The Qur’anic Principles for Violence- a Summary Argument

Introduction

I have tried to summarize the Qur’anic advice on violence and peace here. The question I am trying to answer is whether instigating violence in the name of religion can be justified solely based on the Qur’anic text or not.

Why I focus solely on the Qur’anic text

I’ve been asked why I base my arguments primarily on the Qur’anic text. There are various traditions, commentaries, commentators hold varying degrees of weight in Islam, but these are not my primary concern here. In Islam every interpretative teaching must first and foremost, align with the sentiment of the Qur’an, and so we shall stick to the Qur’an. Further, if the Qur’an is a meaningful work of a single author, then analysing it in of itself can provide the most pure and uncorrupted insight into that author’s mind. Muslims seemingly expend much energy examining possible hidden scientific or numerological implications of various Qur’anic verses, so one hopes just examining the message of those same words will also be considered a fruitful exercise. That’s what I’m doing here.

My conclusions will show that through this analysis, a natural reading of the relevant Qur’anic verses yields the general dictum that peace comes only when Islamic domination is attained, and this through violent means if necessary, and depending on one’s disposition, even when not. There are some verses that enjoin the believers to employ more peaceful means, however, such verses are few in number and generally run in direct conflict with verses to the contrary. The overall result is a text that is predominantly a call to violence, with possible mitigations that need not be employed in every case.

When we do look at wider Islamic traditions and commentaries, it is still unusual to get mitigations, rather the stance is generally further hardened toward violence. I go into some of this literature in the appendix. Further, based on certain verses in the Qur’an itself, there arises a principle of “abrogation”. Because a certain obscurity is maintained with respect to just what teachings these refer to, it is possible for Muslims, when they find contradictory teachings to infer that the “peaceful” verses have been abrogated into the violent ones.

The article is under the following simple subheadings:

1. Violence is prescribed for difference in Religion
2. Violence even when peaceful option/ surrender is an option
3. Peaceful approach is looked down upon and discouraged
4. Xenophobic Profiling of non-Muslims
5. Apparent Mitigating verses contradict and don’t go far enough themselves.

IMO, the Qur’an’s main drawbacks are the contradictions in morals, not the textual contradictions, those are secondary. The way to choose religion is not by preservation of text, rather the preservation of love. “Love never fails” (he agape oudepote piptei, 1Cor.13:12). But it seems to me there is an unfortunate trend to accept dubious morals as long as the text is consistent, “it was memorised”.

Principles of Islamic Violence

Violence Specifically for difference in Belief

Here we look at verses in which there is a specific prescription of violence for holding non-Muslim beliefs.

Q 8:13 advices: “strike off their heads…because they defied Allah and his apostle”, (8:39)”Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely”

(Q 9:29) “Fight those People of the Book who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith”,

Q 9:123 “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that God is with the godfearing.” Q 9:120 gives the context to it as: “the people of Medina and the neighbouring desert Arabs should not have held back from following God’s Mesenger, nor should they have cared for themselves more than him…” (AH).

In Q 9:1-7 Muslims are clearly commanded unprovoked aggression upon completion of the term of a treaty, even though the “idolators” have kept to its terms “have honored their treaties” (v.4)

Only those adopting Islamic practises in the face of such aggression can hope for mitigation granted, i.e. those that “take to prayer”, “seek your protection”, “pay the tax” “so they can hear the words of Allah”. In this context the “levy” certainly sounds like the quintessensial protection racket.

What cements this interpretation of the passage is the very fact that Muslims are only permitted self-defensive fighting in the four sacred months, which if not alread obvious, is also stated clearly, just in case some Muslims felt they should allow people to walk over them for four months:

“do not wrong yourselves in these months- though you ay fight the idolators at any tome- of they fight you first…”(9:36)

It seems obvious that the author intends that offensive fighting be permitted in the remainder 8 (or 11, as we see later) months:

“… those unbelievers who have honoured their treaties with you in every detail and have aided none against you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term.. God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over slay the idolators wherever you find them (…) Arrest them, besiege them, and lay in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer (“salah”) and render the alms levy¸ allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful. And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety…” (Q 9:1-7 excerpts).

Later we perform a full analysis of this important passage of the Qur’an.

