Armed Conflict, Violence, and the Quran
-
oneway
Say, "Come let me tell you what your Lord has really prohibited for you You shall not set up idols besides Him. You shall honor your parents. You shall not kill your children from fear of poverty - we provide for you and for them. You shall not commit gross sins, obvious or hidden. You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand."
You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder, he will be helped.
Be equal in your revenge; dont exceed.
They never implore beside GOD any other god, nor do they kill anyone - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. Nor do they commit adultery. Those who commit these offenses will have to pay.
And we decreed for them in it that the life for the life, the eye for the eye, the nose for the nose, the ear for the ear, the tooth for the tooth, and an equivalent injury for any injury. If one forfeits what is due to him as a charity, it will atone for his sins. Those who do not rule in accordance with GOD's revelations are the unjust.
Be equal in your revenge; dont exceed. Anyone who exceeds is unjust.
They commit a gross sin, then say, "We found our parents doing this, and GOD has commanded us to do it." Say, "GOD never advocates sin. Are you saying about GOD what you do not know?"
Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.
Again, Life is sacred.
You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.
Can't be the first to fight.
O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by GOD, and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors.
you want it to be unfair and have a verse that says 'when someone tries to kill you do not do anything ! Let him kill you. For it is the only just way.'
and 'when someone tries to kill you, smile back at them and tell them how great they are.'you want it be illogical ? stupid? you tell me what you'd do when someone tries to kill you, are you going to smile at him?
whats the point of this thread?
another words duh its violent, Quran is a guide; a way of life. A life you won't have if you don't retaliate against someone who tries to kill you !
What do you want the Quran to endorse?
-
Well, let's see how the Bible endorses violence against women and children
Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
- They will fall by the sword
- Their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and
- Their pregnant women ripped open
That is one hell of violence against women and children, what the chidlren did for them to be killed with the sword?
What the pregnant women did to have their tommies ripped open with a sword?
Those christians are so hypocrites and confused indeed, not to mention their double faces and double standards
-
oneway
Again remember God does not endorse sin, and he doesn't like aggressors. So you saying that God allows domestic violence is absurd. Since God doesn't endorse aggression, or sin. Not even taking in to account the word most translators (falsely) used has MULTIPLE upon MULTIPLE meanings.
To travel, to get out 3156; 4101; 3844; 7320; 2273
To strike 260,73; 7160; 812; 2077; 2431; 2663; 3793; 474
To beat 850; 4727
To set up 4358; 5713
To give (examples) 1424,45; 1675,76,112; 1832,45; 2435; 3028,58; 3678; 3927,29; 4317; 5921; 6610,11
To take away, to ignore 435
To condemn 261
To seal, to draw over 1811
To cover 2431
To explain 1317 -
Sorry Saladin I'm just going off topic for this one, I have to address this-
you want it be illogical ? stupid? you tell me what you'd do when someone tries to kill you, are you going to smile at him?
There are some people who posted on the forum saying that is the ultimate form of 'peace' and sacrifice, that one can smile at people while getting their heads cut off. They gave an example of some monastery somewhere with monks (buddhist?) who did that. Needless to say, I think their 'plant' consumption at the time was at an all time 'high'.
-
so if one tries to kill you and u stand there (as an individual) you won't be killed? is there some magic trick i don't know about?
-
Apparently that's what they did and it's thought a good thing by 'some' people. The magic trick is the 'high' I was talking about lol
-
on the subject of 434 read this, go a quarter of the way down where it says "Does Quran allow husbands to beat their wife?" or something similar
http//www.yuksel.org/e/books/rtq.htm
-
haha, unbelievable
-
peace
savage carot, sorry for mis-understanding your reply at first
-
We can discuss and keep throwing mud, but the best thing is to compare the Bible, the Quran and Christian dogma side by side. WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS, LET THE THE TRUTH SHOW ITSELF WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG, the only thing i see here, are people throwing mud, we call ourselves followers of the truth, lets behave like so. That means, we have to let the truth talk for itself. THE QURAN DOESN'T NEED US TO PROVE ITSELF WITH OUR EXTRA BACKIBITING COMMENTS.
