The Qur'an and Violence

[Lurking_Logic]

I will start by saying that I am not familiar with the Qur'an
I have passing knowledge of it's contents but have done little study into what it actually says

However I have recently seen a (Ongoing) debate about the specifics of the Qur'an and violence.
One side was arguing that there are indeed Qur'an verses that call the followers of Islam to do violence (Against anyone non-muslim)
The other argued that such quotes were out of context
Here are the verses first proposed
**********
(Qur'an 8:12)"I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Qur'an (4:89) - "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 renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are ruthless to the Unbelievers, but merciful to each other." (Qur'an 48:29)

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Bukhari 84:57)

Allah's Apostle said: "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." (Bukhari 52:256)

Qur'an (9:5) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..."
**********

So I was wondering which has the stronger case
I can present each side if you like (Copy paste relevant arguments) but if you were to show one side right or wrong what verses would you use to prove/disprove each side?

and is the claim "Wether you choose not to believe it, you cannot find a verse which orders every muslim to just go and kill a disbeliever." actually true or not?

 

[lrkun]

Because of self-serving interpretations of the koran from certain heads of certain groups, violence arises in furtherance of their cause. Ex. Jihad or Holy war.

 

[Yfelsung]

Any illogical belief system can be twisted to create violence.

Once you've sewn the seed of illogical thought in their head, you can make them do almost anything.

It is easy to make someone die for their god when they think paradise awaits. It was easy for ancient Germanic kings to send their warriors to war when they believed Valhalla awaited.

Any illogical belief system is ripe for abuse.

 

[Story]

I used to be Muslim, so I suppose I could add my views of how I understood these verses during the times I began studying to Quran to prove it wasn't violent. I don't care much for it anymore, but it does matter to me that that truth be told so I'll explain.

(Qur'an 8:12)"I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

There is a verse like this that I can't find at the moment, which is about as violent, but this particular verse isn't talking about Muslims or asking Muslims to do anything. It's actually God talking to the Angels.

12: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Not very angelic, but Angels in the Quran remind me more of the seraphin in the bible.

Qur'an (4:89) - "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 renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

This verse is followed by this:

4:90 Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: 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).

Which basically means that you aren't allowed to fight them unless they're trying to fight you.

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

This verse... I couldn't find any justification for. The only thing at the time I could play about with was the alleged history surrounding it and the "nor acknowledge the religion of Truth" line, which I morphed into meaning that they fought against you first. (Because that's what supposedly happened at the time.)

But essentially, there's no justification in it at all.

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are ruthless to the Unbelievers, but merciful to each other." (Qur'an 48:29)

I put this down to be an issue of semantics. The word for "Unbelievers" in Arabic is "Kafir" which doesn't specifically mean unbeliever or infidel in the way we understand it. I don't know Arabic very well, so I don't know the entire story behind that, but I used 2 verses to justify my position.

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
60:9 Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

I used these to say that Allah didn't mean non-Muslims. He was talking about a specific group that persecuted the Muslims at the time.

I haven't decided if this is instead a contradiction.

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Bukhari 84:57)

No justification at all. This along with the "beat them [your wive/s]" verse led me out of Islam.

Allah's Apostle said: "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." (Bukhari 52:256)

It disturbs me that I used to believe this crap.

Qur'an (9:5) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..."

In defense of this it is preceded by:

9:3 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,
9:4 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), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).

Basically, the Muslims were no longer obligated to treaties with groups of people that had broken their side of the agreement. The people that broke it weren't treated very nicely... they were to be seized, beleaguered, lied in wait for and slain. Not something you'd expect to see in a religious book and not very easy on the ears either, but not exactly something you could criticize from a political point of view. I mean, maybe the instructions manual didn't have to be so specifically violent, but I suppose it does follow up by saying.

9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

It sorts of insults them at the end of that and again, isn't a very great source of morals, but it's better than a mountain of foreskin and not as heinous as one would be led to believe.

