Does Islam Promote Violence? [Vince Noir vs Motiv-8]

[Vince Noir]

It shall be duly noted that what is debated/discussed/put forth in this thread is in no way, shape or form representative of the views of Vince Noir and Motiv-8. Both have participated for the nature of progressive discussion and sport of debate.

Objectivity must be maintained as so intellectual honesty can prevail.

Topic: Does Islam promote violence?

Challenger: Vince Noir
Defender: Motiv-8

Details:

For many Islam has been a religion that has lived on the periphery of their lives, sadly and undeniably a culture they only caught glimpses of in movies and "television shows". After the tragic events of 9/11, many in the Western world were left desperately grasping to understand a religion they knew precious little about. One that beautifully inspires over 1.2 billion people, but one that many commit appalling atrocities in the name of. Indisputably Islamic principals have been hijacked by fundamentalists throughout the world. Yet behind a relentless facade of media whoring and propaganda, does Islam actually promote and advocate such violence? Or is Islam a religion of peace? Does Islam allow people to live together in harmony regardless of race, class or beliefs?

Muslims claim that their faith promotes justice, peace, and freedom…does it?


Commentary Thread







I will open the debate with a critique of Islam. Sadly, twill not be till the ‘morrow.

[Vince Noir]

I will ignite the debate by presenting areas of Islam that I believe inherently promote violence. Sources cited by James M. Arlandson.

Since the tragic events of 9/11, Muslims who have access to the national media have told us that Islam is the religion of peace and that violence does not represent the ‘essence’ of Muhammad’s religion.

Is this true?

Sadly it is not, for undeniable and observable facts suggest that Islam was founded with violence, in the life of Muhammad and in the Quran itself.

Is this argument clear? In order to prevent a reflexive "out of context" defense from Muslim apologists, the context of each verse quoted from the Quran will be dutifully explained. No verse is taken out of context, and Arabic translations are used.

Is this argument verifiable? Everyone is invited to look up each verse in the Quran that is quoted. To make this easy for those who have trouble understanding Arabic, visit the website www.quranbrowser.com and type in the according references, for example so: 59:10-11.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly -

The Quran teaches that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes and/or death.

24:2 “Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment.” (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, New York: Oxford UP, 2004)

The historical context of this sura occurs during the raid of a tribe in December 627 or January 628, on which Muhammad brought his favorite and youngest wife, Aisha, also the daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand lieutenant. Sura 24 establishes some ground rules against adultery, of which flogging one hundred times is one of the rules. Furthermore 24:2 exhorts the accusers and judges not to let compassion keep them from carrying out God’s law. This promotes violence

Moreover, early and reliable traditions depict Muhammad and his Muslims stoning adulterers and adulteresses, as recorded by the two most reliable collectors and editors of the hadith, Bukhari (AD 810-870) and Muslim (c. AD 817-875):

Umar said: “God sent Muhammad with the truth and sent down the Book [Quran] to him, and the verse of stoning was included in what God most high sent down. God’s messenger [Muhammad] had people stoned to death, and we have done it also since his death. Stoning is a duty laid down in God’s Book for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession.” Source - Here

Umar was Muhammad’s right-hand lieutenant (along with Abu Bakr), and even shortly after Muhammad’s death he tried very hard to get a verse allowing stoning into the Quran, but he did not succeed (Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 684). This and the next hadith are sufficient for many Muslims today to endorse stoning, as tragically seen here and here. This promotes violence

Perhaps the most horrifying hadith is that of the following...A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted that she was pregnant as a result of fornication. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community and ordered the woman’s death by stoning:

“And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her ..."Source Here

It is true that Muhammad told Khalid to be gentler, but how gentle does one have to be when one throws a rock at a woman buried up to her breasts? Is the rock required to go only 30 miles per hour or 40? Perhaps Muhammad was ordering Khalid not to curse her. In any case, the prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? They should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

In December 2004, Amnesty International:

"An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped."

The Saudi Ambassador to London, Ghazi al Qusaibi, maintaned that stoning may seem irrational to the Western mind, but it is "at the core of the Islamic faith." He also says that Westerners should respect Muslin culture on this matter. Where do they get this punishment from? Does it sit at the 'core' of Islam?

Sadly it does.

Thus violence resides at the heart of Islam, in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. It is conveyed through actions and through text. Islam therefore fundamentally promotes violence.

[Каие]

Posts by non-combatants must remain in the Commentary thread. The link to which is in the OP of this thread.

[motiv-8]

Greetings honorable foe and attendees!

First, an apology: The agreement for this debate was to allow one post every day in order for the conversation to proceed apace and allow more developed comments from the peanu--err, audience. I have not done so, and I apologize. I hope we can agree that we all have lives and jobs to care for that may take precedence!

My opponent has chosen, and I think with justification, to make the topic of this debate violence in Islam -- more specifically, whether or not Islam as a religion promotes and sanctions violence against others. In this regard he has affirmed to the absolute positive. Rather than make a clear statement against such a conclusion from the outset, I will rather choose to analyze the justification for the conclusion he makes.

The position taken is that Islam promotes violence because it is contained within the 'heart of Islam', the life of Muhammad and the contents of the holy Qur'an. To back this assertion verses of the Qur'an describing the stoning of adulterers are provided, as well as a collection of hadiths that are assuredly directly related to the application of these verses. This is concluded with modern applications by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. It seems a tough position to dispute. The verses are there, the translation and transliteration are generally accepted; kudos for using a scholarly translation of the Qur'an -- my preference is for the popular Pickthall or Yusuf Ali versions, but translation of the Qur'an is a separate discussion. The hadiths are based on a more or less reliable isnad tradition of of accepting the testimony of trustworthy sources and striking that of people known to lie, cheat, or otherwise show themselves unreliable. I am wary of using hadith in a scholarly historiographical manner because I feel that humans are unreliable in general, but we must not discount the importance than many Muslims place upon it.