Here, Muslims are “called upon” to fight some nation, and are warned punishment if they back down. This certainly sounds like instigated aggression. How can you “turn your backs” on self-defense? That would have just been called “surrender” If Allah had been concerned about Muslims giving in to an aggressor, the advise would have been to fight to the death and never surrender or something along those lines, but ths is nothing like that:

“Say to the Bedouins who were left behind: ‘You shall be called against a people possessed of great might’ to fight them, or they surrender. If you obey, God will give you a goodly wage; but if you turn your backs, as you turned your backs before, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement.’ (Q 48:16)

Clearly the author of the Qur’an is narrowing his concern to Muslim lives in this verse:

“He that kills a believer by design shall burn in Hell forever. He shall incur the wrath of God, who will His curse on him and prepare for him a mighty scourge.” (4:93, cf 4:91)

An attitude of constancy in hate based upon religious differences is advised, and such advise cannot be taken as merely situational because of the “until” clause, which effectively makes it universal and eternal:

“enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in God only..” (Q 60:4).

Violence even when Peace/ Surrender is an Option

Again this type of advise goes beyond mere “necessary use” or “proportionate” force. 8:67 literally has “take no prisoners” – type advise “not..to have prisoners until…wide slaughter”, Q 47:35 advises “do not falter and sue for peace when you have gained the upper hand”, 47:4-7 “until you have thorougly subdued”, implying going beyond simple surrender.

Torture is recommended as punishment for “defiance”: “they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned…” (5:33) and we have already seen Q 8:13 above.

Terms of surrender in Muslim fighting seem to involve the “triple choice” (Q 9:6, 29): either convert to Islam (“repent and say the prayers”), pay the tribute/levy (9:5,29), or face the consequences. One can infer that there is no option 4: “just leave us alone”.

Violent response to Peaceful Critique

Verses that famously suggest “persecution is worse than slaughter” (Q 2:190-3, 216-7) are significant because it is not clear whether the persecution is necessarily violent or threatening to Muslims’ lives, yet it can be met with lethal response. Q 5:33 has a another widely applicable pretext, a violent response even extending to torture for “making mischief in the land”. This can be and has been used against perceived dissidents in an Islamic state in order to intimidate minorities. For example, preaching a different religion, or peaceful criticisms of Islam and Muhammed in particular can be taken as ” making mischief in the land”. A recent example would have been the violent murders of peaceful Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who mocked Muhammed.

Peaceful approach is looked down upon and discouraged

If there were any doubt in the Muslims’ minds as to the clarity of the call to violence, then it seems there are further verses which put the issue beyond doubt. We’ve already seen that in general, peaceful approaches seem to follow upon aggression and intimidation rather than being the initial or primary intent.

Muslims Advised to Overcome your dislike of violence

The passage from 2:216-7 seems to be goading the Muslims to reject the inerent dislike of unecessary violence that human beings have. Fighting is grievous/ heinous only in the sacred month. Apart from that fighting per se is “good for you, although you dislike it”. This sort of attitude is reminiscent of gangster movies where the mob killers are at some point repulsed by their own actions, but have no option to stop, so they pray, go to Church and Confession and so on. Or of prison guards under tryrranical regimes who were required to be unecessarily cruel, in well-known fascist/communist regimes too many and too obvious to need mention here. One must consider here that persons typically find killing uncomfortable and experience the prick of the conscience only when the victim is innocent, rather than when it is in self-defence:

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. (2:216 YA) They will question thee concerning the holy month, and fighting in it. Say: ‘Fighting in it is a heinous thing…They will not cease to fight with you, till they turn you from your religion, if they are able…” (2:217 YA)

Further, there is threat of divine retribution for neglecting to adopt a beligerrent attitude:

“when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling heavily to the earth Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place” (9:38-41).

“If anyone on that day turns his backs to them….he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home: an evil fate.” (8:16).

9:81 (D) …They say to each other: ‘Do not go to war, the heat is fierce.’ Say to them: ‘More fierce is the heat of Hell-fire!’ Would that they understood.

Clearly, the belligerent are favoured by “Allah” over those who are reluctant, or merely “sit still” like Buddihst monks, perhaps:

9:86 Whenever a chapter was revealed, saying: ‘Believe in God and fight alongside his apostle,’ the rich among them excused themselves to you saying, ‘Leave us with those who are to stay behind.’

9:93 The offenders are those that seek exemption although they are men of wealth. They are content to be with those that stay behind.

9:120 (D) No cause have the people of Madina and the desert Arabs who dwell around them to forsake God’s apostle or to jeopardise his life so as to safeguard their own.

