koran-forbids-killing-innocent-civilians/737804.md?page=1)