Where my opponent has gone wrong is in the general background of where the verses and practice he cites is placed. I dare say that his argument is placing things out of 'context' because, apparently, only 'apologists' claim such things. However, it absolutely must be said that the meat of his argument, that the verses and practitioning of stoning adulterers points to inciting violence, is not contextually sound when placed against the whole of Islamic faith and theology, but instead should be considered in terms of the application of a specific aspect of Islam, Islamic law -- loosely, shari'a.

Adultery and the punishments applicable to violators falls under a single position in a category of penal law in Islamic jurisprudence, known as the hudud, or restrictions. Hudud is one of four types of punishment for offenses against the law. Hudud are the punishments proscribed for acts (amaliyya) that are at the far end of the spectrum of acts and practices that fall under fiqh, the realm of Islamic jurisprudence. This spectrum ranges from the obligatory (fardh/farth) to the prohibited (haram). Out of all possible human activities, those that fall within these two ends are the fewest. Specifically, those acts that are absolutely haram, the most detestable as related by the Qur'an, are those that are specified to receive punishment via the hudud. These include adultery/fornication, theft, murder, apostasy, drinking alcohol, and also highway robbery, which says a bit about the temporal and cultural context in which these laws were formed/revealed. Note also that the fiqh is not a sacred, end-all form of jurisprudence, as revealed by the existence of the many schools of Islamic jurisprudence and their differing views on what is allowed/disallowed and the punishments applicable. All of this is, in practice, a loose outline of how a judge can view a particular case.

Now that we have very quickly overviewed this aspect of Islamic law, let's take a look again at the verse in question. For the sake of completeness in context, let's look at the ENTIRE segment on adultery. I will use the website quranbrowser.com that my opponent provided in order to maintain balance, using my preference of Pickthall translation. Ayat 2-11 of Surah 23, Al-Muminum, The Light:

The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment. The adulterer shall not marry save an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress none shall marry save an adulterer or an idolater. All that is forbidden unto believers. And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony - They indeed are evil-doers - Save those who afterward repent and make amends. (For such) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth; And yet a fifth, invoking the curse of Allah on him if he is of those who lie. And it shall avert the punishment from her if she bear witness before Allah four times that the thing he saith is indeed false, And a fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he speaketh truth. And had it not been for the grace of Allah and His mercy unto you, and that Allah is Clement, Wise, (ye had been undone). Lo! they who spread the slander are a gang among you. Deem it not a bad thing for you; nay, it is good for you. Unto every man of them (will be paid) that which he hath earned of the sin; and as for him among them who had the greater share therein, his will be an awful doom.

When we take the entire treatment of adultery as a entire block instead of singling out a particular verse, a much clearer picture is presented. This is the affirmation of law, a legal code with procedures for accusation, defense, and punishment. In order for an offender to be convicted of adultery and thereby receive lashes or death by stoning (the distinction is unmarried offenders getting the former, married offenders the latter), they must be witnessed in the act and brought with the claimant when the accusation is made. In addition, those who provide false witness or accusation are themselves open to the same punishment, a curious provision if this were simply about wanton violence. For an offender who is married, their spouse is allowed to stand in place of four witnesses (if indeed no witnesses were present), and the accusation includes four oaths to God that the act took place. The offender may appeal the accusation and prove innocence by making the same four oaths, and the matter is dropped in terms of law. That is because the law and punishment is secondary to salvation by God; the verses make very clear that it is the final judgment of God that is important. If this were about inciting violence, there would be no need for these procedural provisions.

Furthermore, it is clear that this law and the procedures in place are nothing new. Like most of the Qur'an, which posits itself as a 'reminder' rather than something radically new or different, it is directly descended from Judaic law. The offense of adultery and fornication is declared in Mosaic Law, within the Ten Commandments themselves. The punishment is described in the book of Deutoronomy. Many hadith, including those provided by my opponent, show Muhammad, as leader of his polity and community, subjecting the Jewish population to their very own laws as proscribed in that book. This case is no different.

Ultimately, I believe my opponent's claims -- and this is meant as no demerit -- represents a fundamental 'Western' misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the internal workings of Islam as a system of law and societal orientation. The hudud, formed by cases such as the one just discussed, are designed to bring stability and equilibrium to the Muslim community, while maintaining that the grace and judgment of God is paramount above all. In his book What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, John Esposito discusses the hudud, explaining that they are punishments for crimes "against God and a threat to the moral fabric of the Muslim community."1 In most forms of Islam, the community is all-important, and even the most drastic of steps can sometimes be taken to preserve it. This applies to a wide range of private and public practices and traditions. However, there is no sufficient evidence to show that, historically, hudud laws have been practiced anywhere near universally throughout the Islamic world. When Islam expanded beyond the borders created by Muhammad, it began to mix with the native traditions and religions of the areas it spread. The laws of the original Medinan community became just a part of the law structures established in various parts of the world, as customary local laws were inserted and parts dropped off. Muslims jurists and legal scholars took note of these developments in trying to formulate legal structures suitable for changing times and cultural influences. In modern times, argues Esposito, Islamic reformers attempting to modernize various Islamic practices and forms assert that "these punishments were appropriate within the historical and social contexts in which they originated but are inappropriate today and that the underlying religious principles and values need to find new expression in modernizing societies."2 This is more recognizable in the fact that, out of the entire Islamic world and wide range of Muslim countries, only three practice shari'a law with the hudud as a matter of state sanction; The Islamic Republic of Sudan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. That these countries were founded and have been governed by specific interpretations of Islam and Islamic law that are not universally accepted is telling. Other countries that have shar'ia at least partly in place, like Indonesia and Malaysia, do not use hudud laws as part of the legal process.