4:95 (Pickthall) “Those of the believers who sit still, other than those who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those who fight in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah hath conferred on those who fight with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary. Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those who strive a great reward above the sedentary.” (AYA uses ‘strive and fight’, and Dawood ‘Fight in the cause of Allah’).

Xenophobic Profiling of non-Muslims

In Q 2:217 Muslims are told that the disbelievers “will not stop fighting you until you have turned away from your religion”. This is mandates against ceasing hostilities by creating an attitude of suspicion- even if the enemy hostilities cease, it is only temporary, they “will not stop”, so neither should you.

We find exhortation to adopt an unforgiving, malicious, and unmerciful nature towards those of other religions. Entire communities are being painted with the same brush here, even though 60:8 has a seeming mitigation, but we speak of that in the contradictions:

(60:1-4) “O believers, take not My enemy and your enemy for friends, offering them love, though they have disbelieved in the truth that has come to you, expelling the Messenger and you because you believe in God your Lord. If you go forth to struggle in My way and seek My good pleasure, secretly loving them, yet I know very well what you conceal and what you publish; and whosoever of you does that, has gone astray from the right way. (2) If they come on (gain dominance over- SI) you, they will be enemies to you, and stretch against you their hands and their tongues, to do you evil, and they wish that you may disbelieve (4) You have had a good example in Abraham, and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘We are quit of you and that you serve, apart from God. We disbelieve in you, and between us and you enmity has shown itself, and hatred for ever, until you believe in God alone…” (Arberry 60:1,2,4 excerpts)

“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn back (several occ. = tawallaw-  تَوَلَّوْا), seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” (4:89) 

“O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?” 4:144 (Pickthall)

Dawood 5:51 “Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers.” 

“your friend can only be Allah, and his messenger, and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor-due, and bow down (in prayer)” (Q 5:55)

5:57  (YA) O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport, – whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye God, if ye have faith (indeed)“

There is clearly an attampt at character denigration which we’ve looked at in the analysis on surah Tawbah. Non-Muslims are looking to betray, even those in your own family, while conversion automatically is automatically a sign of trustworthiness “then they are your brothers”:

“if they were to gain the upper hand over you, they would not respect any tie of…kinship…they please you with their tongues but their hearts are against you…(11) if they repent, keep up the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, then they are your brothers in the faith…(23) do not take your fathers or brothers as allies if they prefer disbelief to faith” (9:8,11)

Apparent Mitigating verses Contradict, and don’t go Far enough

A few Qur’anic verses do convey a conciliary sentiment: 2:256, 2:191, 4:90. 8:61 and 60:8. The question is whether they really do serve to temper the statedly opposite intent of several other verses. If one arguably much smaller set of verses should be seen as superceding another set, one must be able to give concrete reasons for this. If none are forthcoming, then the natural human tendency is to follow whatever is the more convenient path, and the ambiguity of the text remains. The second question is as to why the two sets of instructions contradict in the first place. I think that apart from the question of violence, there is the question of ambiguity that Islam must answer for.

We can set up the following verses in direct conflict:

1) “there should be no compulsion in religion” (2:256)

even though in other places we have seen that fighting must proceed “unless they repent and take up the prayer or take up the levy” which certainly does sound like compulsion. It is possible to make life very hard for a religious mionority without directly compelling them to change their faith, perhaps this is what is meant:

“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the last day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith among the people of the Book, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” (Q 9:29)

2) Verse 4:90 seemingly offers NO WAY for violence. “if they withdraw and do not fight you and offer you peace”, Muslims have “no way (repeat: NO WAY) against them”:

“If they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God give you no way against them…if they neither withdraw nor offer you peace… If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them wherever you come on them; against them We have given you a clear authority.” (Q 4:90)

we see this again:

(8:61) “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

However in 8:67, clearly peaceful surrender is not to be accepted:

“It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter (yuth’khina- يُثْخِنَ tha-kha-na root only 1 other occ.- 47:4, also a slaughter verse- “smite their heads….”) in the land.” (Q 8:67)

and yet again, we see the FORBIDDING OF PEACE:

“do not falter and sue for peace when you have gained the upper hand.” (Q 47:35)

3) “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Q 60:8)

Again 60:8 does not say “Allah forbids you from fighting those who…” (are nice to you etc.), rather it says “does not forbid you from being righteous and acting justly” toward them. That is different from “Allah forbids you from fighting/ being stern toward them”. On the surface, there is motivation here for being nice: “Allah loves those who act justly”.

