Violent Qur'an passages

[Augustine3]

You’re actually thinking of Surah 9:5 which a Muslim may make that arguement for. However, this Surah applies specifically to the, “people of the book.” Ie: Christians and Jews. Surah 9:5 applies to Pagans of that time some Muslims will argue.

9:4(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

9:5But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

You see?

Perfectly. Thanks for clearing that up

Now I’m curious. I would like see a Muslim’s explanation of Surah 9:29

 

[Reuben_J]

Ah, thank you-- it’s good to be here.

You are welcome. Have a blessed time here.

The early muslims were often insulted, beaten, tortured and, in some cases, even murdered. This was largely due to the fact that Mecca was, at the time, well known to be a place where pagans brought their idols to perform sets of rituals around [or at least near] the Ka’aba (a big, black box). What in Muhammad’s message was so offensive to the Meccans? well, it was Monotheism, first of all. The pagans were polytheists

Seemed like what the early Christians martyrs had to pass through. Most of Jesus’ apostles and disciples were killed either by the Jews or Romans for their belief. They were being stoned, flogged or thrown to the lion’s den as spectators sport for the Romans. It is amazing that despite all that, Christianity flourished and able to spread to almost all of the Roman Empire and even to Africa and Asia.

They did not fight their detractors and thus were martyred. They died for their belief. Paul said it was foolishness to preach Christ crucified to the Jews and scandal to the pagan Romans. Yet they were willing to be foolish for Christ and died for him for the sake of the truth.

Moreover, Muhammad taught that the real God is unlike His creation and has no images (see surah 112 of the Qur’an if you want to know exactly). This theology was the direct opposite of pagan beliefs, which said that their god’s prescense or escense was residing in their idols. A god of clay or wood is no god at all. Martin Lings has a great book about Muhammad’s life and he talks about this early persecution in chapters 18-29.

It was a very noble thing for Mohammad to bring monotheism to the polytheist pagans. However, I wish that he had not use conquest and fighting to do that. If it is from God, nothing in the world can stop it and if it is not, it will die a natural death.

To put together a religion based on fighting probably is not the best way but then again perhaps this is because of the different situation in Mohammad’s experience since he was more of starting up a nation ruled by a government.

 

[openmind77]

Read the forum rules. - stick to the title of the thread.

The poster could have posted "violent quran passages & violent Biblical passages.

Then in this case - both need to be discussed.

Then I guess my question is addressed to the initial poster - why does he only want to discuss violent passages in the Qur’an when there are probably more violent passages in the Old Testament?

 

[mhmtas]

It was a very noble thing for Mohammad to bring monotheism to the polytheist pagans. However, I wish that he had not use conquest and fighting to do that. If it is from God, nothing in the world can stop it and if it is not, it will die a natural death.

To put together a religion based on fighting probably is not the best way but then again perhaps this is because of the different situation in Mohammad’s experience since he was more of starting up a nation ruled by a government.

Muhammed is a prophet so He can not do anything for his religion without of permission of God. To fight against pagans is with order and permission of God. İf you believe that Muhammed is a prophet than you must try to understand His action. And if İslam were been only Muhammed’s teachings it would not take place in hearts, minds, consience although with a super power. But Muslims were so little and poor. Before fighting against pagans already İslam were expanding quickly.

 

[Reuben_J]

Muhammed is a prophet so He can not do anything for his religion without of permission of God. To fight against pagans is with order and permission of God. İf you believe that Muhammed is a prophet than you must try to understand His action. And if İslam were been only Muhammed’s teachings it would not take place in hearts, minds, consience although with a super power. But Muslims were so little and poor. Before fighting against pagans already İslam were expanding quickly.

I agree that a prophet would do what God wanted him to. However, if we are alluding to the topic of the thread, you are actually supporting it that Islam was violent. This is in contrast to Jesus and his disciples who did not care about the kingdom of this world and that Christianity was spread by the blood of the martyrs. Even though the Jews were at war with the Romans (they were occupied by them) and even though Jesus could call an army (he was considered a popular leader for the uprising against the Romans) he did not.

So that’s the difference there as I can see it.

