Armed Conflict, Violence, and the Quran

Elena

Peace

I think the way we each judge truth is intimately tied to our system of belief, not just the beliefs themselves.

It should be the other way round, truth leading beliefs, but as idolfree says, no need of belief when we have verified truth, they are opposite, truth = we know; we don't know = we believe.

oneway

Thank you for the reply oneway, and differentiating between unreasonable and persuasive. That definitely clears up some stuff. ) Now what if I told you quran discourages the use of other hadith? Would that obvious contradiction change anything?

Peace be with you
Its only an obvious contradiction if you accept the Quran a priori. smile

Regards,
oneway
Not at all. It just defeats the purpose though doesn't it? If you believed in the bible as the word of god without a doubt and with verification, and (just hypothetically) the bible said don't follow quran... would you use quran to verify or authenticate the bible? ?

They key to your hypothetical is "with verification". It becomes very difficult to isolate each avenue of debate from core faith, because what one of us sees as verification, the other may not. I'm arguing that the way we all define what counts as acceptable verification is colored by our respective systems of belief.

Regards,
oneway

alpha97

peace,

Or as PROPHET MOHAMMAD said

EVERY SOUL HAS HIS OWN RELIGION.

PEACE,

Fahad1

A word on this violence issue within the Quran.

It is violence to restore peace.

exactly . do u still see any problem in it , Oneway ? problem other than the contradiction with the "turn the other cheek" teachings in the Bible ?

peace.

Peace saladin,

The broader handling of violence in the Quran includes permission for revenge (within bounds and with forgiveness preferred, but it is permitted nonetheless). Revenge is punitive and retaliatory, not purely defensive.

861 If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.

2193 ...If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the aggressors.

490 ....Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them.

if they stop , we stop . very defensive .

peace.

unknownuser

I have already showed enough.

You bet ..

"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....."

Psychologist after research on why people lie or believes lies.

Peace

Hmmm ... quite a hackneyed 'lecture' but thanks anyway. After all you did confirm my point. Truth scares .. isn't too different from truth hurts.
Peace

esimsek100

Did you read that oneway????

Your NATURAL INSTINCT will lead you to violence, if threatened.

If natural instinct were the guiding factor for us much of what is considered sin by both our faiths would be permitted.

Cheers,
oneway.

Please do provide an example of our natural instinct being 'sin'

yfn123

Greetings,

We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence

This is not EXACTLY the case, but for only those who want to pick and choose like the lawyers who stop the witnesses just after hearing the word they are looking for, without listening the whole story.

Anwar Azim

oneway

Did you read that oneway????

Your NATURAL INSTINCT will lead you to violence, if threatened.

If natural instinct were the guiding factor for us much of what is considered sin by both our faiths would be permitted.

Cheers,
oneway.

Please do provide an example of our natural instinct being 'sin'

Selfishness, lust, greed...These are parts of human nature that we work to overcome by striving for spiritual maturity.

Regards,
oneway

oneway

Hello, yfn123,

Greetings,

We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence

This is not EXACTLY the case, but for only those who want to pick and choose like the lawyers who stop the witnesses just after hearing the word they are looking for, without listening the whole story.

Anwar Azim

Interesting perspective considering you did exactly that by extracting only that first point from my post to support your conclusion

We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence
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

Some like to respond to the fiirst post in a thread ignoring all of the discussion that happened since that first post where the original author may have already conceded the points they wished to argue against or apologized for coming across too harshly, and so on, while clarifying the position in detail through the debate.

Similarly, as in this case, people will extract one point to support an ad hominem argument.

I fully agree that neither approach is useful.

Regards,
oneway

esimsek100

Did you read that oneway????

Your NATURAL INSTINCT will lead you to violence, if threatened.

If natural instinct were the guiding factor for us much of what is considered sin by both our faiths would be permitted.

Cheers,
oneway.

Please do provide an example of our natural instinct being 'sin'

Selfishness, lust, greed...These are parts of human nature that we work to overcome by striving for spiritual maturity.

Regards,
oneway

Selfishness

Yes it is survival of the fittest. But given time, evolution (of thoughts as well) suggests that mankind will form tribes for survival. In consequence they MUST look after each other for better survival. Religion already adopts this technique, i.e. "Do unto others as you'd have done on yourself".

Lust

Lust exists in all situations and is only outlawed in Christianity, not in Islam. In christianity it is called the original sin, when you are born you are born with sin roll . In Islam it is not outlawed, it is a reuirement for the survival of the species.

Greed

See selfishness, it's the same thing.

oneway

Did you read that oneway????

Your NATURAL INSTINCT will lead you to violence, if threatened.

If natural instinct were the guiding factor for us much of what is considered sin by both our faiths would be permitted.

Cheers,
oneway.