Further perhaps we must also not lose sight of the fact that “dealing justly” in Islam refers to the justice of Islam rather than the Western concept of justice, so there’s quite a wide room for interpretation there. It is that very justice that we are debating here, after all, so we can hardly presume that it is indeed just.

There is not a single verse that says “Leave other nations alone, do not try to subjugate the nations”. That is why this never happened in Islamic history.

Analysis of Individual verses

“the Cow”

2:190-3

Analysis: Most of Surah 2 is believed to have been revealed in Medina over a long period.

The passage talks about fighting with seemingly special reference to the “sacred months”. There is clear edict against initiating fighting during this period, or in the actual location of the “sacred mosque”. However the believers are still exhorted to violent resistance to perceived opression, the famous/notorious “persecution is worse than slaughter” (Q 2:193, 216) dictum. As AH states in the footnote to v.216: “to persecute people for believing in God is a worse offence than for the aggrieved party to fight back in the sacred month, This further explains verse 191”.

What constitutes a “persecution” being left open to interpretation, and here lies the real danger: It could range from genuine oppression, to milder forms of proscription of the more peripheral aspects of religious life like a burkhas, pictural depictions of Muhammed and so on. This ends up mandating disproportionately violent reprisals that have unfortunately become a hallmark that has come to be associated with Islam in the modern world. This for example would typically be the mandate for Hamas’ violence against Israeli civilians, or of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France.

The verse:

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress (taʿtadū– always the same meaning); for Allah loveth not transgressors (l-muʿ’tadīna). Slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution (of Muslims) is worse than slaughter (of non-believers). And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- îaram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” (2:190-193 Yusuf Ali).

Early Muslim Commentary- Ibn-Khatir: Shirk is worse than killing- Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing.

2:216,7

Analysis

Here we again see the refrain “persecution is worse than slaughter” and also that while “fighting is grievous” (mind you, apparently only fighting in the sacred months is grievous, on the other hand, fighting per se is “good for you, although you dislike it”. I’m honestly reminded of gangster movies where the mob killers are at some point repulsed by their own actions, but have no option to stop. Here is it not just persecution that is grievous, but disbelief, and fighting is to be preferred again, alarmingly.

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye knoweth not…persecution is more grievous than slaughter.” (2:216 YA) They will question thee concerning the holy month, and fighting in it. Say: ‘Fighting in it is a heinous thing, but to bar from God’s way, and disbelief in Him, and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it — that is more heinous in God’s sight; and persecution is more heinous than slaying.’ They will not cease to fight with you, till they turn you from your religion, if they are able…” (2:217 YA)

Alternate translations: “Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it” (Dawood), “Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you” (Pickthall), YA substitutes ‘persecution’ for ‘tumult and oppression’, Dawood curiously substitutes ‘idolatory’ for ‘persecution’, but an equivalent ‘bloodshed’ for ‘slaughter’ and finishes with “  …and God’s religion reigns supreme”.

Muslim Commentators: Ibn Abbas: This was revealed (…) regarding ‘Abdullah Ibn Jahsh and his companions who killed ‘Amr Ibn al-Hadrami and their asking about warfare during the sacred month (…) for the unbelievers had censored them from doing so.  Ibn Kathir: “Jihad is made obligatory” In this Ayah, Allah made it obligatory for the Muslims to fight in Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress against Islam. Az-Zuhri said, “Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind. Whoever remains behind is required to give support, if support is warranted; to provide aid, if aid is needed; and to march forth, if he is commanded to do so. If he is not needed, then he remains behind.” It is reported in the Sahih: (Whoever dies but neither fought (i.e., in Allah’s cause), nor sincerely considered fighting, will die a death of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic era of ignorance).) (…though you dislike it) means, `Fighting is difficult and heavy on your hearts.’ Indeed, fighting is as the Ayah describes it, as it includes being killed, wounded, striving against the enemies and enduring the hardship of travel. Allah then said:(. ..and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you) meaning, fighting is followed by victory, dominance over the enemy, taking over their lands, money and offspring. Allah continues (…and that you like a thing which is bad for you.) This Ayah is general in meaning. Hence, one might covet something, yet in reality it is not good or beneficial for him, such as refraining from joining the Jihad, for it might lead to the enemy taking over the land and the government.

