http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1585
The Quran vs. the New Testament: Conflicting Ethics
EDITORS’ NOTE: The following article is exerpted from Dave Miller’s newly released book The Quran Unveiled.
Anyone who has read both the Quran and the New Testament cannot help
but be struck by the glaring disparity that exists between the two in
their respective treatments of ethical matters. Two such matters are
addressed in this article: polygamy and armed conflict. [NOTE:
The translations of passages from the Quran in this article are taken
from Muslim scholar Mohammed Pickthall’s celebrated translation.]
POLYGAMY
Those who have modeled their thinking after New Testament Christianity
are, to say the least, a bit surprised, if not shocked and appalled,
that Islam countenances polygamy. In fact, this feature of the Quran is a
source of embarrassment to Muslim apologists, as evinced by the excuses
they offer to soften its glaring presence (e.g., Rahman, 1979, p. 38).
But the Christian mind must realize that Muhammad’s Islam arose out of
Arabia in the sixth and seventh centuries A.D. The Arab culture was well
known for the practice of polygamy, in which men were allowed as many
wives as they chose. The Quran addressed this social circumstance by
placing a limitation on the number of wives a man is permitted. The
wording of the pronouncement comes in a surah titled “Women”: “And if ye
fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women,
who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye
cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that
your right hands possess” (
Surah 4:3; cf. 4:24-25,129; 23:6; 30:21; 70:30).
To appreciate the full extent of the Quran’s endorsement of polygamy,
as well as to preserve context, the reader is asked to exercise the
necessary patience to read two lengthy passages. The first is a
transparent sanction of Muhammad’s own polygamous practices:
O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou
hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of
those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of
thine uncle on the father’s side and the daughters of thine aunts on the
father’s side, and the daughters of thine uncles on the mother’s side
and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother’s side who emigrated with
thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and
the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage—a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers—We
are aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives
and, those whom their right hands possess—that thou mayst be free from
blame, for Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Thou canst defer whom thou wilt
of them and receive unto thee whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou
desirest of those whom thou hast set aside (temporarily), it is no sin
for thee (to receive her again); that is better; that they may be
comforted and not grieve and may all be pleased with what thou givest
them. Allah knoweth what is in your hearts (O men) and Allah is
Forgiving, Clement. It is not allowed thee to take (other) women
henceforth, nor that thou shouldst change them for other wives even
though their beauty pleased thee save those whom thy right hand
possesseth. And Allah is Watcher over all things. O ye who believe!....
And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of
them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their
hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of
Allah nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in
Allah’s sight would be an enormity (Surah 33:50-53, emp. added).
These admonitions bear a remarkable resemblance to Mormon Joseph
Smith’s own advocacy of plural marriages and the revelation allegedly
received from God admonishing his own wife, Emma Smith, to be receptive
to his polygamy:
 |
Artist’s conception of Muhammad.
|
Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma
Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and
partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did
it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might
require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice. And let
mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto
my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those
who are not pure, and have said they were pure shall be destroyed, saith
the Lord God. For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice;
and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many
things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth
I will strengthen him. And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to
abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she
will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord;
for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my
law. But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant
Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him
and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of
fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and
children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds. And again,
verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his
trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she
has trespassed against Me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and
multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice (Doctrine and Covenants 132:51-56).
One would fully expect uninspired men to manifest the same
modus operandi and concern for the same issues—especially as they reflect upon their own human desires (i.e., lusts) and preferences.
