Does Islam promote violence?

[Blackdog22]

A few selected verses from the Qur'an are often misquoted to perpetuate the myth that Islam promotes violence, and exhorts its followers to kill those outside the pale of Islam.

1. Verse from Surah Taubah

The following verse from Surah Taubah is very often quoted by critics of Islam, to show that Islam promotes violence, bloodshed and brutality: "Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find them."
[Al-Qur'an 9:5]


2. Context of verse is during battlefield


Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. Verse 5 of Surah Taubah says:
"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 practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most merciful."
[Al-Qur'an 9:5]


This verse is quoted during a battle.


3. Example of war between America and Vietnam


We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war.


4. Verse 9:5 quoted to boost morale of Muslims during battle


Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur'an says, "Kill the Mushriqs where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur'an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don't be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.


5. Shourie jumps from verse 5 to verse 7


Arun Shourie is one of the staunchest critics of Islam in India. He quotes the same verse, Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 in his book 'The World of Fatwahs', on page 572. After quoting verse 5 he jumps to verse 7 of Surah Taubah. Any sensible person will realise that he has skipped verse 6.


6. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer


Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:
"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."
[Al-Qur'an 9:6]
The Qur'an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don't just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?
This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur'an to promote peace in the world.




I am sure I have cleared the misconceptions taken in Islam.


@songbird

There was no point of moving this to "general debate section." the person who made this thread intended to take the answer from the muslims, and it was seeking for an answer not a debate. If debate was intended, you should have opened a new thread.

This doesn't exactly make me feel any better. The whole earth could be looked at like a battlefield to someone in a religion that looks at the world as a battlefield for their God. Still not very comforting at all.

Lets say someone doesn't look like at the world like a battlefield, then is it okay to kill people who don't believe like you do in that case today? If not why not? What scale does it have to escalate to before it can be considered a battle from someone elses perspective? Is a neighborhood shootout enough to go around killing innocents who don't believe like you? Does it have to be an entire country vs country? State vs state? Religion vs religion? That line is subjective and thus does, in my opinion, promote murder since it isn't exactly "clear" on this topic.

I see quite easily how this can be misconstrued by Islam extremists as a reason for killing and that is because it is.

 

[Jeneshisu]

One can argue that any abrahamic faith promotes violence... Especially considering the foundation itself. Christianity and Judaism are no exception.

Islam just happens to be the popular choice that both atheists and christians like to pick at.

It's just the issue with any faith that ascribes to holy scripture. Especially when its blatantly war mongering.

 

[Badran]

So your saying at some point it was okay to kill Jews on the spot and was this law ever done away with? Does the Quran now forbid it?

No. Its not a law now and it wasn't a law then. It was addressing a certain incident in particular. In other words, telling them based on what was going on, to do this now, thats it.

Why was it okay then and why does it say Jews instead of say, the ones who are coming against us. Just saying Jews seems a little wicked, as if all Jews should be killed. Perhaps you could put this in a context where it is acceptable.

The verse he's talking about doesn't actually say "Jews" at all. It says 'them', and the 'them' wasn't referring to Jews. Thats the only verse resembling what he said that i can remember, and i let it go the first time assuming its a mistake. So i preferred to simply address his point, without correction, out of laziness.

Would you care to do that?

Usually i do without getting asked, but somethings get boring through time.

This doesn't exactly make me feel any better. The whole earth could be looked at like a battlefield to someone in a religion that looks at the world as a battlefield for their God. Still not very comforting at all.

Lets say someone doesn't look like at the world like a battlefield, then is it okay to kill people who don't believe like you do in that case today? If not why not? What scale does it have to escalate to before it can be considered a battle from someone elses perspective? Is a neighborhood shootout enough to go around killing innocents who don't believe like you? Does it have to be an entire country vs country? State vs state? Religion vs religion? That line is subjective and thus does, in my opinion, promote murder since it isn't exactly "clear" on this topic.

I see quite easily how this can be misconstrued by Islam extremists as a reason for killing and that is because it is.

There is a simple general rule in the Quran that doesn't actually leave room for any of this nonsense, we can't be the aggressors.

 

[javajo]

Here is what I as a Christian was taught. If a person is a true Christian they will follow this teaching:

Jesus said:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Mathew 5:44

Paul said:

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:17-21
See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. 1 Thess. 5:15

Peter said:

Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. 1 Peter 3:9

 

[Jeneshisu]

Erm, how can you say at one point "for it is written, Vengeance is mine." and then try to sit and say that you should love your enemies and pray for them?

"Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. "

And though I used to like this verse, why would anyone want to do "good" with the intention of making someone unhappy?

 

[Badran]

One can argue that any abrahamic faith promotes violence... Especially considering the foundation itself. Christianity and Judaism are no exception.

Islam just happens to be the popular choice that both atheists and christians like to pick at.