4:84, 89-90, 93 “the Women”: an-Nis’a

(Late Medinan)

Analysis: This is a complex sequence of four verses. The second of these, v.10 gives a seemingly clear edict against fighting those who “do not fight you”: “God assigns to you no way against them”. This would seemingly run contrary to verses advocating that “unbelievers” be subdued in an unqualified sense, for eg. surah 9:29. In Islam when there is a contradiction of this sort, the principle of abrogation is sought and it is assumed that the later edict rules over the previous one.

“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn back (turn back, several occ. = tawallaw-  تَوَلَّوْا), seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.

Except those that betake themselves to a people who are joined with you by a compact, or come to you with breasts constricted from fighting with you or fighting their people. Had God willed, He would have given them authority over you, and then certainly they would have fought you. If they withdraw from you, and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God assigns not any way to you against them.

You will find others desiring to be secure from you, and secure from their people, yet whenever they are returned to temptation, they are overthrown in it. If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them wherever you come on them; against them We have given you a clear authority.” (Q 4:89-90)

Other Translations: The ‘Turn renegades’ is translated by Yusuf Ali as the same, Pickthall says “turn back (to enmity)”, Sahih international ‘if they turn away’, Shakir ‘turn back’, Mohsin Khan and Hilali Khan ‘Turn back (from Islam), Arberry ‘turn their backs’.

Ibn Abbas: (if they turn back) from faith and migration (then take them) as prisoners (and kill them wherever you find them) in the Sacred Precinct or anywhere else, (and choose no friend) in religion or for seeking assistance and backing (nor helper) a protector (from among them)

Ibn Khatir: So take not Awliya’ from them, till they emigrate in the way of Allah. But if they turn back, take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Awliya’ nor helpers from them.)“On Surah 4.88: “Zaid b. Thabit reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) set out for Uhud. Some of those persons who were with them came back. The Companions of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) were divided in two groups. One group said: We would kill them, and the other one said: No, this should not be done, and it was on this occasion that this verse was revealed:” Why should you, then, be two parties in relation to hypocrites?” Sahih Muslim 38:6684, See also: Sahih Bukhari 5:59:380, Sahih Bukhari 6:60:113 & (Sahih Bukhari 3:30:1)

“He that kills a believer by design shall burn in Hell forever. He shall incur the wrath of God, who will His curse on him and prepare for him a mighty scourge.” (4:93, cf 4:91) 

Analysis: Punishment is only for killing believers. Clearly the killing of an innocent non-Muslims has been ignored here. Would that not imply that disbelievers are not innocent by definition according to the author, and guilty of a capital offence by virtue of theor disbelief in Islam.

5:33,38 “The Table”

The last ever Surah in some traditions, most have it as Surah 9

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.” (5:33)

Analysis: “making mischief in the land” is famously applied to any form of resistance to or criticism of Islam and the prophet, and can spell tragedy for religious minorities in religous countries.

The Hadith say: Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar Some people raided the camels of the Prophet (peace be upon him), drove them off, and apostatised. They killed the herdsman of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) who was a believer. He (the Prophet) sent (people) in pursuit of them and they were caught. He had their hands and feet cut off, and their eyes put out. The verse regarding fighting against Allah and His Prophet (peace be upon him) was then revealed. These were the people about whom Anas ibn Malik informed al-Hajjaj when he asked him. Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4356, See also: Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4357, Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4359.

“As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their right hands to punish them for their crimes” (5:38)

Analysis: Surah 5:45 gives a seeming option for atonement from the harsh punishment prescribed in 5:38, but it seems both options are valid and left at the discretion of the victim. Further, this is more of a sharia edict which is administering justice among Muslims, since it is dealing with criminality and theft: “We ordained therein for them: “Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.” But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.“

8:5-16, 30-39, 67 “the Spoils of War”

Late Medinan

8:5-16 (Dawood) “The Lord bade you leave your home to fight for justice but some of the faithful were reluctant…God revealed his will to the angels saying:’ I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror in the hearts of the infidels. (12) Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.’(13) That was because they defied (shāqqū, 7occ. this form, “opposed”) God and his apostle. He that defies God and his apostle shall be sternly punished by God. We said to them: ‘Taste this. The scourge of the Fire awaits the unbelievers….(16) If anyone on that day turns his backs to them….he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home: an evil fate.”

8:30-39 (Dawood) “Yet it is but just that he should punish them; for they have debarred others from the sacred mosque, although they have no right to be it’s guardians. It’s only guardians are those who fear God, though most of them do not know it.’ Their prayers at the Sacred House are nothing but whistling and clapping of hands. ‘Taste the scourge, because you disbelieved…if they persist in sin, let them reflect upon the fate of bygone nations.Make war on them until idolatory (‘persecution’ in most translations) shall cease and Allah’s religion shall reign supreme. But if they desist, God is cognisant of their actions.’