The second Quranic passage that acquaints the reader with the extent to
which polygamy is not only permitted or tolerated, but also
advocated and encouraged, is one titled “Banning.” The
Hadith
offer three traditions that provide the background details that help to
make sense of the surah. The one generally preferred by Muslim
commentators speaks of Hafsah finding the Prophet in her room with
Mariyah—the Coptic girl given to Muhammad by the ruler of Egypt, who
became the mother of his only son, Ibrahim—on a day that, according to
his customary rotation among his wives, was assigned to A’ishah. The
distress that Hafsah manifested was so disturbing to the Prophet that he
vowed with an oath that he would have no more to do with Mariyah, and
requested that Hafsah say nothing to A’ishah. But Hafsah, who was not
nearly as distressed as she made out, with devilish glee, promptly
informed A’ishah, bragging about how easily she had achieved the
ejection of Mariyah—an accomplishment that pleased the other wives as
well (see Pickthall, n.d., pp. 404-405; Lings, 1983, pp. 276-279). With
these background details in mind, the reader is invited to read the
surah that was elicited by the situation:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. O Prophet! Why
bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to
please thy wives? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Allah hath made
lawful for you (Muslims) absolution from your oaths (of such a kind),
and Allah is your Protector. He is the Knower, the Wise. When the
Prophet confided a fact unto one of his wives and when she afterward
divulged it and Allah apprised him thereof, he made known (to her) part
thereof and passed over part. And when he told it her she said: Who hath
told thee? He said: The Knower, the Aware hath told me. If ye twain
turn unto Allah repentant, (ye have cause to do so) for your hearts
desired (the ban); and if ye aid one another against him (Muhammad) then
lo! Allah, even He, is his protecting Friend, and Gabriel and the
righteous among the believers; and furthermore the angels are his
helpers. It may happen that his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him
in your stead wives better than you, submissive (to Allah), believing,
pious, penitent, inclined to fasting, widows and maids. O ye who
believe! Ward off from yourselves and your families a Fire whereof the
fuel is men and stones, over which are set angels strong, severe, who
resist not Allah in that which He commandeth them, but do that which
they are commanded. (Then it will be said): O ye who disbelieve! Make no
excuses for yourselves this day. Ye are only being paid for what ye
used to do. O ye who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It
may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you
into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will
not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will
run before them and on their right hands: they will say: Our Lord!
Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! Thou art Able to do all
things. O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites,
and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s
end. Allah citeth an example for those who disbelieve: the wife of Noah
and the wife of Lot, who were under two of our righteous slaves yet
betrayed them so that they (the husbands) availed them naught against
Allah and it was said (unto them): Enter the Fire along with those who
enter. And Allah citeth an example for those who believe: the wife of
Pharaoh when she said: My Lord! Build for me a home with thee in the
Garden, and deliver me from Pharaoh and his work, and deliver me from
evildoing folk; And Mary, daughter of ‘Imran, whose body was chaste,
therefore We breathed therein something of Our Spirit. And she put faith
in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was of the obedient (Surah 66).
Observe that the surah is complete with threats of the fire of hell, as
well as the allusion to the wives of Noah and Lot as examples of
disobedient wives who went to hell. Can there be any doubt that the
Quran approves of and encourages polygamy?
Setting aside the issue of why Muhammad was exempt from the limitation of four wives (
Surah
33:50), the divine origin of the Quran is discredited on the basis of
its stance on polygamy. In the first place, for all practical purposes
the Quran authorizes a man to have as many wives as he chooses, since
its teaching on divorce contradicts its teaching on marriage. Unlike the
New Testament, which confines permission to divorce on the sole ground
of sexual unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:9), the Quran authorizes divorce
for any reason (e.g.,
Surah 2:226-232,241; 33:4,49; 58:2-4;
65:1-7). If a man can divorce his wife for any reason, then the
limitation that confines a man to four wives is effectively
meaningless—merely restricting a man to four legal wives
at a time. Theoretically, in his lifetime, a man could have an
unlimited number of wives—all with the approval of God!
In the second place, Jesus declared in no uncertain terms: “Whoever divorces his wife,
except for sexual immorality,
and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is
divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9, emp. added). Jesus gave one,
and only one, reason for divorce in God’s sight. In fact, even the Old
Testament affirmed that God “hates divorce” (Malachi 2:16). The teaching
of the Bible on divorce is a higher, stricter, nobler standard than the
one advocated by the Quran. The two books, in fact,
contradict each other on this point.
In the third place, why does the Quran stipulate the number “four”? Why
not three or five wives? The number four would appear to be an
arbitrary number with no significance—at least, none is given. Though
the passage in question indicates the criterion of a man’s ability to do
justice to those he marries, there is no reason to specify the number
four, since men would vary a great deal in the number of women that they
would have the ability to manage fairly.