It's just the issue with any faith that ascribes to holy scripture. Especially when its blatantly war mongering.

I am appreciative of the fact that you're not singling out Islam. But at the same time, i don't think singling out the Abrahamics in general makes it any better. Its still not true in the exact same way.

The clear majority of Abrahamic religions followers do not agree, advocate, or get involved in such acts of violence. They don't get those ideas from their religious texts/teachings. So the point is still the same.

People who want to get bad things out of anything, and particularly something that is up for interpretation, will easily manage to do so.

 

[Jeneshisu]

Lately, I've been really fighting hard to try to be in harmony with those who are apart of abrahamic faiths, but for whatever reason, it's been impossible for me. It's not the individuals so much as their scripture and the way its supposed to be taken to heart.

I believe where violence is permitted or advocated for any reason, it plants a bad seed, and it is therefore a harmful philosophy to ascribe to.

It's possible that for that same reason why I am an Eclectic because I am not happy with anything because nothing is perfect and because it will be used for darker purposes at one point or another.

But when I think of abrahamic religion, I can't help but see all the scriptures that lay out intolerance and vengeance. And it's not agreeable for me to take the bad with the good... regardless of how an individual chooses to interpret scripture... It's just too easy to twist those religions.

 

[javajo]

Erm, how can you say at one point "for it is written, Vengeance is mine." and then try to sit and say that you should love your enemies and pray for them?

"Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. "

And though I used to like this verse, why would anyone want to do "good" with the intention of making someone unhappy?

When it says, "vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord", what it means is that God is a God of Justice. So if someone has done unspeakable evil to someone, with no remorse, God will see to it that justice is served. So, we don't have to be evil back to them.

When it says that when we love our enemy and do good to them that its like heaping coals of fire on his head, I believe it means they will see that we love and forgive and help them and will be ashamed that they did evil to us, and will come to God and be forgiven.

 

[Badran]

Lately, I've been really fighting hard to try to be in harmony with those who are apart of abrahamic faiths, but for whatever reason, it's been impossible for me.

Well, thats terrible.

It's not the individuals so much as their scripture and the way its supposed to be taken to heart.

This doesn't make the result any less terrible.

I believe where violence is permitted or advocated for any reason, it plants a bad seed, and it is therefore a harmful philosophy to ascribe to.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, as demonstrated by millions if not billions of people, but thats okay.

You may be a pacifist or non-violent, since you seem opposed to violence in any situation regardless, based on what you said. Which makes it understandable why you hold that belief.

 

[Jeneshisu]

Yes, it is terrible. It puts a heavy weight on my heart to hold any bitterness for any reason.

And I am an idealist so I am also somewhat of a pacifist.

When it says, "vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord", what it means is that God is a God of Justice. So if someone has done unspeakable evil to someone, with no remorse, God will see to it that justice is served. So, we don't have to be evil back to them.

When it says that when we love our enemy and do good to them that its like heaping coals of fire on his head, I believe it means they will see that we love and forgive and help them and will be ashamed that they did evil to us, and will come to God and be forgiven.

But justice is just another word for vengeance. What is the point of wishing someone else happiness when you are really wishing for their despair because they wronged you? How is this idea at all comforting... to anyone in a truly fulfilling manner..?

And while I can see how the latter verse can be interpreted that way, its an odd way of wording it.

 

[TheKnight]

I believe where violence is permitted or advocated for any reason, it plants a bad seed, and it is therefore a harmful philosophy to ascribe to.

So a person should not use physical ever? Regardless of the situation?

 

[Jeneshisu]

So a person should not use physical ever? Regardless of the situation?

Not just physical violence but any mode of violence and oppression is unnecessary.

As a result, I inherently despise any idea that advocates conflict because it makes the above idea an impossibility.

Despite how ironic the above statement might sound.

 

[TheKnight]

Not just physical violence but any mode of violence and oppression is unnecessary.

As a result, I inherently despise any idea that advocates conflict because it makes the above idea an impossibility.

Despite how ironic the above statement might sound.

Religion does not advocate conflict. It simply prescribes a set behaviors for responding to conflicts that will, inevitably as a result of the differences in human personality, occur.

 

[Jeneshisu]

Religion does not advocate conflict. It simply prescribes a set behaviors for responding to conflicts that will, inevitably as a result of the differences in human personality, occur.

But when those set behaviors are violent, and the other side responds the same way because it is what is prescribed, then it never ends.

And that is the dilemma that I see.

 

[Father Heathen]

To know why terrorists do what they do all one has to do is listen to them. They use religion as a motivator to get people to respond to a non-religious issue, the issue being Western intervention in the middle east.

This is a topic that is only relevant to those paranoid by their ignorance of history and their lack of knowledge about what the terrorists actually say.