“It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter (yuth’khina- يُثْخِنَ- “battled strenuously”?- tha-kha-na root only 1 other occ.- 47:4, also a slaughter verse- “smite their heads….”) in the land.” (Q 8:67)

Analysis: This is a chilling set of verses. 8:5-16 commands murder and mutilation for “defying Allah and his prophet”. Needless to say, people like me who consistently criticize M-.would be automatic targets. 8:38,39 states the end of violence only comes when Islam is the only religion left. 8:67 is a “take no prisoners” edict.

33;27, ‘Muhammed’ 47:4-7, 35

“And He caused you to inherit their land and their homes and their properties and a land which you have not trodden. And ever is Allah , over all things, competent.” (Q 33:27)

6th Medinan surah

“Those that disbelieve and debar others from God’s path and in the end die unbelievers shall not be shown forgiveness by God. Therefore do not falter and sue for peace when you have gained the upper hand. God is on your side and will not grudge you the recompense of your labours.” (Q 47:35[D])

Sahih International: So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of [the reward of] your deeds. Pickthall: So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions. Yusuf Ali: Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.

Analysis: These verses command that in war, the massacre must be ruthless, and only stop “at length when ye have thoroughly subdued them”. This is clearly unecessarily harsh and uncalled for. The word athkhantumūhum (أَثْخَنْتُمُوهُمْ- root- ث خ ن), the only time this form is used, the only other time the root is used is in 8:67 which is literally a “take-no-prisoners”- type verse.

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God, – He will never let their deeds be lost.” (Q 47:4-7 [YA])

Other translations: Pickthall: ‘when ye have routed them’, Hilali Khan: ‘till when you have killed and wounded many of them’, S A: ‘and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among them’, “Ar” translates ‘then, when you have made wide slaughter among them’, Palmer: ‘then striking off heads until ye have massacred them’. “and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly (D), R ‘till ye have made a great slaughter among them’, Sale ‘until ye have made a great slaughter among them’. The verse is emphasised by going on to reward the killers, which I have quoted in the rewards section.

48:16,29 “Victory”

Surah 48 ‘Victory’ is The seventh from last Medinan surah. An important verse that epitomises the intent and criteria of fighting. The aggression is clearly instigated, since the verse implies that if no one was bothered what religion the ‘mighty nation’ embraced, then the ‘unless’ clause could be invoked and there would not be a fight.

“You shall be called upon to fight a mighty nation, unless they embrace Islam” (Q 48:16)

“Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless (strong, hard, forceful, firm of heart, stern, severe,hard in other translations) to the unbelievers but merciful (compassionate, kind) to one another.” (Q 48:29)                 

60:1,4; 61:11- on making friends

I think what the Qur’anic author is doing here is like racial profiling. Surely it cannot be theh case that every single one of the “disbelievers” was responsible for whatever animosity Muhammed and his followers may hahve experienced, yet they are being painted with teh same brush here.

“O believers, take not My enemy and your enemy for friends, offering them love, though they have disbelieved in the truth that has come to you, expelling the Messenger and you because you believe in God your Lord. If you go forth to struggle in My way and seek My good pleasure, secretly loving them, yet I know very well what you conceal and what you publish; and whosoever of you does that, has gone astray from the right way. (2) If they come on (gain dominance over- SI) you, they will be enemies to you, and stretch against you their hands and their tongues, to do you evil, and they wish that you may disbelieve (4) You have had a good example in Abraham, and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘We are quit of you and that you serve, apart from God. We disbelieve in you, and between us and you enmity has shown itself, and hatred for ever, until you believe in God alone…” (Arberry 60:1,2,4 excerpts)