If we put the Bible, Quran and Christian dogma next to each other, we can see the comparisons and differences, that is science, and the Quranic way. So just put up all the verses of the Bible and Quran about certain violence subjects next to another, and we will see who's promoting violence. And because the Christian doctrine condemns violence, let's see how the first Christians handled it, and why. Because most Christian non-violence comes from the Stoicins-philosophers that influenced also the Buddhist and Hindu monks. So this is not Christ's teachings, but a greek-roman teaching that influenced his followers.
This is science and the most friendly and professionel way to show the truth. The Quranic way.......
Peace
-
peace arnold
i agree with you
but you know how people are 'my way or the highway' thing. Blind faith, added w/ human stubbornness, and seeing what they want to see. For instance read what the site that oneway got the article from, is about
http//www.apologeticspress.org/apinfo/aboutap
So a definite BIASED source.
I wish we could all be unbiased in our way to the truth, but most people only see what they want to see.
What you are saying is right, but most people don't like the truth, they like what they WANT to like.
-
That is no excuse to do the same as them. Just let the books and information talk for itself, and if the persons don't want to see it, why be bothered by it? A psychologist examined why people lied and believe lies, he said
"It seems that most people on earth, rather follow and tell lies, follow ignorance and just baseless information, this is from science to religion to how they handle their daily lives. It seems they are scared of the truth, because it brings responsibillity, with lies they can keep doing what they want....."
So it doesn't matter how and with what people come to prove their ideas, our behaviour should never be influenced by this. We follow the truth, and are not pushed of that track by some stubborn people. Drop the throwing mud, or just as worse as them. Let the truth speak for itself, only Bible, Quran and Christian dogma texts, no comments from us next to it. The truth will say more then we can ever do...
Peace
-
I think their 'plant' consumption at the time was at an all time 'high'.
I believe you mean the hemp plant? wink
-
That is no excuse to do the same as them. Just let the books and information talk for itself, and if the persons don't want to see it, why be bothered by it? A psychologist examined why people lied and believe lies, he said
"It seems that most people on earth, rather follow and tell lies, follow ignorance and just baseless information, this is from science to religion to how they handle their daily lives. It seems they are scared of the truth, because it brings responsibillity, with lies they can keep doing what they want....."
So it doesn't matter how and with what people come to prove their ideas, our behaviour should never be influenced by this. We follow the truth, and are not pushed of that track by some stubborn people. Drop the throwing mud, or just as worse as them. Let the truth speak for itself, only Bible, Quran and Christian dogma texts, no comments from us next to it. The truth will say more then we can ever do...
Peace
peace arnoldyasin
i tried to convey the truth, I just object to anyone who says 'Quran is violent!' while taking some verses out of context and not reading the whole Quran thoroughly, which is what the truth should be.
I completely agree with you. I am just saying, in my experience, MOST people are biased. I am blessed by the Lord that I am not so. To most people the truth is what they want it to be. My intention is not at all to throw mud or backbite, if I did so, i would surely like to know how, as I don't want to do such.
peace
-
My post was meant for everybody, it was not directed at you specific, i just said it, to make myself clear as what i believe is the best way. Of course we must defend the truth....
peace
-
Peace,
savage carot, sorry for mis-understanding your reply at first
Np
I believe you mean the hemp plant?
Indeed, the quality would have had to be out of this world wink
Of course we must defend the truth....
I agree, in a debate which is a mish mash of previous biases and religion, politics, socio-culture etc all rolled into one, it helps to know where a person is coming from so that it's easier to get through to them.
-
peace
oh ok no worries
I totally agree with your concept though, I wish everybody received all the information before they started judging everything.
You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.