When they speak to us and send us videos, we should listen. They don't say "We hate freedom, so we're going to blow them up." They don't say "they are infidels and deserve death so we can spread Islam." They fight us because we intervene in their affairs when they did not ask us to. We are their friends one day and their enemies the next.

Will they use religion as a tool to recruit? Yes. But we do that too. The problem is the West intervening. The religion is only a tool and a framework to amplify latent motivation and provide a sort of "story" if you will to make the whole thing more appealing.

What that's true to an extent, I don't think film makers, british school teachers or dutch cartoonists ever intervened in the middle east.

 

[javajo]

Yes, it is terrible. It puts a heavy weight on my heart to hold any bitterness for any reason. And I am an idealist so I am also somewhat of a pacifist.

Awesome, me too, It weighs my heart to hold bitterness, and I am a pacifist, I avoid a fight if at all possible.

But justice is just another word for vengeance. What is the point of wishing someone else happiness when you are really wishing for their despair because they wronged you? How is this idea at all comforting... to anyone in a truly fulfilling manner..?

Well, to be good, God must be just. Like if someone killed you and your loved ones just for fun and he did not hold them accountable, he would not be good and just. Like I don't like to see someone go to jail for any reason, but if they have murdered, raped, robbed, or whatnot, as sad as it may be, they gotta go to jail and pay for their crimes. The good thing is Jesus paid for our 'crimes' for us, although we deserved to be punished.

And while I can see how the latter verse can be interpreted that way, its an odd way of wording it.

Yeah, that's true.

 

[TheKnight]

But when those set behaviors are violent, and the other side responds the same way because it is what is prescribed, then it never ends.

And that is the dilemma that I see.

The point of the behaviors is not violence for the sake of violence, but correction. Violence should only be used as a last resort for a problem that cannot otherwise be corrected.

I think you misunderstand this about religion.

What that's true to an extent, I don't think film makers, british school teachers or dutch cartoonists ever intervened in the middle east.

I don't think that any of these incidents were the result of people acting because their religious beliefs, but in fact that they were acting out of ignorance and heated emotion. Much like many blacks rioted after the Rodney King situation. They acted that way not because it is fundamental to their ideology, but because they feel that their group is threatened.

Which is similar to the reason I gave as their motivation. Western intervention poses a perceived threat to their group. The fact that the respond to the threat to their group with violence is a human trait, not a fundamental belief of Islam.

Historically you'll find that people often respond violently when their group or a group they belong to is threatened (or they perceive a threat).

 

[Jeneshisu]

Awesome, me too, It weighs my heart to hold bitterness, and I am a pacifist, I avoid a fight if at all possible.
Well, to be good, God must be just. Like if someone killed you and your loved ones just for fun and he did not hold them accountable, he would not be good and just. Like I don't like to see someone go to jail for any reason, but if they have murdered, raped, robbed, or whatnot, as sad as it may be, they gotta go to jail and pay for their crimes. The good thing is Jesus paid for our 'crimes' for us, although we deserved to be punished.

Yeah, that's true.

I see that it is perfectly logical to remove a person if they have no intention of changing their actions. Or if they have shown themselves to be insincere with change.

But I wouldn't call it justice. Putting them away obviously doesn't change what happened.

The point of the behaviors is not violence for the sake of violence, but correction. Violence should only be used as a last resort for a problem that cannot otherwise be corrected.

I think you misunderstand this about religion.

And I think that you misunderstand that it's worthless when it isn't working as intended.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't think that any of these incidents were the result of people acting because their religious beliefs, but in fact that they were acting out of ignorance and heated emotion. Much like many blacks rioted after the Rodney King situation. They acted that way not because it is fundamental to their ideology, but because they feel that their group is threatened.

Which is similar to the reason I gave as their motivation. Western intervention poses a perceived threat to their group. The fact that the respond to the threat to their group with violence is a human trait, not a fundamental belief of Islam.

Historically you'll find that people often respond violently when their group or a group they belong to is threatened (or they perceive a threat).

Then shouldn't all groups respond in a similar fashion? If I made a cartoon of Buddha or Jesus, I doubt I would see as many Christians or Buddhists foaming at the mouth. You would have to be pretty insecure to feel threatened by a cartoon.

 

[TheKnight]

I see that it is perfectly logical to remove a person if they have no intention of changing their actions. Or if they have shown themselves to be insincere with change.

But I wouldn't call it justice. Putting them away obviously doesn't change what happened.

Who calls it justice? In capital offense cases in the Torah, it doesn't say that the implementation is to do justice. It often says the point is to remove the evil from among you. Or in other words, to stop the bad situation from occurring over and over again.

And I think that you misunderstand that it's worthless when it isn't working as intended.

I think it works as it is intended. Obviously you disagree. However, I think you would be hard pressed to point out violent acts committed by people who believe (correctly) that the act was what their religion required them to do.

People generally commit violent acts out of emotional weakness or mental defect and then blame religion afterwards.