http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1491
Violence and the Quran
One would expect an uninspired book to contradict itself or speak
ambiguously on various subjects, at times appearing both to endorse and
condemn a practice. So it is with physical violence in the Quran. Yet,
despite the occasional puzzling remark that may seem to imply the
reverse, the Quran is replete with explicit and implicit sanction and
promotion of armed conflict, violence, and bloodshed by Muslims. For
example, within months of the Hijrah, Muhammad claimed to receive a
revelation that clarified the issue:
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war
lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He
could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He
may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them,
and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for
persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the
Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if
they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them
until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they
desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. The
forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil) (Surah 2:190-194, emp. added).
Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but
it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may
happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know
not. They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the
sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to
turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the
Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a
greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can (Surah 2:216-217, emp. added).
Muhammad was informed that
warfare was prescribed for him!
Though he may have hated warfare, it was actually good for him, and what
he loved, i.e., non-warfare, was actually bad for him! And though under
normal circumstances, fighting is not appropriate during sacred months,
killing was warranted against those who sought to prevent Muslims from
practicing their religion.
Killing is better than being persecuted! A similar injunction states: “
Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory” (
Surah 22:39, emp. added). In fact, “Allah
loveth those who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure” (
Surah 61:4, emp. added).
In a surah titled “Repentance” that issues stern measures to be taken
against idolaters, the requirement to engage in carnal warfare is
apparent:
Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger
toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty: Travel freely
in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that
Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His guidance). And a
proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the
Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters,
and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you;
but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give
tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve.
Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty,
and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported
anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their treaty to them till
their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). Then,
when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them,
and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each
ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due,
then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 9:1-5, emp. added).
The ancient Muslim histories elaborate on the occasion of these
admonitions: “[T]he idolaters were given four months’ respite to come
and go as they pleased in safety, but after that God and His Messenger
would be free from any obligation towards them. War was declared upon
them, and they were to be slain or taken captive wherever they were
found” (Lings, 1983, p. 323).
Later in the same surah, “
Fight against such of those who have
been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and
forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow
not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily,
being brought low” (
Surah
9:29, emp. added). “Those who have been given the Scripture” is a
reference to Jews and Christians. The surah advocates coercion against
Jews and Christians in order to physically force them to pay the
jizyah—a
special religious tax imposed on religious minorities (see Nasr, 2002,
p. 166). Muslim translator Mohammed Pickthall explains the historical
setting of this quranic utterance: “It signified the end of idolatry in
Arabia. The Christian Byzantine Empire had begun to move against the
growing Muslim power, and this Surah contains mention of a greater war
to come, and instructions with regard to it” (p. 145). Indeed, the final
verse of
Surah 2 calls upon Allah to give Muslims “victory over
the disbelieving folk” (vs. 286), rendered by Rodwell: “give us victory
therefore over the infidel nations.” That this stance by the Quran was
to be expected is evident from the formulation of the Second Pledge of
Aqabah, in which the men pledged their loyalty and their commitment to
protecting Muhammad from all opponents. This pledge included duties of
war, and was taken only by the males. Consequently, the First Aqabah
pact, which contained no mention of war, became known as the “pledge of
the women” (Lings, p. 112).
Additional allusions to warfare in the Quran are seen in the surah, “The Spoils,” dated in the second year of the Hijrah (A.D. 623), within a month after the Battle of Badr:
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.... If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them.... And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not.... O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight.
If there be of you twenty stedfast they shall overcome two hundred, and
if there be of you a hundred stedfast they shall overcome a thousand of
those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk
without intelligence.... It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land.
Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the
Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Had it not been for an ordinance
of Allah which had gone before, an awful doom had come upon you on
account of what ye took. Now enjoy what ye have won, as lawful and good,
and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 8:39,57,59-60,65,67-69, emp. added; cf. 33:26).
Muslim scholar Pickthall readily concedes the context of these verses:
vv. 67-69 were revealed when the Prophet had decided to spare the
lives of the prisoners taken at Badr and hold them to ransom, against
the wish of Omar, who would have executed them for their past crimes.
The Prophet took the verses as a reproof, and they are generally
understood to mean that no quarter ought to have been given in that first battle (p. 144, emp. added).
So the Quran indicates that at the Battle of Badr, no captives should
have been taken. The enemy should have been completely slaughtered, with
no quarter given. This very fate awaited the Jewish Bani Qurayzah, when
some 700 men were beheaded by the Muslims with Muhammad’s approval
(Lings, p. 232). Likewise, members of a clan of the Bani Nadir were
executed in Khaybar for concealing their treasure rather than forfeiting
it to the Muslims (Lings, p. 267).
