Salam Everyone!
An American friend of mine and I got into a verbal argument in which his contention was that Islam and Muhammed promote muslims to be violent! I told him to write it up and I will get people that are more knowledgeable to correct his misconceptions… Could those of you that are somewhat knowledgeable please critique what he has to say!
Ps. Some things are obviously wrong! … that even i know! Here it is anyhow:
#####################################################
Before I begin, let me briefly state that I am not in any way attacking Islam; I aim merely to state what is, to reach a truth about history that does not cater to Muslims or Christians, but merely states what has happened. Therefore, none of the sources I cite are from Christians or Muslims, but from secular scholars and experts who have no religious affiliation. I hope the following can be considered honestly and not merely disregarded because it may not be what one wants to hear.
The translation of the Koran I will use was translated into English, directly from the original Arabic, by J.M. Rodwell in 1861. The historical accounts I will be referring to are according to Alan Jones, a professor at Pembroke College, Oxford, who edited the Koran I quote from, has taught Arabic and Islamic Studies since 1957 and is a specialist in pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabic and in Quranic Studies.
Violence has been the means that Islam has used to achieve its goals since its very inception. Muhammad himself was the first to invoke and condone violence to get his way. After his revelations from Gabriel, Muhammad was convinced that he was a prophet and began to convert friends and family to Islam. He lived in Mecca, but when he started to preach in public he was viewed with disdain. The people of Mecca were affluent merchants; some were Christians, some were Jews, but most were pagan idol-worshipers that had grown rich on trade. They did not want to listen to Muhammad’s message and did not like hearing him preach. In our own day we would say that they have a right to not believe in Islam, but Muhammad believed that they did not have that right.
Because he could not convert anymore people from Mecca to Islam, he and his followers (two-hundred or so) left Mecca and went to live with some tribes that lived in the surrounding lands. He was hired as a mediator between two warring tribes and managed to get them to be friends by converting them to Islam. After a while his eyes fell upon Mecca again. Since the Meccans were idol worshipers and had resisted Islam, Muhammad decided that it would be easier for him to spread his faith if Mecca was no longer there. And so in 624 A.D., Muhammad and his small band of Muslims began to attack Meccan trading caravans to try to seize the booty and keep it from the Meccans.[1]
Not long afterwards, a large caravan that had just finished trading in Syria was on its way back to Mecca. The goods and money it carried were incredibly valuable to the Meccans, and so they sent a force of 1000 men to protect it. The Muslims attacked the caravan and defeated the Meccans, 300 against 1000 in March of 624.[2] This had been the first open violence between Mecca and Islam, and Muhammad was the one to strike the first blow.
They then attacked and crushed a group of Jews that lived nearby, which increased their popularity with the local Arabs, who hated the Jews, bringing Muhammad more converts.[3] After this open aggression by Muhammad and his Muslims, Mecca mounted an offensive against Muhammad in 625. They defeated the Muslims, even wounding Muhammad, but did not utterly destroy the Muslims, which ended up being their downfall much later. Realizing that they would never be at peace with the Muslims, the Meccans laid siege to Medina (where the Muslims were staying), but finding the siege too difficult, retreated. Some Jews in Medina, called the Banu Qurayza tribe, were accused of having Meccan sympathies. In response, Muhammad slaughtered all the men and enslaved the women and children.[4]
Since the Muslims had grown to be so large so fast, the Meccans decided that it was wisest to make a deal with the Muslims. The Meccans allowed Muhammad and his Muslims to enter Mecca for three days during the yearly pilgrimage, and vacated the city during those days. In 629, just before the pilgrimage began, Muhammad led his Muslims in a battle against the city of Khaybar, which was largely Jewish, and included many Jewish refugees that had been forced out of Medina by Muhammad already. When Khaybar resisted the Muslims, the city was overtaken by force and the Jews were driven out or killed. Muhammad’s policy of capturing strategic cities in and around Media had two aims; “control of strategic routes and direct contact with northern tribes to convert them to Islam.”[5]
Because of Muhammad’s success in conquering the nearby Arabs and in fear of him, many Arabs throughout the region sent delegations to bargain an alliance. Muhammad was very willing to make an allegiance, as long as one condition was met: that they would convert to Islam.
[FONT=Times New Roman]Towards the end of 629, the Meccans broke their agreement with the Muslims, which gave Muhammad an excuse to attack the city. He assembled a very large army and set out for Mecca. When he reached the city he threatened to attack them, and out of fear the Meccans surrendered the city to the Muslims.[6]
After Mecca fell, there were only a few tribes in and around Medina that had not yet been assimilated, and Muhammad set his eyes on them. In the succeeding years he conquered the towns of al-Ta’if and Hawazin. He crushed Hawazin in a pitched battle and besieged al-Ta’if, but the siege was fruitless and the Muslims ended up taking the city by negotiations.
