Violent Qur'an passages

[aball1035]

I’ve seen a few passages (below) in the Qur’an that indicate violence. Is this in a certain context, such as stories in the Old Testament in the Bible, or misinterpretations (if so, are there different translations of the Qur’an?), or does Islam really promote violence?

2:191-”Kill them (unbelievers) wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you, for persecution is worse than slaughter…. Such is the reward of those who reject faith.”

2:193-”Fight against them (unbelievers) until there is no dissension, and the religion is for Allah.”

4:89-”"Seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

47:4-”Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers smite their necks, then, when you have killed many of them, tie the bonds…. As for those who are killed in the Way of Allah, he will not let their works to go astray.”

48:28-29-”It is he who has sent his messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, so that he exalts it above all other religions. Allah is the sufficient witness. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Those who are with him are harsh against the unbelievers but merciful to one another.”

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

Yes, Islam promotes violence. That is a big part of the reason why the Crusades began.

 

[jakasaki]

Watch this thread de-rail very quickly with “violent Bible passages”…

 

[expounder]

I’ve seen a few passages (below) in the Qur’an that indicate violence. Is this in a certain context, such as stories in the Old Testament in the Bible, or misinterpretations (if so, are there different translations of the Qur’an?), or does Islam really promote violence?

2:191-”Kill them (unbelievers) wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you, for persecution is worse than slaughter…. Such is the reward of those who reject faith.”

2:193-”Fight against them (unbelievers) until there is no dissension, and the religion is for Allah.”

4:89-”"Seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

47:4-”Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers smite their necks, then, when you have killed many of them, tie the bonds…. As for those who are killed in the Way of Allah, he will not let their works to go astray.”

48:28-29-”It is he who has sent his messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, so that he exalts it above all other religions. Allah is the sufficient witness. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Those who are with him are harsh against the unbelievers but merciful to one another.”

The verses are about Jihad and if you didn’t know, lesser Jihad is defensive.

 

[expounder]

Watch this thread de-rail very quickly with “violent Bible passages”…

No worries i’ll make a new thread if i want to express that

 

[ricofall]

I took a class on world religions and Islam was one of them. As you can see, I am an expert here rolleyes

The problem is that to really understand the Qur’an and be a good Muslim, you have to read and study it in its original language. If we read it in english, than all we are arguing is which interpretation do we want to believe. Islam has the same problem that protestants have. They really do not have a central authority for their beliefs. So you have different Islamic groups all claiming to hold their truth. Sunnis, Shia, Sufism, Ahmadiyya, Quranist and so on.

 

[expounder]

I took a class on world religions and Islam was one of them. As you can see, I am an expert here rolleyes

The problem is that to really understand the Qur’an and be a good Muslim, you have to read and study it in its original language. If we read it in english, than all we are arguing is which interpretation do we want to believe. Islam has the same problem that protestants have. They really do not have a central authority for their beliefs. So you have different Islamic groups all claiming to hold their truth. Sunnis, Shia, Sufism, Ahmadiyya, Quranist and so on.

So you have labelled different sects in Islam and said they all claim to hold the truth. Fact of the matter is is that this can be applied to anglicans, Catholics, mormons, Jehova’s witnesses, unitarians, methodists and so on. They all claim to possess the truth, so what is your argument really?
Central figure of authority? We have the Ulema who dedicate much of their life to learning about the Qur’an, the Hadith, Fiqh, aqeedah. They have the authority to give the legal judgement on matters based on Islam.

 

[aball1035]

The verses are about Jihad and if you didn’t know, lesser Jihad is defensive.

So there are 2 kinds of jihad, the lesser being defensive (these verses), and greater offensive I presume?

 

[expounder]

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Qur’an 2:190
To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid.
Qur’an 22:39
Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
Qur’an 4:90
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
Qur’an 8:61

These verses allow us to fight but only in the way of Allah. We also have something very similar to the Just War Theory and you’d find the Jewish and Christian scripture, shows a similar variety of attitudes to war.