Another surah describes how allowances respecting the daily prayers
were to be made for Muhammad’s Muslim warriors when engaged in military
action:
And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail
(your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In
truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you. And when thou (O
Muhammad) art among them and arrangest (their) worship for them, let
only a party of them stand with thee (to worship) and let them take their arms.
Then when they have performed their prostrations let them fall to the
rear and let another party come that hath not worshipped and let them
worship with thee, and let them take their precaution and their arms.
Those who disbelieve long for you to neglect your arms and your baggage
that they may attack you once for all. It is no sin for you to lay
aside your arms, if rain impedeth you or ye are sick. But take your
precaution. Lo! Allah prepareth for the disbelievers shameful
punishment. When ye have performed the act of worship, remember Allah,
standing, sitting and reclining. And when ye are in safety, observe
proper worship. Worship at fixed hours hath been enjoined on the
believers. Relent not in pursuit of the enemy (Surah 4:101-104, emp. added; cf. 73:20).
These verses show that the Quran implicitly endorses armed conflict and war to advance Islam.
Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of
those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its
inception—including Muhammad’s own warring tendencies involving personal
participation in and endorsement of military campaigns (cf. Lings, pp.
86,111). Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record
is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person
during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which
there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned
and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight” (n.d., p. xxvi).
What a contrast with Jesus—Who never once took up the sword or
encouraged anyone else to do so! The one time that one of His close
followers took it upon himself to do so, the disciple was soundly
reprimanded and ordered to put the sword away, with the added warning:
“all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).
Indeed, when Pilate quizzed Jesus regarding His intentions, He
responded: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this
world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the
Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36)—the very
opposite of the Aqabah pact. And whereas the Quran boldly declares, “And
one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you” (
Surah
2:194; cf. 22:60), Jesus counters, “But whoever slaps you on your right
cheek, turn the other to him also” and “love your enemies” (Matthew
5:39,44). The New Testament record presents a far higher, more noble and
godly ethic on the matter of violence and armed conflict. In fact, the
following verses demonstrate how irrevocably deep the chasm is between
the Quran and the New Testament on this point:
[L]ove your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who
hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise
on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the
unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?
(Matthew 5:44-46).
But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who
hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully
use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also.
And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic
either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away
your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you,
you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what
credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if
you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you?
For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you
hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend
to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and
lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and
you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and
evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful (Luke
6:27-36).
What an amazing contrast! The New Testament says to love, bless, do
good to, and pray for those who persecute you. The Quran says that
“persecution is worse than killing” (
Surah 2:217)—i.e., it is better to kill your persecutors than to endure their persecutions!
The standard Muslim attempt to justify the Quran’s endorsement of
violence is that such violence was undertaken in self-defense (e.g.,
Surah 42:41). Consider the following Muslim explanation:
At the time when this surah (Surah 2—DM)
was revealed at Al-Madinah, the Prophet’s own tribe, the pagan Qureysh
at Mecca, were preparing to attack the Muslims in their place of refuge.
Cruel persecution was the lot of Muslims who had stayed in Meccan
territory or who journeyed thither, and Muslims were being prevented
from performing the pilgrimage. The possible necessity of fighting had
been foreseen in the terms of the oath, taken at Al-Aqabah by the
Muslims of Yathrib before the Flight, to defend the Prophet as they
would their own wives and children, and the first commandment to fight
was revealed to the Prophet before his flight from Mecca; but there was
no actual fighting by the Muslims until the battle of Badr. Many of
them were reluctant, having before been subject to a rule of strict
non-violence. It was with difficulty that they could accept the idea of fighting even in self-defence [sic].... (Pickthall, p. 33, emp. added).
Apart from the fact that the claim that Muhammad’s advocacy of fighting
was justifiable on the ground of self-defense is contrary to the
historical facts (since the wars waged by Muhammad and the territorial
expansion of Islam achieved by his subsequent followers cannot
all
be dismissed as defensive), this explanation fails to come to grips
with the propriety of shedding of blood and inflicting violence—
regardless of the reason. Muslim scholar Seyyed Nasr seems unconscious of the inherent self-contradiction apparent in his own remark:
The spread of Islam occurred in waves. In less than a century after
the establishment of the first Islamic society in Medina by the Prophet,
Arab armies had conquered a land stretching from the Indus River to France and brought with them Islam, which, contrary to popular Western conceptions, was not, however, forced on the people by the sword (2003, p. 17, emp. added).