-
Good morning, All,
Thanks for the good debate on this topic. I'm short on time so I'll offer an overview of my position here and try to touch points raised by all of you since my last post. I don't think we're going to reach further consensus here on 434, so I'll stop being a pest to you all on this topic after this post. I do appreciate your patience in indulging my inquiries here given my Christian biases, etc.
-
We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence under qualified circumstances
-
We moved from there to discuss the "Koranic rules of fighting" and their general applicability in explaining the qualified circumstances under which the Quran endorses violence
-
That took us to a discussion of 434 which can be interpreted as endorsing domestic violence
Picking up there where I left off, Arnold posted an article by Edip Yuksel regarding 434 that was well reasoned. The core of that article, and a point echoed by others in reply, is that the Arabic word "daraba" has traditionally been mistranslated as "beat" or "hit" and should more correctly be translated as "get out" or "depart from", etc.
I have problems with this argument for a couple of reasons. First, it seems unlikely to me that so many translators over time would mistakenly choose the wrong translation for this important word in 434. Yuksel's argument and other modern discussions on the matter seem tailor made to adjust to modern sensibilities, particularly Western sensibilities, and require that we completely ignore the context of history both during Mohammed's time and the history of women's treatment in the Islamic world since. In light of that history, I think "beat" or "hit" is the correct translation and that is likely part of the reason why so many respected translators chose that meaning. Some of that line of thinking on my part certainly gets back into the issue of the reliability of the hadiths and other extra-Quranic sources, which I realize are generally not accepted here. That is one of the reasons we will not reach further consensus on this topic I feel that the correct way to develop a proper understanding of scripture must include understanding of the historical context of the writings, but that is generally off limits in this forum given the 'Quran only' consensus (even though many have no problem refuting the Bible here based on similar exegetical techniques).
Second, Yuksel's discussion includes some American English slang, the phrase "beat it", meaning "get out", to bolster his argument. This English slang phrase is of modern origin and certainly would not have been used that way centuries ago. Further, the phrase "beat it" essentially means "beat your feet on the street", where "beat" is being used in the physical sense to describe striking one's feet on the pavement as they depart. So I just don't agree with Yuksel's analysis there. This was by no means the key to his argument, I just found it interesting that he would see parallels to such a modern American phrase.
Third, since the Quran is believed to have been directly revealed to Mohammed and is considered error free by Muslims, the mere existence of such an ambiguity in the text is, for me, sufficient indication that this is the work of a man or men, not the directly revealed word of God. As discussed in other threads, I do not hold the Bible to the same standard of scrutiny because it is written and assembled by many men with divine inspiration and guidance but not direct divine revelation, with only a very few specific exceptions (e.g. the Ten Commandments and the book of Revelation).
Finally, moving away from the particular example of 434 and back to the more general issue of violence in the Quran on the whole, you have to understand that concepts like revenge (which is also endorsed in the Quran) and Mohammed's direct involvement in warfare seem particularly ungodly to people like me coming at this from a Christian background. To be sure, there is much violence in the Old Testament of the Bible and no doubt many Christians throughout history have wrongly used some of that to justify their misdeeds. However, part of the core distinction between the lessons of the historical accounts in the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament is that Jesus teaches to love our enemies, judge only ourselves, and practice forgiveness to the extreme. So Christians following Jesus do not look to those Old Testament stories for guidance regarding violence. We look to Christ. The Quran, on the other hand, is supposed to be direct guidance from God and the verses discussing violence and revenge therein are not just history lessons. They are instructions and they directly clash with the teachings of Jesus in the Bible.
Now, I obviously realize that none of you agree with my interpretation of the Bible and you believe it has been corrupted, and so on. This is of course a key distinction between Islam and Christianity, so we're certainly not going to persuade one another here.
In short, this ultimately becomes a debate about belief, where reason and logic are tools that cannot compete with faith. Nor should they. If we were able to completely reason our way to God and prove His existence and His message to non-believers, there would be no need for faith and, in a very real sense, our free will would be completely undercut. So perhaps God set it out this way on purpose, that through prayer, study, and debate, we can all do our best to seek the truth.