Nevetheless, Muslims in general (the good and bad), do not read the Quran. They memorise it in Arabic, yes, but it goes through one ear and out the other. It's pretty hard to understand anyway. Muslims, like all religious adherents, follow the words and advice of a specific leader and take all his words like gospel (errr... Quran) and don't really form their own opinions on the Quran at all.

Before I left Islam, I begun forming my own opinions on everything. Although I was advised that this was a bad idea and that it could "confuse" me and lead me away from Isla- OMG..... They were RIGHT! :shock:

 

[Lurking_Logic]

Thanks for the replies
Especially story for your more in depth analysis of the claims

If anything more come up I will post it

But currently he has oly made one more odd claim that the first Human Rights came from the Qur'an and that it has no rascism in it at all

 

[Doghouse]

Religion provides the authority figure to give people license to do what they want, or what they are told to by leaders. What is actually contained in the holy texts is of secondary importance to the intent of the cleric. Dr Martin Luther King had the same basic bible as the men who slaughtered the native Americans, yet he carried a message of peace. Whatever you want it's there and it is what makes clerics of almost any religion powerful.

The problem the Koran has is that right now it has become politicised and targeted, it's almost in danger, at least in Western culture, of being perceived as the new Communism, unpatriotic, alien and untrustworthy. This is alienating Muslims and breeding prejudice among the ordinary folks who are getting bombarded with threatening images in the media.

Don't get me wrong, I think Islam is a load of crap. But all religions are. It's nothing special, it's just the new monster in the wardrobe since Communism went out of business.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Video: Islam - The Religion Of Peace?

The other argued that such quotes were out of context

This is a very popular muslim argument that works on uninformed non-muslims. But once you study quran at least a little bit, you will realize that much of the quran doesn't even have a context. In fact, you will also find the same muslim who claimed that you're taking it "out of context" will later say that everything in the quran applies to all people of all times (especially if you become a muslim and then ask him if you must obey a questionable verse).

Unlike the bible, torah or even hindu holy books, the quran is a book full of commands. Look at the verses you quoted, most of them are clearly commands directed at the reader, rather than mere historical dialogue which the reader can expect in a bible.

For example, Jizya is a very real tax system enforced on non-muslims living in fundamental muslim countries such as saudi arabia, even today. A muslim who says you're taking this "jizya quote" out of (historical) context is wilfully ignoring this fact.

Muslims learnt the "out of context" excuse from christian apologetics. Since the bible is a document full of supposed "historical stories" it is easy for one to say that you're quoting a bible verse out of context. The bible fails because the morality that can be derived from the biblical text is usually antithetical to current christian and secular moralities. Whereas the quran is not a book of historical stories, but one of commands to the reader. The quran fails solely because the text itself is antithetical to human moralities. (If the text is assumed completely acceptable, as muslims do, then any morality derived from it will also become completely acceptable.)

is the claim "Wether you choose not to believe it, you cannot find a verse which orders every muslim to just go and kill a disbeliever." actually true or not?

You already quoted a few: 4:89, 9:5.
Check out Skeptics' Annotated Quran, they have a collection of verses about Holy War and other topics.

Read the most recent suras in the chronological order. (The most recent is number 114 in the list, or sura 110) [Note that suras in the quran are not in chronological order, but in an almost random order, roughly longest to shortest. My personal opinion is that this randomization was done to make the quran further confusing to a critical reader.]

 

[Story]

Unlike the bible, torah or even hindu holy books, the quran is a book full of commands. Look at the verses you quoted, most of them are clearly commands directed at the reader, rather than mere historical dialogue which the reader can expect in a bible.

I disagree, sort of, those verses were chosen because they were commanding something and they aren't obviously directed at the reader, but they're mostly directed at Muhammed and his followers. For example 9:5 says that "slay the idolators where ever you find them", this taken out of context is really really bad, but if you include the previous verse which says "this only appies to the pagans that broke the treaty they had with you" you'll see that there's a bit of a prologue you're missing. There was a peace treaty that was broken and this makes you realise that it actually is specifically a command in relevance to a certain event at a certain time.