Please do provide an example of our natural instinct being 'sin'

Selfishness, lust, greed...These are parts of human nature that we work to overcome by striving for spiritual maturity.

Regards,
oneway

Selfishness

Yes it is survival of the fittest. But given time, evolution (of thoughts as well) suggests that mankind will form tribes for survival. In consequence they MUST look after each other for better survival. Religion already adopts this technique, i.e. "Do unto others as you'd have done on yourself".

Lust

Lust exists in all situations and is only outlawed in Christianity, not in Islam. In christianity it is called the original sin, when you are born you are born with sin roll . In Islam it is not outlawed, it is a reuirement for the survival of the species.

Greed

See selfishness, it's the same thing.

Lust isn't what is meant by the "original sin" in Christianity, but that really isn't relevant here. If lust were not a sin in Islam and you followed your natural instincts stemming from lust you would fornicate, be promiscuous, etc., without any spiritual concern. That sort of behavior isn't condoned in Islam, right? There's another thread on this forum discussing averting one's gaze to avoid/control lustful tendencies per Quranic instruction, so it seems Christianity and Islam are similar there, but please correct me if I've misunderstood.

Thanks,
oneway

yfn123

Hello Oneway,

I noticed that too. I have read before and after what you wrote. But there was no consensus that "the Quran endorses violence". That's why it is not EXACTLY the case, but you make it look like it is by stating that "We reached consensus". If you concede that it is actually qualified rather than a blanket statement, then there is no consensus that ""the Quran endorses violence", if that is what you are looking for through this thread.

If I sounded like I attacked you, feel free to attack back. smile

Anwar Azim

Hello, yfn123,

Greetings,

We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence

This is not EXACTLY the case, but for only those who want to pick and choose like the lawyers who stop the witnesses just after hearing the word they are looking for, without listening the whole story.

Anwar Azim

Interesting perspective considering you did exactly that by extracting only that first point from my post to support your conclusion

We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence
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

Some like to respond to the fiirst post in a thread ignoring all of the discussion that happened since that first post where the original author may have already conceded the points they wished to argue against or apologized for coming across too harshly, and so on, while clarifying the position in detail through the debate.

Similarly, as in this case, people will extract one point to support an ad hominem argument.

I fully agree that neither approach is useful.

Regards,
oneway

oneway

Hi, Anwar,

Fair enough - I'll edit the original post to make that first point more exact.

Thanks,
oneway

Hello Oneway,

I noticed that too. I have read before and after what you wrote. But there was no consensus that "the Quran endorses violence". That's why it is not EXACTLY the case, but you make it look like it is by stating that "We reached consensus". If you concede that it is actually qualified rather than a blanket statement, then there is no consensus that ""the Quran endorses violence", if that is what you are looking for through this thread.

If I sounded like I attacked you, feel free to attack back. smile

Anwar Azim

Hello, yfn123,

Greetings,

We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence

This is not EXACTLY the case, but for only those who want to pick and choose like the lawyers who stop the witnesses just after hearing the word they are looking for, without listening the whole story.

Anwar Azim

Interesting perspective considering you did exactly that by extracting only that first point from my post to support your conclusion

We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence
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

Some like to respond to the fiirst post in a thread ignoring all of the discussion that happened since that first post where the original author may have already conceded the points they wished to argue against or apologized for coming across too harshly, and so on, while clarifying the position in detail through the debate.

Similarly, as in this case, people will extract one point to support an ad hominem argument.

I fully agree that neither approach is useful.

Regards,
oneway

esimsek100

Lust isn't what is meant by the "original sin" in Christianity, but that really isn't relevant here. If lust were not a sin in Islam and you followed your natural instincts stemming from lust you would fornicate, be promiscuous, etc., without any spiritual concern. That sort of behavior isn't condoned in Islam, right? There's another thread on this forum discussing averting one's gaze to avoid/control lustful tendencies per Quranic instruction, so it seems Christianity and Islam are similar there, but please correct me if I've misunderstood.

Thanks,
oneway

Peace,

My misunderstanding of the original sin.

Using dictionary.com, we are given-

http//dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lust

Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

An overwhelming desire or craving a lust for power.
Intense eagerness or enthusiasm a lust for life.
Obsolete. Pleasure; relish.

I fail to see how this is banned in the Quran.

oneway

Using dictionary.com, we are given-

http//dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lust

Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

An overwhelming desire or craving a lust for power.
Intense eagerness or enthusiasm a lust for life.
Obsolete. Pleasure; relish.

I fail to see how this is banned in the Quran.

Hi, esimsek100,

My understanding is that the Quran teaches against "unrestrained sexual craving." Is that not correct?

The point is simply that restraint is called for over our natural urges (in both Christianity and Islam as I understand it) such that our natural urges are not themselves useful in evaluating the righteousness of scriptural teachings. We do not view the scriptures as wrong because they go against our natural urges; rather, we strive to restrain our natural urges as part of following scriptural teachings.