The hadith

Narrated ‘Ali: Allah’s Apostle sent me, Az-Zubair and Al-Miqdad saying, “Proceed till you reach Rawdat Khakh where there is a lady carrying a letter, and take that (letter) from her.” So we proceeded on our way with our horses galloping till we reached the Rawda, and there we found the lady and said to her, “Take out the letter.” She said, “I have no letter.” We said, “Take out the letter, or else we will take off your clothes.” So she took it out of her braid, and we brought the letter to Allah’s Apostle . The letter was addressed from Hatib, bin Abi Balta’a to some pagans of Mecca, telling them about what Allah’s Apostle intended to do. Allah’s Apostle said, “O Hatib! What is this?” Hatib replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! Do not make a hasty decision about me. I was a person not belonging to Quraish but I was an ally to them from outside and had no blood relation with them, and all the Emigrants who were with you, have got their kinsmen (in Mecca) who can protect their families and properties. So I liked to do them a favor so that they might protect my relatives as I have no blood relation with them. I did not do this to renegade from my religion (i.e. Islam) nor did I do it to choose Heathenism after Islam.” Allah’s Apostle said to his companions.” As regards him, he (i.e. Hatib) has told you the truth.” ‘Umar said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Allow me to chop off the head of this hypocrite!” The Prophet said, “He (i.e. Hatib) has witnessed the Badr battle (i.e. fought in it) and what could tell you, perhaps Allah looked at those who witnessed Badr and said, “O the people of Badr (i.e. Badr Muslim warriors), do what you like, for I have forgiven you. “Then Allah revealed the Sura:– “O you who believe! Take not my enemies And your enemies as friends offering them (Your) love even though they have disbelieved in that Truth (i.e. Allah, Prophet Muhammad and this Quran) which has come to you ….(to the end of Verse)….(And whosoever of you (Muslims) does that, then indeed he has gone (far) astray (away) from the Straight Path.” (60.1) Sahih Bukhari 5:59:572, See also: Sahih Bukhari 6:60:412 & Sahih Bukhari 6:60:413.

61:11

“…and fight for God’s cause with your wealth and with your persons…” (Q 61:11)

Conclusion: Can Violent Religion be from God?

If there was one reason for God to say anything to us in terms of teaching, then it was that it were OK to take a peaceful approach. That of course, is because the greatest problem in the world today is the lack of it. A parent teaching his squabbling children how to coexist, what else is the point of the parent being there. This is why a Christian will always feel that Islam does not get off the ground as a religious option. Sure there are perceived problems in Christianity, but that doesn’t mean that any other religion is true purely by default.

When it coems to the history of violent religion, we find that the old pagan religions typically sanction violence, because there’s a different god for everything, including one for war. At the end of the day the point of the religion is to help the monarch to get the job done, get people to submit to his random will, expand his empire and so on, so the gods and priests are tailored to that effect. However a true teaching from God is unikely to sound primarily like a principle of violent enforcement, because this can only be a sign of the poor quality of the actual content. That is, you would expect something that is truly high quality and backed by the divine will to be sustainable even in the absence of violent human support.

In Christianity the whole point of the non-negotiable call to peaceful evangelisation is so that choices can truly be based upon the appeal of the teaching rather than the appeal of the mode of spread. How else does God choose between those that go to Heaven and those that go to Hell?

In this passage, the apostle James speaks about such disordered motivations, and Paul also goes into this extensively, for example in Romans. James is expressing how people pray for power and wealth, engage in violence as though this was from God, and end up with nothing of meaning “you ask with wrong motives… friendship with the world is enmity against God”:

“You crave what you do not have; you kill and covet, but are unable to obtain it. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask. And when you do ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may squander it on your pleasures. You adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore, whoever chooses to be a friend of the world renders himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:2,3)

As for Christianity, we know that there are violent teachings in the Old Testament, but we believe that that was preparing the world for the coming of Jesus: ““All these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect” (Heb. 11:39–40)

Compare the contrasting advise of the Qur’an and Bible, in just these two examples:

First these Biblical verses:

“By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:35)

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” (John 15:13)

“The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. The hired hand runs away because a hired hand does not care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own, and my own know me, just as the Father knows me, and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:12-15)

And now contrast them with these Qur’anic verses:

“Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless (or stern, severe, hard- in other translations) to the unbelievers but merciful (or tender, compassionate, kind) to one another.” (Q 48:29)

“…they fight in the way of Allah, kill, and are killed. A promise binding upon Him in the Torah and the Evangel and the Qurʾān….” (Q 9:111, excerpt)

(Q 9:120) “No cause have the people of Madina and the desert Arabs who dwell around them to forsake God’s apostle or to jeopardise his life so as to safeguard their own.”