 

[expounder]

So there are 2 kinds of jihad, the lesser being defensive (these verses), and greater offensive I presume?

nope, greater Jihad is the greater internal struggle every person has to undergo and it is to strive to do good and become a better person, it is known as Jihad an nafs.
In simplistic terms it can be said to be fighting against the ego. This Jihad never ends,
the point being that we MUST do jihad an nafs thorughout our lives at all times, as it is the root of correct intentions.

 

[ricofall]

So you have labelled different sects in Islam and said they all claim to hold the truth. Fact of the matter is is that this can be applied to anglicans Catholics, mormons, Jehova’s witnesses, unitarians, methodists and so on. They all claim to possess the truth, so what is your argument really?
Central figure of authority? We have the Ulema who dedicate much of their life to learning about the Qur’an, the Hadith, Fiqh, aqeedah. They have the authority to give the legal judgement on matters based on Islam.

Well, I was not arguing. I was just stating a fact about a religion. However you asked me some questions so I will answer them

So you have labelled different sects in Islam and said they all claim to hold the truth. Fact of the matter is is that this can be applied to anglicans Catholics, mormons, Jehova’s witnesses, unitarians, methodists and so on. They all claim to possess the truth, so what is your argument really?

There is no argument. Protestants claim they hold their version of the truth. In a Christian faith, the biggest problem for most of them is that they were started by a person during the reformation. Catholic roots go to Jesus Christ who is our founder. We have a Pope who is our central authority. You will not find another protestant religion with a historical lineage (unless it is made up). Most were started by a person who read the Bible their own way to read what they wanted from it.

We have the Ulema who dedicate much of their life to learning about the Qur’an, the Hadith, Fiqh, aqeedah. They have the authority to give the legal judgement on matters based on Islam.

Since you brought the Ulema up, they only hold authority under the group of Muslims that they represent. Ulemas are usually for muslims who follow Sharia law (unless the state has Sharia law in place, then you are required to follow it). As you know, there are sects that only follow the Qur’an only, not the Hadith or other writings. They have their own Ulemas that say they are right. Some will say they have roots to the Prophet. Are they all right or is one right?
Another question is what happens when Ulemas disagree over the law? One will declare something allowed, and the other will not. Who has final authority? This is the problem facing Protestant denominations. If they do not like what the preacher says, either move to a different church of the week, or start your own.

 

[jakasaki]

No worries i’ll make a new thread if i want to express that

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Indeed, the Muslim men and Muslim women,
the believing men and believing women,
the obedient men and obedient women,
the truthful men and truthful women,
the patient men and patient women,
the humble men and humble women,
the charitable men and charitable women,
the fasting men and fasting women,
the men who guard their private parts and the women who do so,
and the men who remember Allah often and the women who do so -
for them Allah has prepared forgiveness and a great reward.
Surah 33:35

If we all interpet “Allah” as “God” in many ways we are not so far apart.
“Elohim”, “Theos” , Deus", “Allah”

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The verses are about Jihad and if you didn’t know, lesser Jihad is defensive.

in Surah 16:36

And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], “Worship Allah and avoid Taghut.” And among them were those whom Allah guided, and among them were those upon whom error was [deservedly] decreed. So proceed through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers.

and many other surah the plural weis used.

Who besides Allah is reffered to?

 

[expounder]

Indeed, the Muslim men and Muslim women,
the believing men and believing women,
the obedient men and obedient women,
the truthful men and truthful women,
the patient men and patient women,
the humble men and humble women,
the charitable men and charitable women,
the fasting men and fasting women,
the men who guard their private parts and the women who do so,
and the men who remember Allah often and the women who do so -
for them Allah has prepared forgiveness and a great reward.
Surah 33:35

If we all interpet “Allah” as “God” in many ways we are not so far apart.
“Elohim”, “Theos” , Deus", “Allah”

Allah is simply a word for God and it has been so way before the start of Islam.
But you’re right apart from the triune, and other subtle differences our ideas of God are very similar indeed.

 

[LtTony]

Context is a key to some of the verses. There are those that were clearly directed to a certain broup and time, I suppose.