-----------------------------------------------

In closing, I think that the idea that Qur'anic injunctions on stoning adulterers as an example of Islam inciting violence on people is a misrepresentation both of the Qur'an and a misunderstanding of its basis in Islamic law, an aspect of the religion that is dynamic and much open to interpretation. That some countries sanction the practices is a political prerogative of the state, not a reflection of the entire faith. In addition, the fact that this particular example pertains to law is a statement in and of itself that the verses and act is not about violence for the sake of violence. The verses on adultery and stoning is no more an incitement of violence than is capital punishment for applicable offenses in the United States, which up until very recent times included kidnapping among others. Nor do these verses sanction mob violence upon individuals any more than the death penalty gives individual Americans the right to murder.

Thank you all for your time, and I very eagerly await thoughts and responses.

1John Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, Oxford University Press (Oxford: 2002), 150.
2Ibid., 151.

[Vince Noir]

However, it absolutely must be said that the meat of his argument, that the verses and practitioning of stoning adulterers points to inciting violence, is not contextually sound when placed against the whole of Islamic faith and theology, but instead should be considered in terms of the application of a specific aspect of Islam, Islamic law -- loosely, shari'a.

Yet violence is still present in Qur’an in the form of punishment to adulteresses despite the contextual law of the time. Muhammad’s actions bear the responsibility of future Muslims or Muslim states that practice/seek to practice such punishments. Islam is largely responsible for the lack social progression of law in this case while its counterparts have abolished such barbaric practices. Perhaps a more fitting example of promoted violence:

4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Prof. Abdel Haleem)

Essentially, Sura 4:34 specifies that husbands may beat their disobedient wives if the husbands "fear" highhandedness, quite from if their wives are actually being highhanded. This puts the interpretation of the wives’ behavior directly in the husbands’ judgment, and essentially swings the door to abuse wide open with any interpretation being acceptable. Even if the wife is being highhanded, violence should have advocated as a remedy. This verse embodies violence and should be rejected by all rational and reasonable people.

Thus we can see violence advocated in Islam.

That is because the law and punishment is secondary to salvation by God; the verses make very clear that it is the final judgment of God that is important. If this were about inciting violence, there would be no need for these procedural provisions.

Husbands can also launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own. This is insane, unjust and immoral and is only maintained in Islamic communities. Refer to point on social progression.

Furthermore, it is clear that this law and the procedures in place are nothing new. Like most of the Qur'an, which posits itself as a 'reminder' rather than something radically new or different, it is directly descended from Judaic law. The offense of adultery and fornication is declared in Mosaic Law, within the Ten Commandments themselves.

Good point. I have been looking for this; I found the reference to Mosaic Law in Leviticus 20:10. Equally barbaric in practice yet I still fail to see how Islam is not responsible for the maintaining of violent acts today. I dislike many aspects of organized religions and have always felt that many of their teachings are detrimental to morality. On this issue, I stand with my point over Muhammad’s responsibility. Yet this brings up a huge wealth of information over whether he is not. I do not want to get into determinism and cause the discussion to go off into philosophical tangents.

Out of the entire Islamic world and wide range of Muslim countries, only three practice shari'a law with the hudud as a matter of state sanction

Regardless of how many practice it today. Punishments for adulteresses in still present in the Qur’an and current laws are in direct influence of it. I would like to move onto my next point two points - (noted at the start and also the end of this post.)

I think that the idea that Qur'anic injunctions on stoning adulterers as an example of Islam inciting violence on people is a misrepresentation both of the Qur'an and a misunderstanding of its basis in Islamic law

However, Muhammad sanctions it. It is a legal matter indeed, however the grotesque irresponsibility of his actions are prevalent. Societies develop, along with their laws. In medieval Europe it was illegal to practices witchcraft – punishable by death; blasphemy was too punishable by death. Countries evolve and so their law systems, yet it is the teaching of the Qur’an and the actions of Muhammad that have hindered social progression in law.

Relating this back to an avocation of violence, I accept your point. The punishments that and adulteress receives is a result of social conditioning in his time. Yet, I emphatically believe that laws evolve/develop/and change and society progresses. It is the teaching of Muhammad that has hindered this progression, and they are violent teachings.

I would like to now raise one of the more important areas in which Islam fundamentally promotes violence.

Majid Fakjry states in the following verse that Muhammad uses the Arabic word qital, the root of which is q-t-l, which means warring, fighting, or killing:

9:29 Fight [q-t-l] those among the people of the Book [Christians] who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and do not profess the true religion, till they pay the poll-tax out of hand and submissively. (Maji Fahkry)

James Arlanderson respectively notes the violent avocations and they’re plain to see for all:

1. People of the Book (Christians) are to be attacked if they do not profess the “true” religion: Islam. This evidently leaves the door wide open for terrorists today to attack and fight Christians because they do not adhere to Islam. As we have all seen, this is wording that many rely on as they wage their crusades on the west.

2. Christians must pay a tax for the "privilege" of living under the "protection" of Islam—submissively or in humiliation.
Muhammad’s military expedition qualifies as an Islamic Crusade. This is long before the European ones and cannot be passed off retaliation. After all, in 638, only six years after Muhammad’s death, Muslim armies conquered Jerusalem.

Islam is not a religion of peace. Violence is promoted in many aspects of the Qur’an, that of which I have mentioned above.

[motiv-8]

I believe now is the time to address source usage thus far in the discussion. I want to pay particularly close attention to James Arlanderson, before redressing the assertions against my reply.

The first thing that must stand out to the discerning individual is that Dr. Arldanderson is not a scholar on Islam or Islamic Studies. He is a professor of world religions, yes, but from his publications and stances it is quite clear that his academic specialty and stance is not of Islamic Studies, but of the Christian variety. How this has affected his ability to objectively analyze Islamic theology and practice is something I hope I can show in the proceeding.

First, the quotation of the Qur'an on the striking of wives. For clarity, I will repeat the verse, 4:34, again in Pickthall translation.

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Even from the most passive reader, it is not clear how this is a direct encouragement of violence. If we place this verse, as is always important, amongst the ones that follow, we gain a clearer picture of the overall point. Ayat 35 and 36:

And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment Allah will make them of one mind. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Aware. And serve Allah. Ascribe no thing as partner unto Him. (Show) kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin, and the fellow-traveller and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess. Lo! Allah loveth not such as are proud and boastful. . .

The famed ayah 34 is part of a long list of Muslim family law intending to promote the harmony and stability of the Muslim household. It is very key that the commandment to strike a woman is at the very end of favored methods. The Muslim husband is first to discuss matters with his wife via religious principles (this is sometimes referred to as admonishment). Secondly, if the wife refuses to listen, then the husband may choose to sanction himself physically from his wife, not sharing the same bed. Whether this means to simply not engage in sexual relations or to "sleep on the couch", in a more modern turn of phrase, is not clear. The very last resort to a woman who has transgressed is to strike her. Any husband who would resort to hitting is wife without trying everything else is in violation of the law by committing assault. That right there signifies that violence, as we would call it, is only sanctioned in the most extreme circumstances of duress. As with the case of accusation of adultery, a man who hit his wife without following proper procedure would be in violation of the law. That there is even a procedure involved might be reprehensible to some, but the most obvious alternative -- arbitrary abuse -- is not favorable whatsoever. Nor is excessive force allowed, as shown by the ending phrase. Excessiveness can in fact be grounds for a woman to divorce her husband, as he has a duty of maintenance (nafaqah) to uphold, and that includes physical maintenance. Suffice to say, a Muslim wife-beater (who is indeed committing violence) is not acting according to law and thus to Islamic principle.

In addition, the following verses lay out the family law context of the contentious verse. If a woman feels unduly treated, she is very much allowed to go to her family -- who has the ultimate decision regarding her safety -- and her family may openly discuss issues with the husband's. I must repeat that the establishment of law does not equate to the incitement of violence. It certainly isn't as bad as the 'rule of thumb' practiced in 'Western' societies until very recent times. That brings up another issue in comparison -- spousal abuse is as common in the United States as potentially anywhere else, but does that mean American society and culture advocates violence? No, because there is law that sanctions against it. This situation is really no different.

An excellent treatment of Muslim family law can be found in Chapter 2 -- entitled with clarity 'Classical Muslim Family Law' -- of John Esposito's work Women in Muslim Family Law, Syracuse: 2001.

Now, a trend I am beginning to notice is a reliance upon Arlanderson's '10 points' of why Islam is violent. As a source, it is a very poor one to use in discussion. As I have already pointed out, Arlanderson is not academically credited to objective study of Islam and Islamic principles. In fact, he himself states that he was not educated on, nor did he write about, Islam prior to September 11, 2001. It is in this post-9/11 political context that his writing must be observed. On the contrary, respected scholars such as John Esposito, Jonathan Berkey, and Bernard Lewis were writing well before 9/11 and are considered to be much more balanced. Furthermore, the language that Alanderson uses is steeped in Christian vocabulary and viewpoints, which gives not a small polemical slant to his writing. For example, his 'point number 10' entitled "Muhammad launches his own Crusade" is not only a strange sentence to anything Islamic -- the very word crusade is steeped in Christian identity and understanding -- but historically inaccurate. Large expeditions into Syria and Iraq were not begun until after Muhammad's death, and under much more complicated circumstances and rationale than a religious 'crusade'. For a much more balanced treatment of this historical topic, I recommend Hugh Kennedy's The Great Arab Conquests.

That Arlanderson is not an Islamic scholar, is a self identified 'defender of Christianity', and is not particularly sophisticated on points of Islamic doctrine and history, would all lend to my request that he not be relied upon to formulate an argument. Nor should any personal feelings regarding one religion or another, or upon organized religion in general, be used to posit an argument.

In regard to Fakjry's interpretation of Sura 9:29, it is an extremely imaginitive twist of words that lends one's argument that it promotes violence. The word qital as a root is irrelevant to the discussion, because the verse has a very specific meaning. The Pickthall translation, which I think will point out the issues in translating the Qur'an:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Very concisely: this article does not sanction the killing of Christians out of hand. Allah is merely the Arabic word for God, and must be taken as the same God that Christians and Jews are committed to follow. The very sentence "kill a Christian that doesn't believe in God.." is nonsense languge; a person who does not believe in God would never self-identify as a Christian. The verse is a warning against hypocrites of the faith, a very large theme in the Qur'an that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Furthermore, how could any group pay tribute if they have all been slaughtered? That is not the idea here. This verse is but one of many that surround it that sets up God's clarification of monotheistic faith, and repeatedly confirms that God himself is the one to judge.

James Arlanderson's claim that Christians and Jews are to be attacked just because they haven't 'converted' is patently false and has no historical or theological basis. The only time Christians and Jews may be physically touched is if they violate agreed law or take up arms against Muslims. The act of Islamic terrorism against Western (ostensibly 'Christian') targets must be viewed in terms of perspective and complex socio-economic circumstance that must also be delayed in discussion until the proper time. The poll-tax of jizya was a method of maintaining finances for the Muslim state and keeping tabs of Jewish-Christian males of military age. From a legal perspective, it was the official acceptance of non-Muslim populations of Muslim legal code, although in practice local laws stayed in place and Islamic law was almost exclusively applied to the Muslims themselves. The objective was never humiliation, and such a claim is not backed by the historical record; if the humiliation were so great, one would see a much greater curve of conversion than existed, for Muslims paid no jizya. A scholar can only conclude that the tax was at least as fair as those that existed under pre-existing polities, and the symbolism was not greatly disturbing to a population that cared only for its own theological position and orthopraxy. Besides, Muslims paid their own versions of taxes so the financial bonus of conversion wasn't necessarily extant.

I will be happy to discuss any of the topics mentioned in passing to greater detail; I only ask that a more varied and balanced viewpoint be presented based on a more respectable source. It is not a requirement -- I am more than happy to deal with each and every one of Arlanderson's misguided points -- but my debate is not with Arlanderson, who is in any case not here to explain himself.

[Vince Noir]

Respectable sources?

As for my first quote, it was by Abdel Haleem. He is Professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, England; and editor of the Journal of Qur'anic Studies. In 2004, Oxford University Press published his translation of the Qur'an into English. He has also published several other works in this field. His translation is perfect and highly reliable.

And we are not discussing the rights of women and the methods in which she can gain a divorce. The fact remains that Muhammad had commanded that women be stuck, even if it is the last resort for women who doesn’t act accordingly. This is morally questionable and a clear avocation of violence.You quoted Pickthall, who was a convert and Arabic was not his first language. Although a leaned scholar, the sources I have provided are just as, if not more reliable as his.

As for your second critique...Please disregard the inflammatory language of James Arlanderson. I apologise for not researching his background. However, Majid Fakhry is the Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the American University of Beirut. His translation is highly credible.

In response to Sura 9:29, I have have another translation that supports his, by Fazlur Rahman Malik

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”

Fazlur Rahman Malik was a well-known scholar of Islam. Yahya Birt of the Association of Islam Researchers described him as "probably the most learned of the major Muslim thinkers in the second-half of the twentieth century, in terms of both classical Islam and Western philosophical and theological discourse." Again highly reliable. So, I agree with you in terms of lack of objectivity in J.A’s statements, yet the principles and quotes he bases them on are reliable.

I supplement this with Malik’s translation of Sura 4:101. “The disbelievers are an open enemy to you”

The promotion of violence is evident here. One can explain themselves out of an argument always with “in terms of context” but this is and always has been in context. The Qur’an is the ultimate source of doctrine that every Muslim adheres to follow. The fact that there is any room for negative translation is the fault of Muhammad, thus the fault of God as he was divinly inspired. Thus again Islam is to blame for any avocation of violence. Which there clearly is.

As for references to society and law, I repeat the Qur’an should be outside of influence of any of these factors. If as such, this is grotesque responsibility on the account of Muhammad. There is undeniable room for the adoption of quotes that I have provided. These support extremist individuals/groups in doctrinal justifications to carry out appalling acts.

I still believe that Islam promotes violence. Please, if my arguments are failing, convince me.

Note: People who are private messaging me. Please read the OP in red. I'm not anti-anybody. I’m taking part in this for debate.

[motiv-8]

Let's be clear; I have no problem with the use of a particular Qur'an in demonstrating a verse, nor did I criticize Sayyid Haleem. I prefer to use Pickthall translation because it is one of the two that were recommended and used in the Islamic Studies department of my university. If you prefer, I could use the Yusuf Ali version, which is the highest-ranked version on the best-sellers list. But it absolutely must be stressed that there is no "perfect" translation. Arabic into English is not a perfect science by any means, and most scholars would agree that in this situation, "translation equals interpretation." But that's all I have to say on the subject, I will not bother about it any more. It's more important as to what a scholar gleans from a verse than how the verse is translated, even if the latter can somewhat influence the former.

The idea that the Qur'an should be outside the influence of society and law is getting things backward. The Qur'an in Islam is a source of law, called divinely-revealed law, which is held up along with fiqh, the interpretation and codification of law, that governs a Muslim society. The fact that you keep quoted verses referring to Islamic law as examples of violence is, to any Muslim or anyone familiar with concepts of law in Islam, is as ridiculous as holding up the death penalty or Wade vs. Roe as examples of violence in America. It is not possible to convince one of a failing argument if they refuse to recognize the fundamental nature(s) of the entity they are arguing against.

Sura 4:101 refers to someone who rejects divinely-revealed, Scripture-based, monotheistic (Abrahamic) faith. The repetition of mis-quoted verses in the Qur'an using this word as an attack on Christians and Jews that supposedly give modern Muslims justification for terrorist activity is a falsehood based more often on polemics than any other viewpoint. An 'unbeliever' can most coveniently -- though not necessarily most accurately -- characterized as this (taken from another post of mine for the sake of time):

The Qur'an is clear many times that there are believers and unbelievers. To the believers it says to be wary of those who disbelieve, or are hypocrites in their belief. The former group is composed of those who are polytheists or idolators, who in the context of divine revelation were the inhabitants of Mecca, who were openly engaged in the persecution of and warfare against the Muslim community before and after the hijra. It makes perfect sense that 4:101 be placed in such a context, and it was entirely appropriate. The latter group includes those who say one thing and practice another, those who overtly lie about their beliefs, or those who feign belief in order to lead others astray. I don't it unsurprising that God would be rather displeased with such detestable human behavior. However, the Qur'an also makes clear to these people that they can also redeem themselves by stopping their unjust and unworthy actions -- Man is of course endowed with the free will to do such things. If you have a personal problem with the superficial 'limitations' of said will, then you are within your right to disagree on a philosophical level. But the response is not to say that this incites violence or is evil -- that's nothing more than a giant strawman argument against God from the Muslim perspective.

As far as direct incitements of violence, I would be completely lying to each and every one of you if I said the Qur'an didn't have references of violence towards people. It does. It is particularly -- in fact, exclusively nasty towards pagans. It practically tells Muslims to slay pagans where they stand. Ghastly stuff, isn't it? How and why could this be? Well, when you look at the historical context of the Qur'anic revelations it becomes more clear. Again, the largest enemy, bar none, of the early Muslim community was the pagan community at Mecca, which frequently threatened and actively persecuted Muslims from the beginning of Muhammad's career. It therefore comes as little surprise that the Qur'anic verses inciting violence against pagans comes at the time when the Muslims, having fled to Medina, were in more or less open warfare against the Meccans, in danger of being exterminated at any time. In fact, all the verses in the Qur'an having to do with warfare and the physical harm of an individual or community comes from this context. These verses were made as morale boosters and encouragement for a community that was in danger of being extinguished at any time by the old guard of Mecca, and it's in that specific context that we, as observers, and indeed Muslims themselves must take these verses into account. How they were applicable after the fact was actually a cause of debate amongst Muslims later on. I think the results speak for themselves -- when the Muslim state expanded outside Arabia, it came into contact with leftover pagans in Mesopotamia and Syria. These pagan communities, which were tight-nit, industrious, and centralized, were largely left to their own devices. It's probably safe to say that the early Muslim state spent more time fighting amongst itself than trying to massacre pagans (or anybody else for that matter).

If we can move on to examples of Islam inciting violence that does not pertain to questions of law enforcement, I believe this discussion can continue apace. Please elaborate as to what argument is being put forth with the quotation of 4:101, other than having the word 'fight' included. I have already provided the context for the verse.

[Vince Noir]

You can’t hide behind context. It is irrelevant. What Seal mentioned is half true. I know I have lacked clear definitions in this debate. Live and learn I say…anyhow subscribers to Islam and the faith itself promote violence. Before I get to this point let me answer a couple of your queries.

Also, less of the history lessons on societal context please

The idea that the Qur'an should be outside the influence of society and law is getting things backward. The Qur'an in Islam is a source of law, called divinely-revealed law, which is held up along with fiqh, the interpretation and codification of law, that governs a Muslim society.

The fact that you keep quoted verses referring to Islamic law as examples of violence is, to any Muslim or anyone familiar with concepts of law in Islam, is as ridiculous as holding up the death penalty or Wade vs. Roe as examples of violence in America.

These are both unfair even irrelevant comparisons. The Qur’an is also a religious doctrine upheld by many all over the world, from children to adults. It is not a book of history, a book of science or a book of law - though it has all these in it. It is first and foremost a book of divine guidance. One that is upheld as justifications for people actions. There is no context. Only the implications of what is written in terms of responsibility to future generations. Please read my next point…

Sura 4:101 refers to someone who rejects divinely-revealed, Scripture-based, monotheistic (Abrahamic) faith. The repetition of mis-quoted verses in the Qur'an using this word as an attack on Christians and Jews that supposedly give modern Muslims justification for terrorist activity is a falsehood

It is not misquoted. Along with the translation I gave by Makid, widely regarded as one of the greatest Islamic scholars in the past century, I can give many others. The second half of your sentence answers itself. A non-believer can be anyone who does not adhere. The avocation of violence is irrefutable.

It makes perfect sense that 4:101 be placed in such a context, and it was entirely appropriate.

Ah yes. Context. Once again there is no room for interpretations of context. I’m sorry but it is morally outrageous for anyone to hide behind this. As I have stated many a times, this is grotesque irresponsibility. Fundamentalist may use such quotes as: (which I emphatically state are not misquoted and have been checked with multiple sources including but not limited to those I have already provided.)

“And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah”(Sura 2.193, 8.39)

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah”(Sura 9.29)

"Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" (Sura 61.4)

“Surely the unbelievers are your open enemy” (Sura 4:101)

“Take not from among them friends until they fly in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them " (Sura 4:89)

The fact they may be taken out of context is as I state, irrelevant. This should not have been possible. Thus who can be held responsible…Muhammad? "No, he was divinely inspired." Then perhaps Allah? No, he is a perfect being , hence that is illogical. Thus remains the possibility of error on the part of Muhammad, it has to. An error by making room for interpretation that is responsible for countless atrocities throughout the past 1,400 years. Even if you want to analyze out of context or in another context or under differing social conditions or any other way, there in lays the problem. It is irrefutable that certain individuals have taken these verses from the Qur’an an interpreted them for their own violent means. Yet the fact that this is possible suggests the problem with the Qur’an. Hence it is in part responsible through the indirect promotion of violence.

As far as direct incitements of violence, I would be completely lying to each and every one of you if I said the Qur'an didn't have references of violence towards people. It does. It is particularly -- in fact, exclusively nasty towards pagans. It practically tells Muslims to slay pagans where they stand.

How about the 80 million Hindus that have been slaughtered by Muslims since its foundation? (Koenard Elst). How about… the astronomical figure of Muslims that have killed each other? All under the Qur’ans guide. Read next point…

Muslim community was the pagan community at Mecca, which frequently threatened and actively persecuted Muslims from the beginning of Muhammad's career. It therefore comes as little surprise that the Qur'anic verses inciting violence against pagans comes at the time when the Muslims, having fled to Medina, were in more or less open warfare against the Meccans. These verses were made as morale boosters and encouragement for a community that was in danger of being extinguished at any time by the old guard of Mecca.

False. Meccans seized the properties of the Muslim emigrants in Mecca due to social reasons. They were not the harmless reciprocals of an offensive society. They were economically uprooted and with no available profession, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans for their livelihood, thus initiating armed conflict between the Muslims and Mecca. Muhammad regularly delivered Qur'anic verses permitting the Muslims to fight the Meccans (see Qur'an 22:39–40). You say this was to boost moral? Well, it is incontestably an avocation of violence, you essentially admitted it yourself. These attacks pressured Mecca by interfering with trade, and allowed the Muslims to acquire wealth, power and prestige while working towards their ultimate goal of inducing Mecca's submission to the new faith. In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan.


You see the violence? I can draw on the hundreds of examples on where Muhammad, with the use of Qur’anic verses, incites violence. And to this day, the blanket terminology (as you even profess to the ambiguity and/or context of) continues to directly and indirectly promote violence.

[motiv-8]

In response to more or less direct criticism on methodology, I feel compelled to discuss the concept of context at length. I was hopeful that such elaboration wouldn't be necessary because it's so very important to the topic at hand, but we do what we must.

In any social science, such as history or religious studies -- this conversation includes and requisites elements of both -- context, or contextualism (there is a distinction) is held as one of the paramount principles in both study and discussion. Contextualism has actually been posited in direct opposition to the school and tradition of skepticism, and I think it has done its job admirably in keeping skeptics who care at all about peer review honest about their arguments. Specifically, contextualism describes a collection of views in philosophy which emphasize the context in which an action, utterance, or expression occurs, and argues that, in some important respect, the action, utterance, or expression can only be understood relative to that context.1

Context as used in a meaningful way is not intended as a screen to hide behind, nor have I ever attempted to achieve such a thing. Rather, I refer to context because it is my position that only then can a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of a topic or situation can be reached. Without the contextual understanding, a person is free to select any situation and bend it to their own personal, temporal will while ignoring the attitudes and circumstances of the situation itself. It boils down to the question of objectivity; is it more objective to relate a person, place, or thing (event) in its own context, or to drag it out of its context and place it against a non-congruous or even imaginary point of reference? Context is gravely necessary in a discussion such as this one because otherwise you are not arguing on any merit except that which you have personally established, and that makes it fundamentally impossible to discuss rationally and unequivocally.

Nor is the context in these cases irrelevant. The sentence, "This should not have been possible," is not particularly clear. I honestly don't know what that's supposed to mean. What's not supposed to be possible? In what manner? What violation has occurred? Perhaps the argument is that the Qur'an is supposed to be 100% on all situations for all humankind until the end of time. Indeed, the Qur'an itself declares that it is "guidance for all mankind."2 The key part is "guidance"; the Qur'an does not command in all things, it guides man through his own spiritual and intellectual journey. The choices are still left to him, the dissemination and interpretation of divinely sanctioned knowledge a matter of human understanding. Man's purpose to "serve" God is not to cloud Man's ability to choose success or failure. The Islamic belief that Muhammad was chosen as a Messenger for a "final revelation" is evidence of this free will, the idea that God provides guidance (hidaya) that may go unheeded by the free-wheeling human self. Thus the Qur'an in part also describes itself as a 'reminder' to those who came before. That the Qur'an does not include all possible aspects of life and living for all potential situations is part of this ojective of guiding and helping Man learn and grow.

As pertaining to law, "Shari'a is contained in the relatively small number of clear injunctions of the Qur'an and the Sunna, known as nusus." In fact, most of the Shar'ia is flexible and open to interpretation; it is only clear on the fundamentals of moral duty and specific practices (and even then only just), as well as prescribed punishments (hudud) that I have described before. The flexibility of the Shar'ia provides the opening for rational and practical application of law to the community through fiqh, human understanding and knowledge.

Going back to the Qur'an, it must be reaffirmed that context is paramount. "Much of the Qur'an was revealed in relation to actual events and questions that were encountered by the Prophet." The vast majority of the text itself does not deal with legal matters, but rather articles of faith, philosophical treatise, and historical stories and parables. There are only about 350 legal articles within the thousands of verses of the Qur'an; roughly half correspond to the proper forms of religious orthopraxy, the rest dealing with civil and criminal law. These were all revealed in the circumstance of the migration to Medina and the foundation of a government there.

The other major source of shar'ia is the Sunnah, the path of the Prophet, which as you say is declared by Muslims to be divinely inspired. The Sunnah relates to the Qur'an in that "it may calrify the ambiguous parts of the Qur'an, or it may qualify and specify general rulings in the Qur'an." The types of rulings that are established between the two can either be definitive or speculative, describing whether one is clear or allows clarification through interpretation. It is because of the Qur'an's mission as both guidance and reminder that allows this interpretation; the Muslim understanding of God allows justice but not tyranny; Man must be allowed to think and interpret on his own.

Even if you approach the situation from an entirely skeptical anthropological point of view, the Qur'an and its law is subject to context because it was formed within a very specific community at a specific point in time and space. Time, space, and people all change, and something as dependent upon society as a code of law must also change with it or be rendered obsolete. This is compatible with the idea of independent reasoning and textual interpretation in Islamic law.*

Directly related to the original argument, that stoning of adulterer's advocates violence, this is an example of Islamic law that is not explicitly defined in the Qur'an. Adultery and fornication is an explicitly-defined act of offense as haram, but the punishment of stoning is found only in the hadith. One feature of modern Islam is the call of many scholars, to re-approach the concept of hadith and validity in shar'ia. The very fact that scholars are speaking up about the need to re-evaluate the applications of law in modern societies is telling of the dynamism of Muslim thought and would be utterly impossible if the Qur'an was as you desire it to be.

Finally, I must once again re-iterate that, using this context, your argument lies against the procedure of law in Islam, not with Islam itself. An educated Muslim should be able to differentiate what is law and what is not. The hudud is not an injunction for any Muslim take it upon himself to inflict violence; classically, only a figure with requisite sovereignty could carry out such a punishment, and still today states that proscribe them maintain it as a state-sanctioned prerogative. A Muslim that stones a woman for alleged adultery, or attacks a woman or family member on the street, is not exercising rights as posited in the Qur'an -- they are actually in violation of Islamic law because they have not followed the legal procedure that is laid out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Qur'anic verses on warfare and fighting were specifically addressed in the context of the conflict with the Meccan Quraysh. There is no irresponsibility involved in citing this, it is a matter of fact. You say that the Meccans seized the properties of Muslim emigrants due to "social reasons." This is a vague and unfulfilling analysis and description of the events that unfolded.

The revelations received by Muhammad around 610, and the new faith that he preached, did not cause much of a stir at first. His converts came as individuals and represented the step of society just below that of the best -- those who missed out on the commercial prosperity that had recently come to Mecca, but were learned and well enough off in their own right. Only eventually did the Meccan elite began to look upon Muhammad as a threat to their shrine of idols. After the episode of the 'Satanic Verses', wherein the prophet was persuaded by some of his opposition to accept some of the idols in exchange for acceptance, but then determined that he was being led astray, did the tensions begin to build. Afterwards, the Muslims found themselves persecuted by various means, up to and including physical assault. Eventually enough were in fear of their lives to have been provided for refuge in the Ethiopian kingdom of Axum; others sought and found the protection of their tribes, which was still the overriding political entity in Mecca. The Qurayshi elite then attempted to impose commercial sanctions against Muhammad's clan, but this failed when Muslims in other clans resumed transactions.

In 619, four years after the evacuation of some of the community to Axum, Muhammad's main sources of protection -- his wife, Khadija, and uncle, Abu Talib -- died, and the prophet had no other means of intercession between himself and hostile elements of Meccan society. After searching in vain amongst other Qurayshi-inhabited towns for nearly two years, while still under persecution, he received an invitation from the town of Yathrib to settle and arbitrate long-standing tribal feuds. It was here that the major conflict with Mecca began, that an actual Muslim community began to form, and that Qur'anic verses on law and warfare were promulgated.

It is true that the Muslim community at Medina was as much the aggressor as the victim in the conflict with Mecca, but why? Well, for one, Muhammad recognized that until the conflict was resolved indefinitely, Qurayshi persecution and pressure, which could be exercised both socially and economically, would never allow the Muslim community to grow and prosper. As Hugh Kennedy puts it, "he must have realized that successful aggressive warfare was one of the best ways of providing for his supporters and attracting new recruits, but he also knew that until the Quraysh, with their great prestige and widespread contacts were subdued and won over, Islam would never be more than a local cult in Medina; the struggle against Mecca was essential for the success of the new religion."3 Muhammad chose raids over an attack against Mecca for two reasons --one, that raiding a caravan would create less bloodshed in return for a larger impact on the Quraysh, and two, that the (at the time) massively outnumbered Muslims could never hope to successfully engage the brunt of the Meccan forces. Kennedy approaches the topic in a highly objective way -- he doesn't make claims that the Qur'an drove the Muslims to wanton destruction and brutal violence against unbelievers. The overall goal was to win the Meccans over to his side, not to kill them all. On another level, it was part of the politics of Arabia at the time -- clans and tribes struggled against each other for advantage; this time the 'clan' was the umma, the Muslim community. What is clear is that it wasn't violence of the sake of violence; it had a clear contextual meaning and objective that cannot easily be transferred to another.

This does have a point of comparison with the next part of your argument, the claim that Muslims have "slaughtered" 80 million Hindus. Now, first I'm going to ask that if a claim cannot be properly cited, then it should be clarified or not made at all. Neither is the term "astronomical figure" a properly sophisticated description. Finally, the claim that is "all under the Qur'an's guide" has no basis, even within your own argument. There is no doubt that there was and continues to be violence between Muslims and Hindus on the Indian subcontinent. But the situation there is steeped in a long history of political and social dynamism as well as a legacy of colonialism and post-colonialism that shaped the face of conflict far more than differences in faith. The major wars between India and Pakistan, have not been fought over tenants of faith or even religion in general, but over a particular piece of land that is historically important to both states. To say that Hindus have been "slaughtered", ignoring the realities of warfare as well as the large numbers of Muslim Indians and Pakistanis that have been killed as well, under the "Quran's guide", is glossing over a wide range of causation and and analysis. There is no clear connection between the quoted verses of the Qur'an and the Indo-Pakistan conflict.

In closing, nowhere in the argument presented do I see violence that is any different than the violence perpetrated by any other society, nor for any different reasons. The one major example to back your argument is a matter of law; the other is a matter of historical circumstance and politics; while a final dubious mention is a sweeping generalization of a very complex situation. An observer could only extrapolate from the argument itself that the person holding it is opposed to any state structure which sanctions a system of penal law and conducts warfare as a matter of political policy.

1Wikipedia article on Contextualism
2Sura 2:185[*]Cited Extensively: Muhammad Hashim Kamali, The Shari'a: Law as the Way of God
3Hugh Kennedy, The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates (Harlow: Pearson-Longman, 2004), 35.

[Vince Noir]

You have again completely ignored what I have said and just reiterated definitions and history lessons. Law has nothing to do with it. Yes Qur'anic verses and historical contexual situations were influenced by factors of the time but that is the problem. It should be outside this influence. I say by how "it shouldnt have been this case" due to the Qur'an being a divinely inspired document. For a document as such to allow interpretation is detrimental to its own objectivity and divinty. Hence the Qur'an is repsonible for the use and interpreation of itself. This interpretation, whether direct or indirect, has led to the Qur'an being used to interpret violence.You have complelty ignored the main points of my argument, only picking at the weaker generalisations I have made in passing. This is due to the lack of time I have put into this debate of late and I can only apologise for this lack of professionalism. Nonetheless, the fact remains - the Qur'an does promote violence. What you seem to be debating is whether or not it is indirect or direct.

Example:

In closing, nowhere in the argument presented do I see violence that is any different than the violence perpetrated by any other society, nor for any different reasons

Here you explicity state that the Qur'an promotes violence. You have just admitted the title to be correct. Comparisons to other religions/societies are yes - irelavant. The title was not to discuss whether Islam promotes violence compared to other sects, but to compare it objectivly. To compare objectivly is not to compare it in its context - in that case you can explain anything out of any situation with attribution to a variety of poinltess and irelavant factors. To look at it objectivly you have to apply an objective moral code, one that I have proved the Qur'an breaches on multiple occassions.