God bless, Jesus loves you

Appendix

The “Context” Argument

One way of reconciling such a discrepancy is to assume that the verses that advice a violent approach are to be read in the context of the time in and for which they are written, which is a common approach among the more liberal minded and Westernised Muslims like those of the English speaking world, which also seems to serve the purpose of soothing their own cnsciences regarding the issue. The problems with this is that the Qur’an itself maintains that it is a book for all time, being the last ever and final message of God, so it is hard to validate such an approach from the text itself. Further, if the original context for Islamic violence, which is perceived oppresssion has not necessarily changed in the present day, then obviously the verses are very much applicable. For example, the very fact that Muslims are unable to establish a caliphate at the international level, as they had in the days of Mohammed and his immediate successors and more recently in the time of the Ottomans can itself be seen as a form of oppression, and this is exaclty what has given rise to the most vioent Islamist groups in recent times. In fact the Ottoman caliphate was abolished with the help of estern influence.

Note: Qatala is “fight”, and qatala is “kill”, the difference is only the presence of a long first “a”, through the addition of a “dagger alif” in the former. If I learnt anything from Dan Brubakker’s work at all, it is that the variants in early Qur’anic manuscripts involved small discrepancies such as these and the “dagger alif” addition was a common one, especially since it was a later addition to the script.

Direct contradictions in the verses

QUR’AN’S PEACE/VIOLENCE CONTRADICTION?

The Qur’an’s confusing verses seem to fight first of all against each other, leave alone against anything else.

BE PEACEFUL!:

4:90 says if someone offers peaceful terms, Muslims have “no way” (repeat: NO WAY) against them:

“If they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God give you no way against them…if they neither withdraw nor offer you peace… If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them wherever you come on them; against them We have given you a clear authority.” (Q 4:90)

2:265 “there should be no compulsion in religion”

CONTRADICTION- BE VIOLENT!

When one takes prisoners in war, it is unversally accepted as a merciful option to killing those who have surrendered. This is forbidden in 8:67:

“It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter (yuth’khina- يُثْخِنَ tha-kha-na root only 1 other occ.- 47:4, also a slaughter verse- “smite their heads….”) in the land.” (Q 8:67)

again, we see the FORBIDDING OF PEACE, even when the option is available:

“do not falter and sue for peace when you have gained the upper hand.” (Q 47:35)

AND AGAIN, Muslims are clearly meant to fight until their terms are accepted, NOT until peace is offered:

“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the last day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith among the people of the Book, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” (Q 9:29)

This is repeated from the main section:

In 9:1-7, Muslims are commanded unprovoked aggression upon completion of a treaty, even though clearly the “idolators” have clearly not violated it. This verse has some mitigation for those that convert “take to prayer” and “pay the levy”, as well as those who “seek your protection”, “so they can hear the words of Allah”. Clearly these mitigations are in the scenario of ongoing Islamic aggression, and contain elements of religious coercion/ restrictions “levy”. The unbelievers would not require to seek the Muslims’s protection had they not provoked the aggression in the first place.

In fact the verse is clearly contradictory and it seems that an editor may have tried to soften the effect. Clearly in the first half of the verse non-Muslims are being killed “slay them wherever you find them”, so how are the terms of peace supposed to apply to the dead? Is the Muslim invader supposed to ask at the point of “slaying”: “do you accept Islam?”, in which case it is religious coercion anyway, and the verse does not stipulate that the question be asked anyway. For example, in obedience to this verse, the Muslim goes to war when the treaty is run. Why would the other side sue for peace unless they felt threatened or if casualties had already been inflicted?:

“… those unbelievers who have honoured their treaties with you in every detail and have aided none against you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term.. God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over slay the idolators wherever you find them.

Arrest them, besiege them, and lay in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer (“salah”) and render the alms levy¸ allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful. And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety…” (Q 9:1-7 relevant section)

The politics of the Ongoing Islamic Violent debate

While the debates that rage in Christianity and have even led to wars among Christians are typically and quite foolishly related to the finer points of theology, in Islam the debates over the finer theological points like the relation of the attributes of God to his essence that raged in the early years has largely become uninteresting to modern Muslims. Rather what characterises the global political posturing among Muslims today is the issue of whether to be peaceful or violent. Namely the essential stand-off between the emirs and sultans of Islamic states which do not favour global dominion, but rather are interested in maintaining their local and considerable hegemonies, and on the other hand Islamist group which see no role of local fiefdoms, but rather a single ever-expanding and essentially practically unrealizable single world empire. The latter by dint of being practically unrealizable makes for eternal war and terrorism, while the former wil mean that the fundamental model of early Islam is never aspired to, and on top of that alliances with other nations are sought against the Islamist forces in the interest of the local fiefdoms.