 

[Sam_777]

Before fighting against pagans already İslam were expanding quickly.

Completely wrong, I think you need to reread the history again.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

Then I guess my question is addressed to the initial poster - why does he only want to discuss violent passages in the Qur’an when there are probably more violent passages in the Old Testament?

When you look at the arc of the story of the whole Bible you can start off with someone like Gideon and it becomes less and less violent until you have Jesus Christ. Jesus meets up with a legion of Roman soldiers, and when one of his followers, Peter, cuts of the ear of high priest’s servant, Malchus. Jesus performs one of his last miracles and heals Malchus, while the soldiers were they there to arrest Him. Jesus teachings and death on the cross was suppose to stop life for a life mentality, revenge killings and the like.

 

[manualman]

… and yet he orders the killing of thousands of innocents, whose only crime is following the religion they were born into. How is that loving of his creation?

Assertion not in evidence. Thus my prod at you in the beginning. Just because every human community YOU have ever encountered contained both good and evil in a hopelessly mixed up package doesn’t mean that there have never been human communities utterly deprived of remaining goodness.

You’re making the mistake of viewing God as just a human with a really big stick. There’s rather more to omnipotence and omniscience than that (not to mention the mind bending idea of a being who exists outside of time and space itself!).

You despise God because the god you are able to imagine isn’t really God.

Back on topic, the difference between the times God ordered killing in the OT and the killing Muhammed instructs muslims to commit (on Allah’s behalf) is that the OT carefully spells out a particular time and people that God had judged. The Koran establishes broad principles that seem clearly intended to apply beyond the specific circumstance at hand. That’s a scary difference!

 

[Ontheway]

Then I guess my question is addressed to the initial poster - why does he only want to discuss violent passages in the Qur’an when there are probably more violent passages in the Old Testament?

I can’t tell you why the question was asked the way it was. However, I would like to answer the second part of your question.

Christianity is based on the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. The emphasis is on his life and actions with special emphasis on the concept of sacrificing one’s life for the other, of turning the other cheek, and non-violence. The Beatitudes in the New Testament capture the essence of what Christians believe.
Christ’s entrance into the world is a caesura; it marks the beginning of a new era, a new way of life.

The Koran, which came several hundred years later, dismisses many of these concepts and seem to hark back to the Old Testament times. Like the OT, it lays down the law. Much of it is devoted to violence, warfare and the ideas of conquest, all rather similar to the OT stories of a couple of thousand years before.

 

[openmind77]

I can’t tell you why the question was asked the way it was. However, I would like to answer the second part of your question.

Christianity is based on the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. The emphasis is on his life and actions with special emphasis on the concept of sacrificing one’s life for the other, of turning the other cheek, and non-violence. The Beatitudes in the New Testament capture the essence of what Christians believe.
Christ’s entrance into the world is a caesura; it marks the beginning of a new era, a new way of life.

The Koran, which came several hundred years later, dismisses many of these concepts and seem to hark back to the Old Testament times. Like the OT, it lays down the law. Much of it is devoted to violence, warfare and the ideas of conquest, all rather similar to the OT stories of a couple of thousand years before.

Thanks for your answer. You are quite right about the coming of Jesus marking the beginning of a new era. The Buddha earlier brought the message of non-violence to the world (mainly in the east), but Jesus went further and brought the message of Love.

However, you are wrong about the Koran being devoted to violence and warfare. There is not really that much of it and actually it has less violence than the OT. The violence in Koran and the Old Testament are indeed different. If you read the Koran carefully, most of the violent sections are mitigated by sections before and afterwards which speak of mercy if the ‘enemy’ does not resist. For instance right after 2.191 where it says kill the unbelievers, 2.192 says ‘But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’ and so on.

Obviously Christian as preached by Jesus is far gentler and more humane than Islam, but Islam is definitely much, much better than the Old Testament where there is absolutely no mercy for the ‘enemy’. What bothers me is that most Christians have not totally rejected the violent sections of the OT (just a couple of days back someone threatened me with damnation by quoting something from the OT about some ‘jealous’ and ‘vengeful’ God - so obviously many still believe in such a vengeful God).

