The "relationship towards violence" sounds concerning. What exactly is the relationship of Islam toward violence? For example, the Old Testament talks about an "eye for an eye". What is the Koran's take on violence? Does it actively promote the use of violence as a first resort, just a great way of settling disputes or is it considered retaliatory? Are adherents of Islam obligated to use violence in order to further the religion? Or is violence considered only something to use under special circumstances?
Thank you for your questions. You chose what is perhaps the most consequential bad idea in Islam. The promotion of violence is deeply imbedded in Islamic scripture and is an integral part of the holy texts. The first thing to note about the koran is, as abradley correctly pointed out, that it is seen as the direct word of god (unlike the bible, which most Christians think is the word of God written down through the hand of men and is therefore more open to interpretation). There are fewer tools available for Muslims to theologically defend a less literal take on the koran. As I pointed out at the bottom of page 5 in this thread, the koran itself forbids Muslims to change the meaning of what Allah allegedly revealed to Mohammed. Furthermore, its commands are much more open-ended. Whereas the bible contains stories and parabels which can be contextualised more easily and are largely viewed as refering to the specific circumstances of the time they were written, the literary style of the koran is that of an instruction manual, giving advice and orders to Muslims for all times.
So what does the koran says about violence? Violence itself is of course a wide field and is advocated in many different contexts. The most obvious context is violence against unbelievers. The koran contains over one hundred verses which order Muslims to fight against the infidels. Jihad is a central message of the book. These are not lines which are open to interpretation; they are clear commands, such as "kill them [the unbelievers] wherever you find them" (2:191), "fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness" (9:123), or "strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them" (66:9). For a larger overview, check
this page.
The verb stem "qtl", "to kill", appears 187 times in the koran. The stem "db", "to punish", appears over 400 times. That is not going into the over 7,000 hadith, which like the koran are viewed as divine revelation and confirm the messages found in the koran, including the advocating of violence.
It is important to mention the concept of abrogation in this context. This is the theological precept that in the case of contradictions in the koran, later verses override the earlier ones. I commented on this in an earlier thread:
Funky said:
The first part of the Koran deals with Mohammed's life in Mekka. At this time, the city was home to several religions and sects, and Mohammed just had a few dozen followers. In light of his own numerical inferiority, he preached tolerance and suggested that all religious beliefs be respected and treated equally. It was only after he went to Medina and obtained a large following that he spread Islam through the sword and applied the rules of Islam to non-believers, who in most cases were forced to convert or die. He is said to have personally beheaded 800 Jews in the process. After he came back to Mekka, he destroyed all the religious symbols in the Kaaba, which had been a remarkably tolerant religous center for all kinds of various beliefs. Believing in Islam became mandatory, as did the fight against all unbelievers. Mohammed's time in Medina and his conqering of Mekka make up the second part of the Koran.
Now, if we look only at the Mekka part of the Koran, we naturally find a comparably benign text. The focus lies on spiritual aspects, and when it touches political aspects they are mostly about good relations and tolerance. But when we get to the Medina part, the incitement of violence against anyone who disagrees with the tenets of Islam becomes the central message. If Muslims only focused on the first part, we wouldn't have much of a problem. In fact, Sufists tend to do just that. They have a mystical rather than political approach to their religion.
However, there is a huge problem. After Islamic scholars noticed contradictions in the Koran back in the 9th century, they solved the problem by deciding that if two verses were in conflict, the one that came later in the book was the correct one. This means that for large parts of the Muslim community, when in doubt, the Medina part overrides the Mekka part, violence trumps peacefulness, the political and aggressive trump the spiritual.
Moreover, violence is not only commanded against unbelievers. The punishments for violation of the rules of sharia often include the death penalty or other physical mistreatments. The most undisputed law in the Muslim world is that apostacy is to be punished by death. There has never been a major school of thought opposed to this punishment, and even many Muslims who are viewed as moderate consider this to be the only just sentence. But also other "crimes", such as blasphemy, adultery (including women who were raped), or homosexuality (which are all "hudud", "crimes against God") lead to the death penalty. And the death penalty in Islam not conducted by a lethal injection, but by public stoning or, in the case of homosexuals, hurling the "offenders" from roof tops. In many Islamic countries "lesser" crimes, such as theft, are punished by chopping off hands or public flogging.
All the attempts to reform and modernise the religion over the course of its history have been rejected and combatted by the religous establishment. Medieval Arab philosophers such as Ibn Khaldun or Ibn Sina were prosecuted, as are reformers today, who are brandmarked as heretics for their effort to contextualise the barbarism in the Islamic holy texts. While there have been quite a few outspoken Muslim critics of Islam in the past decades, their voices remain marginal compared to Islamic orthodoxy, which, led by the Al Azhar University of Cairo, the intellectual center of the Muslim world, continues to reject any re-interpretation of the koran and the hadith. That is why it is so noteworthy that Egypt's president Al-Sisi claimed early this year that it was "inconceivable, that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!" Words like these are rare from political or religious authorities, and several incitements to kill the man were immediately issued on public television.
The results of the tradition of violence can be seen around the world today. Every month thousands of innocent people are killed by violence in the name of Islam. Just being a non-Muslim is a dangerous thing in many Islamic countries. Being a Jew, a homosexual or an atheist will get you killed instantly in places from Pakistan and Bangladesh over Saudi Arabia and Iran to Somalia. However, most victims of Islamic violence are other Muslims, many of who too openly expressed free thought or confessed to hold beliefs divergent from Islamic tradition. Others fall victim to the Sunni Shia divide. And many of them are women and girls who commited the "crimes" of seeking education or not covering themselves up properly. The sheer number of killings in the name of Islam should make it obvious that these are not isolated cases. Furthermore, over the last decade there have been
hundreds of polls on the connection between Islam and violence and the relationship of Muslims towards terrorism. Depending on what questions are asked, we often find majorities or at least large minorities of the population in Muslim countries who support the use of violence. While not all of the, say, 86 percent of Jordanian Muslims who support the death penalty for leaving Islam would actually go out and kill apostates, it should be clear that numbers like these are terrifying.
Anyway, I could go on, but I think this should be enough for a first overview.
Tigranes said:
One can disagree with opinions, like I vehemently disagree about your materialism, but when opinions are thoughtful, like in your case, discussions at least do make sense.
Thank you, Tigranes. I believe that whatever opinions we hold, a civil and open conversation should always be the medium by which we engage with each other and exchange our ideas.
I like that ... but I would!
No, the Koran is the direct word of God as if dropped to us at that instant. That's why no translation is considered to be wholly accurate, only in the Arabic of the time is it accurate. (I think that's correct, check with a Muslim)