So it is not persuasive to argue that the Quran's qualified approval of violence is right simply because we have natural tendencies toward violence.

Thanks,
oneway

unknownuser

Peace oneway. Unrestrained lust and unrestrained violence are both harmful,immoral activities.

esimsek100

Using dictionary.com, we are given-

http//dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lust

Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

An overwhelming desire or craving a lust for power.
Intense eagerness or enthusiasm a lust for life.
Obsolete. Pleasure; relish.

I fail to see how this is banned in the Quran.

Hi, esimsek100,

My understanding is that the Quran teaches against "unrestrained sexual craving." Is that not correct?

The point is simply that restraint is called for over our natural urges (in both Christianity and Islam as I understand it) such that our natural urges are not themselves useful in evaluating the righteousness of scriptural teachings. We do not view the scriptures as wrong because they go against our natural urges; rather, we strive to restrain our natural urges as part of following scriptural teachings.

So it is not persuasive to argue that the Quran's qualified approval of violence is right simply because we have natural tendencies toward violence.

Thanks,
oneway

Peace,

If natural instinct were the guiding factor for us much of what is considered sin by both our faiths would be permitted.

This was the statement in question, on my behalf.

Corruption of natural instinct is indeed wrong. I have no issues about that what-so-ever.

The Quran calls for control over natural instinct, but no where does it say that natural instinct, in ALL forms, is a sin.

However, if your life is threatened, do you think it wrong/sinful to protect yourself by fighting to the death????

If you are married, is it wrong/sinful to look at your partner in lust????

Natural instinct is the guide book for the animal kingdom. e.g. A lion kills the cubs of it's newly acquired pride, for the purpose of making sure only his genes survive.

With humans it's a different concept, mainly because we are the homo-sapiens sapiens,i.e. the man who realises that he thinks. Our advanced brain seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, hence our society is conducted in a different manner.

What we do is for the benefit of all mankind, but we still do take care of ourselves FIRST. It's a survival of the fittest concept, a natural instinct concept. But it is a natural instinct that is controlled.

We still do reward our most phsycially gifted humans, they are probably the best killing machines, survival machines we have. e.g. Professional wrestlers, football players, boxers, CEO's of multi-billion $ corporations.

The professions I've listed above all earn a hell lot of money.

We (humans) cannot survive if we ban our natural instincts. It is extrememly vital for our species. Also on the other hand we will not survive if we let our natural instincts run wild (nuclear weapons).

The Quran calls for control of our most basic urges but nowhere does it outlaw them.

Bigmo

peace Oneway.
in your thread u posted the link http//www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2702 to Dave Miller's article about the "violent" verses of the Koran .

2190-194 And fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and expel them from where they expelled you, and know that persecution is worse than killng. And do not fight them at the restricted Temple unless they fight you in it; if they fight you then kill them, thus is the reward of the disbelievers. And fight them so there is no more persecution, and so that the system is God's. If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked. What is done in the restricted month may be retaliated in the same month, and murder shall be punishable by execution. Whoever attacks you, then you shall attack him the same as he attacked you; and be aware of God, and know that God is with the righteous.

Remember the Koranic rules of fighting

? fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress
? do not fight them at the restricted Temple unless they fight you in it;
? If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked
? Whoever attacks you, then you shall attack him the same as he attacked you

Keep these rules in mind while reading all the verses posted in Dave Miller?s article . then tell us if u still find the verses "violent"

474 So, if you encounter those who have rejected, then strike their neck until you capture them, then bind them securely. Then you may either set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. And had God willed, He alone could have beaten them, but He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

2216-217 Fighting has been decreed for you while you hate it; and perhaps you may hate something while it is good for you, and perhaps you may love something while it is bad for you; God knows while you do not know. They ask you about the restricted month "Is there fighting in it?" Say "Much fighting is in it, and to repel from the path of God and to disbelieve in Him, and at the restricted Temple, to drive its inhabitants out is far greater with God, and persecution is worse than killing." And they still will fight you until they turn you back from your system if they are able. And whoever of you turns back from his system, and he dies while disbelieving, then these have nullified their work in this life and the next; these are the people of the Fire, in it they will abide eternally!

91-5 And a declaration from God and His messenger to the people on this day of the extended Pilgrimage "That God and His messenger are innocent from all those who set-up partners." If you repent, then it is better for you, and if you turn away, then know that you will not escape God. And give news to those who have rejected of a painful retribution. Except for those with whom you had a treaty from among those who have set-up partners if they did not reduce anything from it nor did they plan to attack you; you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry. God loves the righteous. So when the restricted months are passed, then you may kill those who have set-up partners wherever you find them, and take them, and surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they repent, and hold the salat, and contribute towards betterment, then you shall leave them alone. God is Forgiving, Merciful. And if any of those who have set-up partners seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the words of God, then let him reach his sanctuary. This is because they are a people who do not know.

