By Paul Salahuddin Armstrong
Co-Director, AOBM
A commentary and response to an article entitled, “Does the Koran Teach Violence” by Weylan Deaver.
“The New Testament teaches Christians are at war with evil. But Christians fight with spiritual (i.e. non-physical) weapons for a spiritual kingdom.”
As do Muslims… Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, stated, “the greatest jihad (which means struggle/striving) is with one’s self/ego”. If you read the Qur’an carefully, so many verses are asking the reader to ponder, to strive for spiritual correction in themselves, (cf. Holy Qur’an 2:177, 2:195, 2:203, 2:219, 2:238, 3:191, 10:5-6, 38:28 – there are many more, but I can’t list them all here).
“When it comes to our relationship to fellow men, the gospel teaches we are to be peacemakers, turning the other cheek when mistreated, not retaliating, but leaving vengeance to God.”
Islam likewise teaches this is the best way (cf. Holy Qur’an 2:224,) Prophet Muhammad himself said, “None of you truly believes until he desires for others that which he desires for himself” (40 Hadith of an-Nawawi 13). Clearly, no one in their right mind desires anything bad to happen to them, and we should therefore bear that in mind during our interactions with others. Even in 2:178, the verse highlights forgiveness is superior to seeking retribution.
“O YOU who have attained to faith! Just retribution is ordained for you in cases of killing: the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the woman for the woman…”
- i.e. an eye for an eye. However, the same verse goes on to say,
“…and if something [of his guilt] is remitted to a guilty person by his brother, this [remission] shall be adhered to with fairness, and restitution to his fellow-man shall be made in a goodly manner. This is an alleviation from your Sustainer, and an act of His grace…”
- i.e. a court ruling that the victim’s next of kin should receive compensation is better, this is certainly not a mandate for anyone to go and seek revenge. The same verse ends by saying,
“…And for him who, none the less, wilfully transgresses the bounds of what is right, there is grievous suffering in store:”
- which really highlights the point that justice should be carried out in a lenient and merciful manner, certainly not in the brutal way some of those who claim to advocate “Shariah” today have implied!
“That’s a far, far cry from advocating physical violence against the enemies of the church in the name of Christ. Anyone teaching or practicing physical violence in the name of Christ to further the religion of Christianity is, in fact, contradicting the New Testament.”
Like the Tealibans (Tea Partiers) and some crazy evangelical extremists perhaps? While Islam does advocate self-defence, it certainly does not encourage violence or nuking people! The Qur’an stresses the best way, is to work for peace and draw up treaties with your enemies to avoid open conflict (cf. Holy Qur’an 8:61). The Qur’an only permits a country (not terrorists) to defend itself against an aggressive violent state which hasn’t respected the treaties it has made. (cf. Holy Qur’an 8:56-58) That is in fact in opposition to terrorism, not supporting it in any way. Most people, even most Christians, would accept that a state must defend itself from foreign aggression, even though this is a most unpalatable aspect of the world in which we live.
“When it comes to the religion of Islam, there are, without question, many who advocate and practice physical violence against those they consider ‘infidels.”
This is sadly true, there are some extremists who advocate horrible things. Although, in this respect, Islam is no different from Christianity, or indeed many other religious and even some political groupings. Each has their extremist nutty fringe elements, who are themselves opposed by the majority. To single Islam out and imply it is somehow unique in this respect, is absolutely dishonest and a rather pathetic argument.
“Often, politically-correct (and ignorant) American politicians condemn terrorist atrocities, offering the explanation that Islam has been hijacked by radical extremists. But is that so? Consider several quotations from A. J. Arberry’s respected translation of the Koran (New York: Collier Books, 1955).”
While this might not sit well with some people, due in part to their own fierce beliefs, these politicians are correct; Islam or rather, the public image of Islam has been hijacked by radical extremists.
“And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors. And slay them wherever you come upon them” (from sura II). (2:190)
While on the one hand aggression seems discouraged, killing in the name of Allah is definitely okay: kill your enemy wherever you happen to find him. It makes the part about non-aggression seem a little hollow, doesn’t it?”
Muhammad Asad, in his commentary on verse 2:190 wrote the following:
This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta’tadu signifies, in this context, “do not commit aggression”; while by al-mu’tadin “those who commit aggression” are meant. The defensive character of a fight “in God’s cause” – that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God – is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to “those who wage war against you”, and has been still further clarified in 22:39 – “permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged” – which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Qur’anic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22:39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Qur’an is evident from 60:8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4:91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse.
Although jihad doesn’t actually mean a crusader style “holy war” in the way we imagine in the West. The fact that some people see that is a testament to our own bloody history, rather than anything in Islam. We’ve subconsciously superimposed our own medieval concept of a crusade on Islam and Muslims and by making out Muslims are possessed of some crazy warmongering spirit, seek to make the West look rather benign in comparison! Whereas, the honest truth is all civilisations have foreign blood on their hands and this is not because of any particular Holy Book or religion. Men fight wars, not God, and often times not because of a belief in any particular deity or faith. Even the Crusades were fought as much for control of crucial trade routes as any religious concerns.
The Arabic word jihad can refer to any form of struggle, in a similar manner to the English word “fight”. You can fight, for instance, for human rights or to protect the environment, each of these is a jihad, requiring much effort and self sacrifice. Jihad when referring to warfare, according to the Holy Qur’an, refers to defensive war, a just war, fought to re-establish peace and security. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote in his commentary on verse 2:190:
War is permissible in self-defence, and under well-defined limits. When undertaken, it must be pushed with vigour (but not relentlessly), but only to restore peace and freedom for the worship of God. In any case strict limits must not be transgressed: women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace withheld when the enemy comes to terms.
Read more of this post
“As the Hindus say, God is at the same time personal and impersonal. He is impersonal in the sense that his infinitely mysterious manner of being a Person is infinitely different from the human manner. It is only possible to grasp this mystery by employing at the same time, like two pincers, these two contrary notions, incompatible here on earth, compatible only in God (the same applies to may other pairs of contraries, as the Pythagoreans had realised).