Translations from the “classic” (ancient) Arabic, as someone mentioned, which can be extemely problematic, from what I gather from reading Muslim explantions.

Last, and most important, imo, the more passive verses came early in Mohammad’s “career.” Directives became more violent and intolerant as the leader gained power later on. (The Koran is not arranged in chronological order. btw, which adds another layer of complexity.)

 

[expounder]

in Surah 16:36

And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], “Worship Allah and avoid Taghut.” And among them were those whom Allah guided, and among them were those upon whom error was [deservedly] decreed. So proceed through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers.

and many other surah the plural weis used.

Who besides Allah is reffered to?

Why does Allah(SWT) at times speak in the plural form in the Quran?
Jazak Allah Khair.

Praise be to Allaah.

The answer is in two parts:

In general terms, every believer must believe that every action of Allaah has great wisdom behind it, and there is no need for it to be explained in full to every person. This is a kind of test, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… that He may test you which of you is best in deed…” [al-Mulk 67:2]

To answer this question in more detail: the Qur’aan was revealed in the language of the Arabs, and in Arabic it is as correct to use the plural when speaking of one person as it is to use the singular. But the plural is used for respect and glorification, and no one is more deserving of respect and glorification than Allaah. So the singular is used to affirm the fact that He is One and has no partner or associate, and the plural is used to affirm His glory and majesty, may He be exalted.

Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote in Majmaoo’ al-Fataawaa (5/128) some words which may be of interest to us here:

“With regard to Allaah’s closeness to us, sometimes it is mentioned in the singular, as in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): ‘And when My slaves ask you (O Muhammad) concerning Me, then (answer them) I am indeed near (to them by My knowledge). I respond to the invocations of the supplicant when he calls on Me…’ [al-Baqarah 2:186] and the hadeeth: ‘The One on Whom you call is closer to any one of you than the neck of his riding-camel’, and sometimes in the plural, as in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): ‘… And We are nearer to Him than his jugular vein’ [Qaaf 50:16]. This is like the aayaat (interpretation of the meanings): ‘We recite to you…’ [al-Qasas 28:3] and ‘We relate unto you…’ [Yoosuf 12:3]. Such usage in Arabic refers to the one who is great and has helpers who obey him; when his helpers do something by his command, he says ‘We did it,’ as a king might say, ‘We conquered this land and we defeated this army,’ and so on.”
And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Read this Fatwa too,insha Allah
islam-qa.com/en/ref/606

So what do we get from this? It is the royal we

 

[Michael_Mayo]

So what do we get from this? It is the royal we

Cool.

Thanks.

 

[expounder]

Context is a key to some of the verses. There are those that were clearly directed to a certain broup and time, I suppose.

Translations from the “classic” (ancient) Arabic, as someone mentioned, which can be extemely problematic, from what I gather from reading Muslim explantions.

Last, and most important, imo, the more passive verses came early in Mohammad’s “career.” Directives became more violent and intolerant as the leader gained power later on. (The Koran is not arranged in chronological order. btw, which adds another layer of complexity.)

That is simply because the verses were revealed to him on the current situation of Muhammad (SAW). Obviously during the latter days of his life, he was involved in much more military conflict, so your hypothesis comes as no surprise…:yup:

I think we have all seen the errors in translation, especially in foreign countries-on signs. This is why muslims believe the Qur’an is best read in arabic, this way there is no way for misunderstandings and errors to creep in.

 

[drac16]

My friend, if you want to study any religion in an intellectually honest fashion [and I hope that’s your intention], you must take the context of verses into account. Not only the immediate context of the verses before and after, but also the historical context; when was such-and-such verse revealed? to whom was it addressing? under what circumstance(s) did it apply? etc.

We can dialogue on Qur’anic verses if you want, but in order to do so, you’re going to have to do better than merely copying/pasting a few verses, ripped bleeding out their respective contexts and all the while making no effort to exegete them. Besides, anyone can make a religious text appear to be a dreadful book of intolerance if you cherry pick verses and ignore the context.