.....
...
...

The Sects claim that the concept of defensive war has been abrogated by these verses in Chapter 9

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an 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
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Jizya is then explained by the Sects as a tax to be paid by non Muslims to the Muslim ruler. Of course we know that what really these sects believe abrogated the defensive war verses of the Koran is this hadith

Ibn ?Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, ?I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah.? (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)?

And even a casual glance at that hadith we know must have also abrogated many other verses and not just the defensive war verses like

1753-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith

1682 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message

6107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them

8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe

3941 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

But since some Sunni scholars want to hide behind the Koran and are ashamed to say that the hadith abrogates the Koran, we will go along with it for argument sake.

So what is Jizya anyways

The Arabic term jizya appears in verse Quran 929, but the Qur'an does not specify jizya as a tax per head. According to Paul Heck, the jizya taxation seems to be a developed form of the Sassanian practice of taxation.

Commentators disagree on the definition and derivation of the word jizya
Shakir and Khalifa's English translations of the Qur'an render jizya as "tax", while Pickthal translates it as "tribute". Yusuf Ali prefers to transliterate the term as jizyah.
Yusuf Ali states "The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to the laws enforced by the Muslim State."
Monqiz As-Saqqar attributes the word jizya to the root word jaza meaning "compensate" and defines it as "a sum of money given in return for protection".
Ibn Al-Mutaraz derives the word from 'idjz?, meaning "substitute" or "sufficiency" because "it suffices as a substitute for the dhimmi's embracement of Islam."
Yusuf al-Qaradawi says the word jizya is derived from the jazaa', meaning "reward", "return", or "compensation", and defines it as "a payment by the non-Muslim according to an agreement signed with the Muslim state".
Edward William Lane, in An Arabic-English Lexicon defines jizya as a "tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection.
Ibn Rushd explains that jizya is in fact a broader concept than just a head-tax. It also includes monies exacted in times of war ? what is normally understood in English by the word ?tribute? ? as well as levies (?ushr) on non-muslim merchants who are trading in the Dar al-Harb.

In practice, the word is applied to a special type of tax, levied upon the non-Muslim adult males living under an Islamic state.

After the Norman conquest of Sicily, taxes imposed on the Muslim minority were also called the "jizya".

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Lets look at how they define that term

compensation, reward, substitute, tribute, return.

Well we know from the Koran that there were many Jews and pagans living in Medina. We also know that they interacted with the prophet and that the prophet had political power over them to some degree. Yet there is no mentioning of Jizya except when the believers were just about to enter Mecca. Anotherwords Jizya in the Koran came when talking about the Meccans upon entering that city.

I don't know about you but i know if I was forced into exile and taken from my home and lost my possession and business and whatever else I had and suffered all those years from the pagans of Mecca because of my religious belief

9.13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe

I know I would want some compensation, some reward, some substitute, some tribute. Jizya is just like a war reperation and being compensated for damages. The believers entered Mecca where many of them came from, this is no conquest. Conquest(ghazu) has no mentioning in the Koran. Conquest is taking land that was never your homeland. In fact what the hadith tried to do was to pave a way for conquests. Then introduce taxes to create wealth. Take that and prisoners of war sold as slaves, you got yourself a pretty profitable scenario. No doubt all this was useful for the dictators.

It really show us how deviated some aspects of these Sects are.

DaresBears

The majority of people who talk about violent verses of the Qur'an are rampant Islamophobes with an agenda behind them, they don't listen to reason or logic because their mind is already made up, and they resort to the same tactics of posting verses out of context no matter how much you explain it to them, they even go so far as to claim context doesn't matter which is ridiculous. The whole, Robert Spencer, Jihadwatch, Geert Wilders crowd, it should just be ignored, intelligent people will seek answers from both sides, bigots with their minds made up will never listen.

Bigmo

The majority of people who talk about violent verses of the Qur'an are rampant Islamophobes with an agenda behind them, they don't listen to reason or logic because their mind is already made up, and they resort to the same tactics of posting verses out of context no matter how much you explain it to them, they even go so far as to claim context doesn't matter which is ridiculous. The whole, Robert Spencer, Jihadwatch, Geert Wilders crowd, it should just be ignored, intelligent people will seek answers from both sides, bigots with their minds made up will never listen.

Good point. This is why they try to delegitimize us because our Islam is harder to criticize. But then again the Islam that is dominant is an Islam that abroagted the concept of defensive war and replace it with offensive war and abrogated the freedom verses and replaced them with apostasy law. They then abrogated the eye for an eye law of proportional justice to an eye for an eye lash disporportionate jutice. They then abrogated the universal definition of who is a Muslim to a sectarian one.