For example, Jizya is a very real tax system enforced on non-muslims living in fundamental muslim countries such as saudi arabia, even today. A muslim who says you're taking this "jizya quote" out of (historical) context is wilfully ignoring this fact.

To be fair there is two taxes defined in the Quran. Zakat, which is a religious duty for Muslims and Jizya, which is what non-Muslims pay instead.

Muslims learnt the "out of context" excuse from christian apologetics. Since the bible is a document full of supposed "historical stories" it is easy for one to say that you're quoting a bible verse out of context. The bible fails because the morality that can be derived from the biblical text is usually antithetical to current christian and secular moralities. Whereas the quran is not a book of historical stories, but one of commands to the reader. The quran fails solely because the text itself is antithetical to human moralities. (If the text is assumed completely acceptable, as muslims do, then any morality derived from it will also become completely acceptable.)

Not really. Anything can be taken out of context. Even the words of scientists.

You already quoted a few: 4:89, 9:5.
Check out Skeptics' Annotated Quran, they have a collection of verses about Holy War and other topics.

They do the out of context thing too.

Read the most recent suras in the chronological order. (The most recent is number 114 in the list, or sura 110) [Note that suras in the quran are not in chronological order, but in an almost random order, roughly longest to shortest. My personal opinion is that this randomization was done to make the quran further confusing to a critical reader.]

Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to get things in chronological order with the Quran, because the chapters themselves aren't chronological and it's very very difficult to determine what the order is.

 

[Lurking_Logic]

So does anyone know a good site with a critical analysis of the Qur'anic verses?
Annotated is probaly good for reference points
But something more in depth?

 

[Story]

So does anyone know a good site with a critical analysis of the Qur'anic verses?
Annotated is probaly good for reference points
But something more in depth?

Sadly, I don't.

It's usually one of the three:

Biased FOR the Quran
Biased AGAINST the Quran
or unbiased and apathetic.

The amount of fail in that video is appalling. This goes into the biased AGAINST stream of things.

I don't have the energy or time time to debunk the whole thing, but for one; the Quran does not say at any place that if two passages contradict each other, you should take the most recent verse to supercede the previous verse.

The Quran is completely anachronous.

With the Quran alone, there is absolutely no way to determine the chronology of the chapters. Even with extra information, we have to assume that this information is true to even assert that any chapter predates another. Furthermore, this extra information can not elucidate the chronology of the verses themselves in anyway and lastly these later chapters have peaceful tolerant verses in them too.

Any video that tries to convince you that nearly a fifth of the world's population are keeping a huge dark secret from you, is ludicrous.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

The amount of fail in that video is appalling. This goes into the biased AGAINST stream of things.

Glad we've got an ex-Muslim here who can actually tell us what is bullshit and what isn't. There's plenty of fear mongering media out there, and I'm sorry to admit that sometimes I feel a bit lost in the sea of nonsense that is the media.

 

[Yfelsung]

So does anyone know a good site with a critical analysis of the Qur'anic verses?
Annotated is probaly good for reference points
But something more in depth?

Sadly, I don't.

It's usually one of the three:

Biased FOR the Quran
Biased AGAINST the Quran
or unbiased and apathetic.

The amount of fail in that video is appalling. This goes into the biased AGAINST stream of things.

I don't have the energy or time time to debunk the whole thing, but for one; the Quran does not say at any place that if two passages contradict each other, you should take the most recent verse to supercede the previous verse.

The Quran is completely anachronous.

With the Quran alone, there is absolutely no way to determine the chronology of the chapters. Even with extra information, we have to assume that this information is true to even assert that any chapter predates another. Furthermore, this extra information can not elucidate the chronology of the verses themselves in anyway and lastly these later chapters have peaceful tolerant verses in them too.

Any video that tries to convince you that nearly a fifth of the world's population are keeping a huge dark secret from you, is ludicrous.

