Qur'an Experts: I Need Your Help

Factual Questions
1

I’m in the middle of a debate with some friends about Islam & The Qur’an.

One of the posters has the opinion that Islam is religion based on terror, and has provided the following quotes to back up his claim.

I need to know:

  1. Are the enclosed quotes really from the Qur’an?
  2. Are they word for word?
  3. Are his quotes (cites) honest and accurate?

His defence is “Read the Qur’an and you will see for yourself”

I have a Qur’an, but it will take me 3 years to read it all, so this is not good for me as far as time goes.

Basically I need to know if his provided quotes are legitimate, or bs, and if they are bs, can you help me prove it.

Thanks very much.

Here are the quotes he provided:

  1. “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them.” (Surah 9:121 "

  2. " Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another "

  3. “Slay them wherever you find them…Idolatry is worse than carnage…Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme.” (Surah 2:190"

  4. “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.” (Surah 5:51)"

2

Here’s what my copy says:

[9.121] Nor do they spend anything that may be spent, small or great, nor do they traverse a valley, but it is written down to their credit, that Allah may reward them with the best of what they have done.

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

3

I have a different translation, but 1, 3, and 4 are definitely legit. (Although a couple of the numbers are off; 9:121 and 2:190 should read 9:123 and 2:191 respectively.)

Taking 2:191 out of context like that is a little misleading, as it refers to “those who fight you” as opposed to Christians or Jews as the juxtaposition seems to imply. Basically the message is fight those who fight you and stop only when they stop. Not so terrible, really.

4

Thank you

5

Trying to stay in GQ territory here but even if you concede these quotes are verbatim, it doesn’t prove the argument. I have no doubt that one can find language in the Bible to prove just about anything about Christians that one wants.

6

CrazyFoo - even if the quote your friend has thrown at you are “literal translations” (and classical Arabic doesn’t translate into English brilliantly) there are countless other quotes that support peaceful coexistance with other religions and also emphasise a philosophy of non-judgement of othes.

The Qur’an frequently refers to the other Semitic religions as “people of the book” who are considered a step above other non-Islamic religions, and as such they can be treated with and you can live amongst them perfectly well (as happened for centuries in the various Islamic empires which were nearly always pluralistic, even liberally so sometimes - compare that to mono-religious Christian Europe).

Also, lines to the effect of “leave the judgement and smiting of others to Allah” feature constantly in the text. Whilst the Qur’an advocates defence of the faith, as described in the verses on Jihad and also on topics like how to relate with unbelievers, the Qur’an is quite clear that the judgement of others intentions and beliefs is solely up to Allah. Also the Qur’an recommends not having anything to do with hostile and unbeliever groups/peoples rather than violence as a first course of action.

The reference to idolatry in Surah 2 is (IIRC) refers to pagans and quasi-Muslims who venerate picturs/idols, rather than unbelievers. Islam takes idolatry extremely seriously and any religious graphical representation is automatically considered blasphemy whatever the intention and context (pictures of Mohammed in historical contexts have his face covered so that he cannot be worshipped).

Finally, and more widely, Islam was certainly not a religion founded on terror. Islam was in fact a religion founded in persecution and Mohammed and his followers were originally outlaws to the Meccan powers that be which required them to leave the city (along with the families) to go and live in Yathrib (now al Medinah). The early Islamic community there, and even the Jewish citizens of Yathrib who protected them, experienced several invasion attemps against them by the Meccan Quraysh, and even when Mohammed was in a position to invade and conquer Mecca he forbade any slaughter or the citizens there (something that many Islamic conquerors have done, notably Saladdin when he conquered Jerusalem from the Crusaders).

Read any book on Islamic history and they’ll make clear that Islam was a civilising force for the Middle East and one that led to centuries of stability and culture there, not a reign of bloodshed and terror that is supposed by people who don’t know much about it. I speak from my own studies of Islamic history but I’m not a Muslim and have no particular agenda to promote the religion as “better” than any other (as a gay man quite the opposite).

Quite simply your friend doesn’t know what he/she is talking about.

7

illuminatiprimus,

I think you are maybe wandering into the area of opinion towards the end of your post there.

This all gives the impression that Mohammed and his followers were all innocent and blameless - mere victims of ruthless oppressors. A truer (and more balanced) view would be that they started plenty of battles themselves and weren’t averse to raiding Meccan trading caravans.

Not quite. He was more than willing to slaughter everybody there if they attempted to resist him when he marched on Mecca with an enormous army of at least 10 000. In the event, the Meccans did not resist and only then did Mohammed decree that nobody should be slaughtered.

There’s a bit of a difference between a peaceful pilgrimage where you have promised beforehand that there should be no violence and marching into a city at the head of a victorious army and showing “mercy” by not killing anyone once you have assumed power.

Depends how you define “civilising”. The word “civilising” is (I would say) too emotive and not academic enough. Certainly the word “stabilising” would be true, but civilising? I dunno.

Prior to Mohammed the Arabians were a mixture of jews, christians and pagans. Ask any modern pagan today and they would say that they are more “civilised” than islam (or any other religion).

“Civilised” is in the eye of the beholder - a subjective term. I don’t think that any impartial, academic book on islamic history would ever make a statement like your one above.

Well, again you may be going just a little bit too far in your depiction of a world that was in turmoil until the arrival of islam which lead to a happy world where all people were contented and little bunnies were safe once more.

As you mention, christians and jews may have been offered terms under which they were allowed to live (although essentially as second class citizens) but life wasn’t much fun if you were a pagan under muslim rule.

Pagans get no terms except convert or die. Ask the Zoroastrians of Persia/Iran who were almost all forcibly converted to islam because they weren’t a “recognised” religion under the terms of islam.