In other words, Muslim armies physically conquered—by military force
and bloodshed—various nations, forcing the population to submit to
Muslim
rule, but did not require them to become Muslims! One
suspects that, at the time, the distinction escaped the citizens of
those conquered countries, even as it surely does the reader.
The Quran appears to have been somewhat influenced by the Law of Moses
in this regard. For example, the Quran states: “If ye punish, then
punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted” (
Surah
16:126). Similarly, “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you
in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the
slave for the slave, and the female for the female.... And there is life
for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off
(evil)” (
Surah 2:178-179). One is reminded of the
lex talionis [literally “law as (or of) retaliation”] of the Law of Moses. However, whereas the Quran appears to enjoin retaliation, the
lex talionis
were not intended to promote retaliation. Enjoining retaliation would
be in direct conflict with the nature of God. God is never vindictive.
The New Testament law does not differ with the Old Testament in the
areas of proper values, ethics, mercy, and justice. The “eye for an eye”
injunctions of the Old Testament were designed to be
prohibitive in their thrust, i.e., they humanely
limited and restricted
legal punishment to a degree in keeping with the crime. That is, they
prevented dispensers of justice from punishing too harshly or too much.
They were intended to inculcate into Israelite society the principle of
confining retribution to appropriate parameters.
The fact that the author of the Quran failed to grasp this feature of
God’s laws is evident in various quranic injunctions: “As for the thief,
both male and female,
cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise” (
Surah 5:38, emp. added).
The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes.
And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if
ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers
witness their punishment.... And those who accuse honourable women but
bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony—They indeed are evildoers (Surah 24:2,4, emp. added).
These latter verses conflict with Mosaic injunction on two significant points. First, on the one hand, it
doubles
the more reasonable and appropriate forty stripes (Deuteronomy 25:3)—a
number that the Jews were so concerned not to exceed that they counted
thirty-nine and stopped to allow for accidental miscount (2 Corinthians
11:24). On the other hand, this eighty increases to one hundred for
adultery. Second, the requirement of four witnesses is an unreasonable
number. The two or three witnesses of the Bible (Deuteronomy 17:6;
19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19) strikes a
logical medium between the precariousness of only a single witness on
the one hand, and the excessive and unlikely availability of the four
witnesses required by the Quran.
It is true that the God of the Bible enjoined violent, armed conflict
for the Israelites in the Old Testament. He did so in order to eliminate
the morally corrupt Canaanite civilizations that inhabited Palestine
prior to the Israelite occupation of the land (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-12;
Leviticus 18:24-25,27-28). There simply was no viable solution to their
condition except extermination. Their moral depravity was “full”
(Genesis 15:16). They had slumped to such an immoral, depraved state,
with no hope of recovery, that their existence on this Earth had to be
ended—just like in Noah’s day when God waited while Noah preached for
years but was unable to turn the world’s population from its wickedness
(Genesis 6:3,5-7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:5-9).
Additionally, since the nation of Israel was also a civil entity in its
own right, the government was also charged with implementing civil
retribution upon lawbreakers. However, with the arrival of New Testament
Christianity—an international religion intended for all persons without
regard to ethnicity or nationality—God has assigned to
civil government
(not the church or the individual) the responsibility of regulating
secular behavior. God’s people who live posterior to the cross of Christ
(i.e., Christians) are not charged by God with the responsibility of
inflicting physical punishment on the evildoer. Rather, civil government
is charged with the responsibility of maintaining order and punishing
lawbreakers (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Observe Paul’s
explanation of this dichotomy:
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is
no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are
appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the
ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on
themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do
you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will
have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But
if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for
he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who
practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath
but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes,
for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.
Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs
to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor (Romans 13:1-7, NKJV, emp. added).
One translation (NIV) renders the boldface type
in the above quote “an agent of wrath to bring punishment.” But this
assignment of judicial and penal retribution to the government is a
contrast in Paul’s discussion with what he wrote in the three verses
prior to this quotation:
Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath;
for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.
Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him
a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Do
not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:19-21, NKJV, emp. added).
Notice that the very responsibility that is
enjoined on the government, i.e., “an avenger to execute wrath” by use of the sword in 13:4, is
strictly forbidden to the individual Christian in 12:19, i.e., “do
not avenge yourselves, but rather
give place
to wrath.” To “give place to wrath” means to allow God’s wrath to show
itself in His own appointed way that, according to the next few verses,
is by means of the civil government.
True Christianity (i.e., that which is based strictly on the New
Testament) dictates peace and non-retaliatory promotion of itself. The
“absolute imperative” (Rahman, 1979, p. 22) of Islam is the
submission/conversion of the whole world. In stark contrast, the absolute imperative of New Testament Christianity is the
evangelism of the whole world, i.e., the
dissemination
of the message of salvation—whether people embrace it or not (Matthew
28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47). Absolutely no coercion is
admissible from the Christian (i.e., New Testament) viewpoint. The
Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and all other violent activities
undertaken in the name of Christ and Christianity have been in complete
conflict with the teaching of the New Testament. The perpetrators acted
without the authority and sanction of Christ.
Islam seeks to bring the entire world into submission to Allah and the Quran—even using
jihad,
coercion, and force; Christianity seeks to go into all the world and to
announce the “good news” that God loves every individual, that Jesus
Christ died for the sins of everyone, and that He offers salvation,
forgiveness, and reconciliation.
But, each person has free choice
to accept or reject without any retaliation by Christians against those
who choose to reject. Jesus taught His disciples, when faced with
opposition and resistance, simply to walk away: “And whoever will not
receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or
city, shake off the dust from your feet” (Matthew 10:14). In fact, on
one occasion when a Samaritan village was particularly nonreceptive,
some of Jesus’ disciples wished to command fire to come down from heaven
to consume them! But Jesus rebuked them and said, “ ‘You do not know
what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to
destroy men’s lives but to save them.’ And they went to another village”
(Luke 9:55). Muhammad and the Quran stand in diametrical opposition to
Jesus and the New Testament.
If the majority of Muslims were violent, that would not prove that
Islam is a religion of violence. The vast majority of those who claim to
be “Christian” are practicing a corrupted form of the Christian faith.
So the validity of any religion is determined ultimately not by the
imperfect, inaccurate practice of the religion by even a majority of its
adherents, but by the official authority or standard upon which it is
based, i.e., its Scriptures. The present discussion in the world
regarding whether or not
jihad includes physical force in the
advancement of Islam is ultimately irrelevant (cf. Nasr, 2002, pp.
256-266). The Quran unquestionably endorses violence, war, and armed
conflict. No wonder a substantial number of Muslims manifest a maniacal,
reckless abandon in their willingness to die by sacrificing their lives
in order to kill as many “infidels” (especially Israelis and Americans)
as possible. They have read the following:
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks.... And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. He will guide them and improve their state, and bring them in unto the Garden [Paradise—DM] which He hath made known to them (Surah 47:4-6, emp. added).
O ye who believe! Be not as those who disbelieved and said of their brethren who went abroad in the land or were fighting in the field: If they had been (here) with us they would not have died or been killed.... And what though ye be slain in Allah’s way or die therein? Surely pardon from Allah and mercy are better than all that they amass. What though ye be slain or die, when unto Allah ye are gathered?.... So those who...fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow—a reward from Allah (Surah 3:156-158,195, emp. added).
Even if the vast majority of Muslims in the world reject violence and
refrain from terrorist activity (which would appear to be the case), it
is still a fact that the Quran (as well as the example of Muhammad
himself) endorses the advancement of Islam through physical force. While
Muslim apologist Seyyed Hossein Nasr insists that “the traditional
norms based on peace and openness to others” characterize true Islam and
the majority of Muslims, in contradistinction, he freely admits that at
times Islam “has been forced to take recourse to physical action in the
form of defense” (Nasr, 2002, pp. 112,110). This concession cannot be
successfully denied in view of the Quran’s own declarations. Hence, the
Muslim is forced to maintain the self-contradictory position that, yes,
there have been times that Islam has been properly violent and, yes, the
Quran does endorse violence, but, no, most Muslims are not violent, and
then only in self-defense. As reprehensible and cowardly as Islamic
terrorists have shown themselves to be in recent years, an honest
reading of the Quran leads one to believe that they, at least, are more
consistent with, and true to, their own Scriptures—as revolting an idea
as that may be.
REFERENCES
Lings, Martin (1983),
Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International).
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2002),
The Heart of Islam (New York: HarperCollins).
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2003),
Islam (New York: HarperCollins).
Pickthall, Mohammed M. (no date),
The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).
Rahman, Fazlur (1979),
Islam (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition.
Rodwell, J.M., trans. (1950 reprint),
The Koran (London: J.M. Dent and Sons).