The answer may be seen in the influence of the contemporaneous Jewish
population of Arabia. Sixth-century Arabia was a tribal-oriented society
that relied heavily on oral communication in social interactions.
Muhammad would have been the recipient of considerable information
conveyed orally by his Jewish, and even Christian, contemporaries. Many
tales, fables, and rabbinical traditions undoubtedly circulated among
the Jewish tribes of Arabia. The Jews themselves likely were lacking in
much book-learning, having been separated from the mainstream of Jewish
thought and intellectual development in their migration to the Arabian
peninsula. The evidence demonstrates that the author of the Quran
borrowed extensively from Jewish and other sources. The ancient Talmudic
record (
Arbah Turim,
Ev. Hazaer, 1) stated:
“A man may marry many wives, for Rabba saith it is lawful to do so, if
he can provide for them. Nevertheless, the wise men have given good
advice, that a man should
not marry more than four wives”
(as quoted in Rodwell, 1950, p. 411, emp. added; Tisdall, 1905, pp.
129-130). The similarity with the wording of the Quran is too striking
to be coincidental. It can be argued quite convincingly that the magic
number of four was drawn from currently circulating Jewish teaching.
In the fourth place, the polygamy countenanced by the Quran on Earth will be extended into the heavenly realm (
Surah 13:23; 36:55; 40:8; 43:70). Of course, this viewpoint was explicitly contradicted by Jesus Christ (Matthew 22:30).
Islam and the Quran have a great many features that the Christian mind
(i.e., one guided by the New Testament) finds ethically objectionable.
Polygamy is simply one among many such ethical “difficulties.” The Bible
and the Quran are in significant conflict on this subject.
ARMED CONFLICT, VIOLENCE, WAR, AND BLOODSHED
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.
However, 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 (the flight to Medina), 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 that 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). 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).
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 rep
rimanded
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, emp. added)—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, emp. added).
What an amazing contrast! The New Testament says to love, bless, do
good to, and pray for those who persecute you. The Quran says
“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 technical 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 lived in 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, 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,
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
non-receptive, 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.
CONCLUSION
While the Quran contains some commendable ethical regulations, it
simply does not come up to the moral heights of the Bible. It approves
various moral and social evils like polygamy, bloodshed, and illicit
slavery (e.g.,
Surah 4:3,25,36,92; 5:89; 16:71; 23:6;
24:32-33,58; 30:28; 33:50-55; 58:3; 70:30; 90:13; cf. Philemon 16). It
assigns to women an inferior status—even allowing beatings from
husbands:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to
excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the
support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret
that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion,
admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if
they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High
Exalted, Great (Surah 4:34; cf. 4:11; 2:223,228,282; 38:45; 16:58-59; see also Brooks, 1995; Trifkovic, 2002, pp. 153-167).
The conflicting ethics advocated in the Quran are proof of the Quran’s human origin.
REFERENCES
Brooks, Geraldine (1995),
Nine Parts of Desire (New York, NY: Anchor Books).
Doctrine and Covenants (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
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. (n.d.),
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).
Tisdall, W. St. Clair (1905),
The Original Sources of the Quran (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge).
Trifkovic, Serge (2002),
The Sword of the Prophet (Boston, MA: Regina Orthodox Press).
Why
did God wait approximately 20 years after the church was established to
begin writing the New Testament? Why such a long span of time?
Wars
often come and go. Battles are won and lost. Businesses are bought and
sold. Nations rise and fall. Scientific discoveries are made on a daily
basis. These and other pertinent events influence human history in a
myriad of interesting ways. But none of them is as influential as a
powerful personality. Real history is written in names: Napoleon,
Stalin, Hitler, Gandhi, Marx, Washington, Lincoln. After all, it is
people who make wars, start businesses, forge new nations and cause
their collapse. The events instigated by people are by-products of their
personalities interacting with their surroundings, other people, and
their ideas. In all of human history, one name, one Man, has risen to
the top of every list of influential personalities—Jesus Christ.