The preceding was the account by Alan Jones, and to be fair it is the account of just one man (a man who has devoted is life to the study and teaching of Islamic history.) And so I will find another source and see if it agrees with Mr. Jones. The following is taken from a secular college textbook on the history of western civilization, as told by Jackson J. Spielvogel.[7] Mr. Spielvogel is an associate professor of history at The Pennsylvania State University and got his Ph. D from The Ohio State University. He has been published in many academic journals and has co-written dozens of books. He has won five major university-wide teaching awards. He has held the Penn State Teaching Fellowship, which is the university’s most prestigious teaching award.
According to Mr. Spielvogel, “[Muhammad’s] political and military skills enabled him to put together a reliable military force, with which he returned to Mecca in 630, conquering the city and converting the townspeople to the new faith.”[8] In order to spread Islam throughout the Arab world, “Muhammad and the early caliphs who succeeded him took up the Arab tribal custom of making raids against one’s enemies. The Quran called this activity ‘striving in the way of the Lord,’ or a jihad.”[9] Since his is a textbook on the whole of western civilization, Mr. Spielvogel does not go into as much detail as Mr. Jones does, but instead covers all Islamic history. He recounts battle after battle, where Muslims, like Muhammad before them, took nation after nation until they secured for themselves dominion of the entire Byzantine Empire. It was the Muslims who brought the Eastern Roman Empire down by defeating Persia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt, sacking Constantinople in 1453.
When desiring to point out the sins of Christians, many people love to mention the crusades. I believe that the crusades were wrong and should never have happened. The fact was that the nations in power at the time used Christianity as a means to get a war going, since it was profitable for them. But one distinction I would like to point out is that the crusades were run by men who did not have an understanding of Christianity and had been obsessed with their own traditions. Jesus was not a violent man and never condoned violence, and there is no place in the New Testament where one could ever get the idea to attack and kill a people simply for not being Christians. If anything we are to love all people, regardless of faith. That is why the crusades were wrong, because they violated that Christianity they supposedly represented. But I might add here that, in truth, the crusades were a response to Muslim aggression, for in 1070 the Muslims conquered Jerusalem and crushed Byzantium at Manzikert a year later.[10]
But now I suppose I must turn to the Koran itself. According to Alan Jones, the Koran is a beautifully written book of poetry that was meant to be read to an audience, and is one of the most fantastic works of literature ever to come out of the Arab world. Much of the book retells many stories from the Bible, for Muhammad, having supposedly never ready the Bible or Torah himself, questioned many Jewish and Christian peoples he conquered and heard biblical stories. He then retold them in the Koran and added too them, or rearranged the stories so as to sound better poetically. In addition, there is much in the Koran that is in neither the Christian New Testament, nor the Jewish Torah. Muhammad regards Jesus as a mere prophet, like himself, and considers himself Jesus’ successor. He believes in the virgin birth and in Jesus’ death and resurrection, but also believes that Jesus then died of natural causes many years after his resurrection. Whereas Christians believe that Jesus is God Himself, Muhammad taught that Jesus was a mere prophet.[11]
Due to the translation of the Koran from Arabic to English, the Koran lost much of its impact and force. Let us not confuse, however, “impact and force” with “meaning”. It is my belief that, when arguing about religion, many people find it far too easy to simply dismiss an opponent’s argument based on language translation alone, using the excuse, “the interpretation is corrupt, imperfect, the meaning has changed, the translator changed some things,” and so forth. But we rarely have such issues brought forth when dealing with translations of other historical texts, like the Iliad or the Odyssey for instance. This, then, is hypocritical, and the argument is merely a crutch used by those who do not want to believe what they are hearing, regardless of its truth. Since we are all honest men here, I know that this will not happen. The meaning of a document more often than not will stay the same regardless of the language it is written in, for words are simply ideas expressed in varying ways, and it doesn’t matter which word is used to spark an idea in a mind, just as long as that idea is sparked. I also argue that there are many verses in both the Koran and the Bible that cannot be misinterpreted, no matter how much people would like to say they could. For example, there is a very short verse in the Bible which says, “Jesus wept.”[12]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftn12) Its meaning cannot be misunderstood. Similarly, there are just as many verses in the Koran—as in any ancient document—that simply cannot be misinterpreted and mean exactly what they say. I will add that the man who translated the Koran, Mr. Rodwell, and his editor, Mr. Jones, have dedicated their lives to the scholarly pursuit of Islam. It would not be in their interests to poorly translate the Koran, for they would then lose credibility. The translation I am using is considered one of the most credible and scholarly translations to have ever been written in English. So then, I urge those who read the following verses to be honest and realize that, even though it is written in English, it is still a credible, true account of what the Koran says.