I don’t particularly want to get into an argument about all this, I just think that you need to be wary of going a bit over the top in your desire to combat ignorance of islam.

Wikipedia on Mohammed

8

Incorrect. Zoroastrians were declared ‘People of the Book’ by the second Caliph, Umar ( who ruled essentially in the period when Persia was being absorbed ). Forcible conversions were quite rare in that period ( any period really - they tended to be exceptions to the rule ) and in fact in the Rashidun and early Umayyad Caliphates conversion at all was most often discouraged as it diluted the tax base, Muslims at that time having only the very minimal tax burden of zakat. That Zoroastrianism slowly disappeared ( over multiple centuries ) had much more to do with that region being almost entirely incorporated into the Pax Islamica, the obvious lack of state support, possibly the philosophical structure ( debated ) and the fact that later Islamic dynastic power ( Abbasids and successors ) was heavily Perso-centric, certainly promoting an Islamization of Persia.

For that matter the same status was frequently extended to Hinduism et al. Islam has, at least in the past, shown itself to be rather more flexible at accomodating other belief systems ( granted always from a superior vantage point ) than a first glance might indicate.

Okay, but let’s be wary of wandering too far in the other direction as well :).

  • Tamerlane
9

Noted, and accepted. Like any historical situation it’s not black and white, but still if you compare early and medieval Islamic religion to early and medieval Christianity (on even later Christianity, for that matter) Islam tends (from my knowledge of it) to show itself as the more tolerant and progressive of the two religions in lots of different areas e.g. Caliphate of Cordoba compared to Reconqista Spain. Of course, this isn’t the case in all subjects and the span of history in which we are referring is huge so it’s impossible to draw direct contrasts.

As you say this isn’t really the appropriate place to have this debate, though, so I will stop here (besides, I find Christianity vs Islam discussions pretty gruelling and unrewarding as they frequently get nasty).

10

This is all interesting. I always wondered what religion did Mohammed follow before he became the Prophet. Was he Jewish or Christian?

11

Like virtually all the Meccans he was a pagan who followed the local polytheistic faith (of which Allah was originally one god, along with Allat - the goddess, and others).

Mecca was a centre of trade and commerce in that area but was also a religious centre as there was a lot of money to be made from the idol industry and the Ka’aba (the shrine that all Muslims pray to in Mecca) housed all of them. His revelation from Allah was that Allah was only one god and that he wanted Mohammed to bring his message to all the Arabs in the form of the Qur’an. Later as the religion developed it became clear Allah was the same god as the one worshiped by the Christians and Jews, but both of those religions had not followed the message given to them properly (according to Muslims). Hence why Islam is included in the family of Semitic faiths which all share their root in Judaism.

One of the main reasons the Muslims were driven out of Mecca was because they favoured monotheistic iconoclasm (no idols) which would have had a major impact on Meccan trade and position, and the status of the Quraysh who were the patriarchs of the city. One of the first things Mohammed and the Muslims did when they eventually captured Mecca was to destroy all the idols in the Ka’aba in a symbolic act of cleansing.

Karen Armstrong wrote a very good biography of Mohammed which covers this (and much of the early development of Islam) extensively.

12

Thanks Illuminatiprimus!

13

No problem - any more for any more? :slight_smile:

14

How come they never quote verses like these?

Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry,
and the Christians, and the Sabaeans,
whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works
righteousness—their wage awaits them with their Lord,
and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.
(2:62)

And thou wilt surely find
the nearest of them in love to the believers
are those who say ‘We are Christians’; that,
because some of them are priests and monks, and they wax not proud,
and when they hear the truth of what has been sent down
to the Messenger, thou seest their eyes
overflow with tears because of the truth
they recognize.
(5:82)

And We sent,
following, Jesus son of
Mary, and gave unto him
the Gospel.
And We set in the hearts of those who followed him
the gospel.
And We set in the hearts of those who
followed him tenderness and mercy.
(57:27)
Translation by A. J. Arberry.

Gosh, the Qur’an is right up there in the warm & fuzzy department with Leo Buscaglia and the Care Bears! Anybody can play the cherrypickin’ quote game.

Thanx and a tip o’ the velvet :wink: to Illuminatiprimus from a pagan queer woman. As for the question on Muhammad, I was wondering if you had a cite for him ever having practiced paganism. In pre-Islamic Arabia there were monotheists called hanifs who rejected paganism but did not align with either Christianity or Judaism. So even if Muhammad was neither Christian nor Jewish, it isn’t a slam dunk that he was pagan. The early biographies of him say he was hanif. The Qur’an also says that about Abraham, he was neither Jewish nor Christian, he was hanif.

15

Whoops, even though I previewed, previewing doesn’t help if you don’t actually read what you wrote. I goofed up one of the quotes; it should have read:

And We sent,
following, Jesus son of
Mary, and gave unto him
the Gospel.
And We set in the hearts of those who
followed him tenderness and mercy.
(57:27)

16

If there was a lesson to be learnt from this thread, then I think this is it.

No I don’t, and I think you’re right on this one so consider me corrected. He certainly wasn’t Jewish or Christian though, before his first revelation, and you’re right that there were an increasing number of people around the time who were starting to reject polytheism in that area (indeed, who were looking for deeper meaning to their lives having now turned away from their traditional nomadic existence, which is why so many of them embraced Islam). However his stay in Yathrib with it’s predominantly Jewish community would have certainly influenced him later in his life, and he would have known Christians and Jews due to the commerce that came through Mecca.

I will consider the velvent well and truly tipped :slight_smile: