Originally Posted by
motiv-8
Well, what have we here? Another post intended to demonstrate the apparent inherent intolerance and violence in the Qur'an, using the same tired old tactic of mis-quoting verses that are taken out of their context.
Firstly, none of these verses in the first collection even remotely incites violence of any kind against Jews. It takes a very meandering imagination to even get to that conclusion. Let's take the last quoted verse into consideration, 5:64. What is this verse saying. That the Jewish take on God -- or at least the way Jews at a specific point were talking/practicing -- denies His omnipotency, that God does not particularly like Man passing judgment on Him, and that God Himself will know and deal with those who do not believe. The 'We' used in the verse does not refer to Muslims or any group of men, but is a form of address used by God in the Qur'an. It sounds odd in English but it's perfectly sensible in the Arabic form. What makes this misleading usage of the verse all the more interesting is the very next verse, 5:65: If only the people of the scripture believe and lead a righteous life, we will then remit their sins, and admit them into gardens of bliss. Oh, and 5:66? If only they would uphold the Torah and the Gospel, and what is sent down to them herein from their Lord, they would be showered with blessings from above them and from beneath their feet. Some of them are righteous, but many of them are evildoers.
As any person with scholastic literary skills can see, this is not an attack or incitement against Jews or Judaism; it's a clear declaration of equality and the encouragement of the communities to stay true to their beliefs as laid out to them by God, the same God who is held by Islam to be saying these very words.
As far as the second set of quotations, the principle of misquotation and lack of context is equally endemic. I don't have the time nor the energy to go through all of them and explain, I think it's sufficient that I have lain down a better methodology -- that is, actually going into the Qur'an and taking a look at where the verse stands amongst the greater Sura. 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 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. 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. 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 assume that the early Muslim state spent more time fighting amongst itself than trying to massacre pagans (or anybody else for that matter).
Now, in regards to the OP. Yemen made an excellent move here, and it's actually a huge step if one knows about the modern history of Yemen. It has undergone several radical changes in only the last half-century, and its social structure has been rather rattled as a result. Colonialism was replaced by Marxism was replaced by Wahhabist-style Islamism, and now the country is struggling to find within itself a middle ground while dealing with still other groups, like al-Qaeda, who wish to go even farther than the Wahhabists in displacing any other kind of ideology of lifestyle. But in this specific instance, they have made a great stroke in their own war against the terrorist organization, which btw is even more vicious than America's in terms of amounts of attacks and sheer chaos. This shows that the Yemeni government recognizes that the only way to effectively stop this scourge is through communication, through education, and through addressing the actual points. Al-Qaeda is not just a group of guys who sat around in a cave and decided it would be a great idea to blow up Americans/whoever. To act like they are is to completely throw away any chance of dealing with them. This group, network, organization -- we still don't know exactly how it's organized, or even whether or not certain al-Qaeda cells even have affiliation with Osama bin Laden and his people -- came about as a result of certain factors, not all of which can be clearly identified, that grew out of historical circumstances, along with a certain conservative tradition in certain Islamic schools in particular places in the world, like Pakistan. It's a lot more complex than most people even want to begin to admit. I am convinced that the root cause of all of this is rooted in historical political situations and economic hardship. That the Qur'an is a much-used tool and Islam a rallying point for them is very, very clear, and very understandable in the context of being in an Islamic society/societies. But you have to look beyond that for the root cause, to do otherwise is utterly simplistic as to be foolish. I think that, once you identify these root causes, can discuss them openly, and find an actual mode of resolution for them, you get a lot farther than simply killing. The only problem is that it's difficult, exceedingly difficult, and thus is not a popular tool to either use or sell to the less educated and less willing masses. However, Yemen in this case has made the case, and it should be followed up.
The very sad part is that, pre-9/11, there's a preponderance of literature that overviews Islamist movements, Islamic terrorism, and the potential root causes and histories behind both with a real objective eye. Post-9/11, however, this almost goes completely out the window. Even John Esposito, one of the foremost authors on Islamism and problems facing Islam's relations with outside forces (and with itself), gave himself over to the subsequent Islamaphobe hysteria when he wrote Unholy War. As far as I know, there isn't a well-received book out there that gives a treatment of al-Qaeda and other post-9/11 issues with the same objectivism and investigatory nature as these pre-9/11 publications. There is plenty of hate-filled literature out there, from hacks like Robert Spencer, that's riding the wave of popular (ignorant) sentiment. It's a sad thing for the field of Islamic Studies, and it's a sad thing for Muslim relationships with other communities. This isn't to say that there aren't still mullahs and other figures in the umma preaching death to America or some other trite nonsense, but when we're the ones trying to make ourselves out to the be 'the better side', we need to actually come to terms with our own understanding.
Reasoning with fanatic Terrorists?
Reply With Quote