Much of what it says is very forceful, and it uses strong language to command, denounce and proclaim. Even still, “there are passages too numerous to mention about fighting the infidel and the sharing of booty.”[13] Because of this, I cannot recount them all here, but I will cite a few of the most plain commands to Muslims to kill or forcibly convert Christians and Jews.
“And when the sacred months[14] are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pray the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful.” (Sura 9:5) “When thy Lord spake unto the angels, ‘I will be with you: therefore stablish ye the faithful. I will cast a dread into the hearts of the infidels.’ Strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every finger-tip.” (Sura 8:12)
“Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand,[15] and they are humbled.” (Sura 9:29) “Believers! Wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbors, and let them find you rigorous and know that God is with them who fear him.” (Sura 9:124)
“O Believers! Take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If any one of you taketh them for his friends, he surely is one of them! God will not guide the evil doers.” (Sura 5:56)
The next verses are about the treatment of slave women. The Koran clearly gives Muslims the ability to not only own slaves but have sex with them as well. “Forbidden to you also are married women, except those who are in your hands as slaves.” (Sura 4:28) “Happy now the believers, Who humble them in their prayers, And who keep aloof from vain words, And who are doers of alms deeds, And who restrain their appetites (Save with their wives, or the slaves whom their right hands possess: for in that case they shall be free from blame: But they whose desires reach further than this are transgressors:)” (Sura 23:1-7)
I will leave it at that for now. I believe the examples I have provided are sufficient. I want to make clear that I in no way consider all Muslims—nor even the majority of them—as extreme fascists who are trying to take over the world. I know that Islam can be and has been practiced peacefully, and that Muslims are often very good, honest, decent human beings that are just as loved by God as any other people. But the pure and simple truth of the matter is that Islam and its founder have a history of violent conversion, and that the Koran not only condones violence but orders Muslims to forcibly convert or kill infidels, calling out Jews and Christians by name.
It is true that the Old Testament of the Bible recounts much violence. But the difference is that God, in the Torah, was speaking to a very specific group of people (Israelites), not the whole world, and telling them to attack another certain group of people (Philistines, Hittites, Canaanites and so forth; there is never anywhere in the Bible that tells Jews to attack Muslims or Christians, and nowhere in the Bible that tells Christians to attack Jews or Muslims.) In the Koran, Muhammad or Allah are speaking to Muslims, all Muslims, and telling them to attack Christians and Jews, unless they convert. In addition, Christians are under a new covenant, called the New Testament; you could say that Judeo-Christian thought reformed itself when Jesus came onto the scene by shunning violence and promoting love and peace, even between enemies. If Islam is to be practiced peacefully, the religion must be reformed as well. One cannot argue that Islam has always been peaceful and has never instigated violence, for it is simply untrue. One cannot argue that the Koran is a book of peace and that it does not order its followers to kill unbelievers, for it is simply untrue. The step a Muslim must take if he wants to justify his religion is to admit these things and put them behind him, change the Koran and reform his faith. Otherwise it will remain a religion that desires to convert the world to Islam by any means necessary.
[1]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref1) Alan Jones, Introduction to The Koran as translated by J.M. Rodwell. (Vermont: Tuttle Publishing, 1994). xvi
[2]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref2)Jones, xvi
[FONT=Times New Roman][3]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref3)[FONT=Times New Roman] Jones, xvi
[FONT=Times New Roman][4]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref4)[FONT=Times New Roman] Jones, xvii
[FONT=Times New Roman][5]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref5)[FONT=Times New Roman] Jones, xvii
[FONT=Times New Roman][6]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref6)[FONT=Times New Roman] Jones, xviii
[7]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref7)Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization. (California: Wadsworth, 2001).
[8]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref8) Spielvogel, 204
[FONT=Times New Roman][9]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref9)[FONT=Times New Roman] Spielvogel, 205
[10] Bradley and David Nystrom, The History of Christianity. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004). 163
[11]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref11) Jones, xxiii
[FONT=Times New Roman][12]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref12)[FONT=Times New Roman] John 11:35
[FONT=Times New Roman][13]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref13)[FONT=Times New Roman] Jones, xxv
[14]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref14) “Shawal, Dhu’lkaada, dhu’lhajja, and Muharram. These months were observed by the Arabians previous to the time of Muhammad.”
[15]](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=265#_ftnref15) “Or,* by right of subjection*, Sale; in cash,…” That is, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