Just a wild guess, but I assume the "take the most recent passage" thing could derive from the whole concept that the Torah, then the Bible, then the Quran, in Muslim eyes, represent 3 holy books that aren't necessarily at odds with each other, but are sort of like revisions of each other with the Quran being the most recent and correct book.

At least, this is what I have had explained to me by some pretty moderate Muslims or cultural Muslims (non-Muslims who grew up Muslim or in Muslim-dominated countries)

I could see how one could take that idea and stretch it.

 

[Lurking_Logic]

Sadly, I don't.

It's usually one of the three:

Biased FOR the Quran
Biased AGAINST the Quran
or unbiased and apathetic.

Shame
arguing the Qur'an is making an interesting change of debating topic
But i guess the best option is find for and against place and then try to strike a middle ground

 

[FaithlessThinker]

the Quran does not say at any place that if two passages contradict each other, you should take the most recent verse to supercede the previous verse.

Just a wild guess, but I assume the "take the most recent passage" thing could derive from the whole concept that the Torah, then the Bible, then the Quran, in Muslim eyes, represent 3 holy books that aren't necessarily at odds with each other, but are sort of like revisions of each other with the Quran being the most recent and correct book.

Wikipedia: Naskh (tafsir) (just a small quote below from that page):

Verse: Q.9:29
Abrogatee: "Nahhās considers 9:29 to have abrogated virtually all verses calling for patience or forgiveness toward Scriptuaries".

Any video that tries to convince you that nearly a fifth of the world's population are keeping a huge dark secret from you, is ludicrous.

Please don't use "argumentum ad populum." Just because a fifth of the world does salat five times a day doesn't mean they are doing the right thing. Many ex-muslims and critical non-muslims studying muslim holy texts have found that this huge population are much more likely to be wrong and under a delusion. Studying muslim behavior and even having behaved as a muslim would, they know that this population is dangerous and is indeed keeping a huge dark secret from you. The irony is, the secret is right in front of your eyes (I'm generalizing), yet you can't see it.

So does anyone know a good site with a critical analysis of the Qur'anic verses?

FFI and The Religion of Peace are two to start with.

 

[Story]

Just a wild guess, but I assume the "take the most recent passage" thing could derive from the whole concept that the Torah, then the Bible, then the Quran, in Muslim eyes, represent 3 holy books that aren't necessarily at odds with each other, but are sort of like revisions of each other with the Quran being the most recent and correct book.

At least, this is what I have had explained to me by some pretty moderate Muslims or cultural Muslims (non-Muslims who grew up Muslim or in Muslim-dominated countries)

I could see how one could take that idea and stretch it.

Yes, there are Muslims that believe this to be true, but the Quran is completely anachronous. You can't tell the difference between which actually comes first. There are sources called "Tafsir", which say "This verse supercedes this verse", but this is not from the Quran. It's basically a guy saying that it is so.

There are presumptions on which surahs (chapters) predate other surahs etc and they may be pretty accurate, but in them there are both intolerant and tolerant verses regardless of the chronology.

Wikipedia: Naskh (tafsir) (just a small quote below from that page):

Naskh is exegesis, it's not described in the Quran. It's pretty much just a guy saying "Oh I think we should do this".

Please don't use "argumentum ad populum." Just because a fifth of the world does salat five times a day doesn't mean they are doing the right thing. Many ex-muslims and critical non-muslims studying muslim holy texts have found that this huge population are much more likely to be wrong and under a delusion. Studying muslim behavior and even having behaved as a muslim would, they know that this population is dangerous and is indeed keeping a huge dark secret from you. The irony is, the secret is right in front of your eyes (I'm generalizing), yet you can't see it.

This isn't the argument ad populum. The argument ad populum is the argument that something is true because lots of people believe it. I'm saying it's ludicrous to believe that a billion and a half people hold the same nebulous ideals and hide it from the rest of the world. You can argue against that, but I'll just argue back.

Since you believe this to be true, please elucidate to us what this dark secret is.

Remember that you're talking to an ex-muslim.