BTW Jesus may have tried to bring abut a new way of life to the world, but I don’t think he has entirely succeeded yet. I don’t see that much love in the Christian world (not that the rest of the world is better) or on these forums. The only person (that I am sure of) who loves his enemies is the Dalai Lama - and he is not a Christian

 

[Ontheway]

Thanks for your answer. You are quite right about the coming of Jesus marking the beginning of a new era. The Buddha earlier brought the message of non-violence to the world (mainly in the east), but Jesus went further and brought the message of Love.

However, you are wrong about the Koran being devoted to violence and warfare. There is not really that much of it and actually it has less violence than the OT. The violence in Koran and the Old Testament are indeed different. If you read the Koran carefully, most of the violent sections are mitigated by sections before and afterwards which speak of mercy if the ‘enemy’ does not resist. For instance right after 2.191 where it says kill the unbelievers, 2.192 says ‘But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’ and so on.

Obviously Christian as preached by Jesus is far gentler and more humane than Islam, but Islam is definitely much, much better than the Old Testament where there is absolutely no mercy for the ‘enemy’. What bothers me is that most Christians have not totally rejected the violent sections of the OT (just a couple of days back someone threatened me with damnation by quoting something from the OT about some ‘jealous’ and ‘vengeful’ God - so obviously many still believe in such a vengeful God).

BTW Jesus may have tried to bring abut a new way of life to the world, but I don’t think he has entirely succeeded yet. I don’t see that much love in the Christian world (not that the rest of the world is better) or on these forums. The only person (that I am sure of) who loves his enemies is the Dalai Lama - and he is not a Christian

Just a couple of comments. I am trying to understand the source of violence in Islam and without reading the Koran and the Hadiths tend to attribute it automatically to these sources. In fact I just started another thread on this topic, but no one from the Islamic group here wishes to participate so far.

In regard to the violent stories in the OT, it is a bit tricky. The CCC (Catechism) states the following
121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

Placed within the context of the OT, we Christians have inherited the history and the growing pains of the Israeli nation.
However, we are not bound to accept a literal interpretation of the OT books. (I hope I am not misrepresenting some official position on this)

 

[Reuben_J]

In regard to the violent stories in the OT, it is a bit tricky. The CCC (Catechism) states the following
121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

Placed within the context of the OT, we Christians have inherited the history and the growing pains of the Israeli nation.
However, we are not bound to accept a literal interpretation of the OT books. (I hope I am not misrepresenting some official position on this)

You are right, Ontheway. Basically for Christians, they are followers of Jesus. That’s where we get our identity and all our lives are geared towards following his teachings and the personal examples he did on earth which, if said in simple words, Christians are to live out the Gospel.

The Old Testament is part of the compilation of the Bible and it is fulfilled in the New Testament. Jesus himself fulfilled it. **Muslims’ problem with how Christians treat the Old Testament is they thought we must follow every iota, every word of the Old Testament just as they do with the Quran. **

There is even a thread by a Muslim poster here that asked, if Jesus followed the Old testament then why did he asked the Christians to reject it, a premise that does not exist for us. Unlike the Quran, the Bible has a sequence though not exactly a history, it nevertheless narrates the experience of God’s plan of salvation for mankind came about, which you rightly mentioned through the up and down of the experience of the Israelites. Thus the Old Testament culminates in the New and that is how Christians see their religion – a rich source of history and life biographies of the Biblical figures from which we can learn from.

Not all the Old Testament were rejected however, the moral laws which is unchanged is still held by the Christians while the ceremonial and civil laws of ancient Israel are discarded because they have either become obsolete because of the changing of time or being fulfilled by Jesus.

Basically when we talk about the violent in Islam is this: Do Muslims have to follow all the teaching of the Quran, for example, Jihad or merely parts of it? I thought Islam is not divided into moral and civil laws in a sense because basically for it is a government, a nation, and that was what Mohammad did – he set up an Islamic nation and thus have to follow all the civil law, the ceremonial law and of course the moral laws. They do have the Hudud and the Syariah, a purely Islamic government that governs the way of lives of Muslims in living and worship.