I sincerely thank you for indulging my own personal truth seeking here and for sharing your perspectives with me. At times our discussions in other recent threads became heated and I apologize for any offense I caused and appreciate the patience and tolerance I have been shown by many.
Even with our disagreements, if everyone could engage in such debates without fear of reprisal the world would certainly be a better place.
Peace to you all.
/oneway.
-
-
Peace all.
I'd like to make a few points here in response to oneway. I think the most important thing here is the following quote
In short, this ultimately becomes a debate about belief, where reason and logic are tools that cannot compete with faith. Nor should they. If we were able to completely reason our way to God and prove His existence and His message to non-believers, there would be no need for faith and, in a very real sense, our free will would be completely undercut. So perhaps God set it out this way on purpose, that through prayer, study, and debate, we can all do our best to seek the truth.
I agree that one cannot reason our way to God in the sense that one cannot prove His existence like one could prove a geometrical theorem. As I'm sure you agree, we can however use our reason to make probabilistic arguments for His existence. That's not entirely important to our conversation, however. What I think is important is allowing faith to color our interpretations of things that can be approached with and verified by logic.
My point is this you can't say "the Qur'an endorses X" or "the Qur'an says this," then when someone posits an alternate explanation, respond with "oh, it's a matter of faith, agree to disagree." No, that is not a matter of faith. That is something that can be verified by logic. Any objective observer, for example, can read 434, look up the word "Daraba" in Arabic dictionaries and see a slew of different meanings. This has absolutely nothing to do with faith. It is mere logic and language. It goes back to imposing your own preconceptions (in this case, the Qur'an endorsing domestic violence) on the text and refusing to acknowledge that the text does not necessarily agree with you.
Now, in the case of 434, to be sure, many translators have imposed similar preconceptions so it's easy to use this verse as a sign of endorsing domestic violence. This begs a few responses
-
Like I mentioned in the other thread, you have come to a very unique site. Most of us here eschew hadith, as you well know. What you must realize about translation is that the vast majority of these translators did not subscribe to our beliefs. They were traditionalists who used hadith to color their interpretation of the Qur'an. Of course many of us here vehemently argue against doing such a thing. So why is that relevant? Well, the hadith were written by men and for men. Is it any surprise that man-made accounts from 8th-9th century Arabia and onward are infused with chauvinism and, dare I say it, misogyny? It is this context that traditionalist translators operate under.
-
The translators, like you and other Christian apologetics, approached the text assuming it has a certain chauvinist meaning since the hadith they operate under are seen through a similar male-driven framework. The problem is the Qur'an does not espouse itself as operating under a similar framework. I do not entirely fault you on this particular verse since so many translators have made such a huge blunder interpreting it. Fortunately, the Qur'an, like the Bible, teaches us to stray from the majority for they are almost always misled ("enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction," right?). At best, I think what you have shown is that traditionalists, and hence traditionalist translators, endorse domestic violence. This, I completely agree with. Surely one must not equate a man's interpretation with the text itself, however. I think something must be said about the very act of translation that many people take for granted. Translations are not the text. This is of utmost importance. All translations are interpretations. Not just translations of the Qur'an but of any book. This is a fact of human language and it is something we cannot deny. No translation is the Qur'an. A translation by Yusuf Ali is an interpretation of the Qur'an by Yusuf Ali. I think many fall into the trap of thinking that all words are neatly translated from one language to the next without failing to realize that no human language is that narrow in its scope.
-
You brought up Edip Yuksel's article about the various meanings of "Daraba" and proceeded to disagree with him. Again, that is no surprise as you (through your own admission) are biased. We can be honest with each other. You think the text is violent and will go to any length to give evidence for your already preconceived notion. That's human nature after all. Edip and others have written very cogent, logical articles showing why "Daraba" cannot be reasonably justified as "beating." They are hardly driven by "modern sensibilities" but rather were relying on the text itself. Using the text itself, and the meanings of the words in the Arabic language, it is clear that domestic violence is not the intended usage. At the very least, for the sake of being logical, you must agree that Edip's translation is a reasonable one.
-
You mentioned that the very existence of this "ambiguity" shows to you that the text is man-made. But again, surely you see how this is your own assumption. We all believe in God here. Most of us believe God is testing us to gauge the sincerity of our faith. Both the Qur'an and the Bible promote such a view. Why, then, would this "ambiguity" be incongruent with this view? Is it not possible, indeed plausible, that God used certain words that could be translated in different ways, thereby testing the true intentions of the people interpreting the text? Indeed, the Qur'an itself mentions this. It refers to those who approach the book without sincerity and says they are "deaf, dumb and blind" to the message. They will find in it whatever they want. You want to prove the Qur'an wrong and say it endorses domestic violence, voila God makes that easy for you. If, however, you want to approach with sincerity and to ascertain its veracity, things are not quite black and white. The more you study the text, the more you realize, "hey, you know what, maybe the text doesnt mean exactly what I thought it meant."
-
I think it's always best to approach a debate by relating to the other person's worldview. In our case, I'd like to point something out using the Bible. We can look at Mark 743-49. These are the famous verses where Jesus allegedly tells us to pluck out our eyes if they offend us, same with our legs and feet. Now, I can approach the text with insincerity and proclaim "aha, the Bible promotes self-mutilation, not even the Old Testament, Jesus himself promotes violence against oneself." But would you agree? Of course not. You would likely say something along the lines of this is not to be taken literally. Jesus was being metaphorical. He means here to root out sins by severing ourselves from their source. If our hands are committing sin, we must sever our hands from the sin itself so that we may repent, etc. I would agree with that interpretation. Why? Because I don't approach the Bible assuming it promotes violence. Even in spite of the many atrocities done in the name of Christianity, I still don't approach it that way. Even in spite of all the other verses in the Old Testament, for example, that clearly promote excessive violence, I still don't approach it that way. I give a text the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you afford the Qur'an the same luxury?
I wanted to make one final point about your post. I've already rambled long enough; I apologize. You said
Mohammed's direct involvement in warfare seem particularly ungodly to people like me coming at this from a Christian background. To be sure, there is much violence in the Old Testament of the Bible and no doubt many Christians throughout history have wrongly used some of that to justify their misdeeds. However, part of the core distinction between the lessons of the historical accounts in the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament is that Jesus teaches to love our enemies, judge only ourselves, and practice forgiveness to the extreme. So Christians following Jesus do not look to those Old Testament stories for guidance regarding violence. We look to Christ
You can't have it both ways. You say you don't look to the OT for guidance regarding violence. I want to make two points about this
-
You say that violence is but one topic you don't seek guidance in the OT for, implying there are certain issues you do seek guidance for in the OT. And of course that is the case. Every Christian I have spoken to still looks for general guidance in the OT. But that begs the question why do you get to pick and choose? Why do you get to say "I won't seek guidance regarding X topic in the OT." Why not? Why isn't it all or none? Is that being intellectually honest? You bring up modern sensibilities. It seems to me that refusing to go the OT for guidance on certain "touchy" issues that the OT seems excessive on reeks of picking-and-choosing based on modern sensibilities. You don't like the image the OT paints of excessive violence so you shy from it altogether instead relying on the "We look to Christ" panacea.
-
Even assuming it's reasonable to not look to the OT for guidance, through your own words you do believe it to be divinely inspired. Now, the question becomes, if the OT endorses such excessive violence, why do you not see it as something that is just as "ungodly" as "Mohammed's direct involvement in warfare"? How are the two different? Why don't you give the Qur'an the same flexible treatment you afford to the OT? It's one thing to be biased. It's another to selectively treat texts differently.
Peace.
-