Does Islam promote violence ?
 

[B]Does Islam promote violence?
[/B]

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.



[B]1. Verse from Surah Taubah
[/B]

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.


[B]3. Example of war between America and Vietnam
[/B]

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.


[B]4. Verse 9:5 quoted to boost morale of Muslims during battle
[/B]


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.


[B]5. Shourie jumps from verse 5 to verse 7
[/B]

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.


[B]6. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer
[/B]

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][This is an excerpt from Dr. Zakir Naik's Speech][/I]

@redmax
 

As a concept, it is never difficult to proclaim non voilence and equality and tolerance as the guiding principle of any religion including Islam. But the institution of Islam was never in accordance with the theoratical doctrine. Soon after Islam got hold over Arabia, the Muslims adopted a hegemonic and aggressive approach towards their neighboring states under the disguise of the term Jihad. The aggressor Muslims marched over almost every part of the then known land, everywhere the defenders were presented a humiliating set of offers:

1-Embrace Islam,
2-Pay tax, or
3-Fight

Any explanation?

Dont b passimistic
 

Neem hakeen khatra e jaan.
Bhai mere.dont go superficially.study islam deeply,u will com to know what islam is.why these three options were given..keep one thing in your mind .according to quran,this world is of allah and islam is the only religion to rule over the whole world either mushrakeens like it or not.take ur religion positively.got it????

Indonesia is the most concentrated muslim state have no historical evidence of entering any Muslim Army...Means a peaceful spread..:happy:

@drvalentino
 

Offensive remarks!! Isn't that??

Don't you think we should remain objective on this kind of discussions and our comment should be referring to the context rather than personalities.

But that kind of attitude is not shocking anyways. It is sad but we Muslims have always been less tolerant towards criticism. Just take the example of Christians. There are sects in Christianity who openly negate the virginity of Virgin Mary. Just compare their attitude with the history of sectarian violence in Pakistan.

No doubt christianity too has a long history of bitter sectarian conflicts and bloody holy wars and their present generally tolerant attitude is nothing but a product of a learning process that extends over several centuries. But the good thing is that they learnt from their mistakes --- and we should also learn from our mistakes.

I am hoping that next time you wont make such kind of humiliating personal remarks.

Finally, as i am also a Muslim like you, I want to say:"Baita tujhay itni islami kitabo kay naam nahi aatay hoon gay jitni main nay parhi hain."

@ Rameez Rao
 

Brother I agree to you but this is not the answer of my question.In Indonesia the process of spread of Islam was complicated and slow. In general the royalty of major kingdoms were the first to adopt the new religion in the early 13th century. Being a Royal religion it was spread more like the spread of Christianity in Europe under Constantine The Great.

However, it is a fact that Muslim warriors preceded the spread of the religion in countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and other countries of Middle east; in Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, and other countries of Northern Africa; in India; and in Spain.

But anyways I myself believe that it was the teachings of Islam and not the force which provided a premier contribution to the rapid growth of Islam. For example although Iran soon regained its sovereignty form Arab rule and reverted to its Persian culture but it didn't give up Islam.

My question was that while we criticize the expansive and aggressive designs of Israel, India, and America, then why we don't offer the same criticism for Arab of the early Islamic era?

[QUOTE=JazibRoomi;240618]As a concept, it is never difficult to proclaim non voilence and equality and tolerance as the guiding principle of any religion including Islam. But the institution of Islam was never in accordance with the theoratical doctrine. Soon after Islam got hold over Arabia, the Muslims adopted a hegemonic and aggressive approach towards their neighboring states under the disguise of the term Jihad. The aggressor Muslims marched over almost every part of the then known land, everywhere the defenders were presented a humiliating set of offers:

1-Embrace Islam,
2-Pay tax, or
3-Fight

Any explanation?[/QUOTE]

Jazib sb. you have come up with a scenario which was the preliminary days of islam and let me correct your history, the agressive and hegemonic approach which you mentioned was only after the declaration of ITMAM-E-HUJJAT and it was order from GOD as mentioned in Surah-e-Tauba. Again here the clarification is that the last messenger Muhammad (PBUH) when started to spread the word of GOD and ISLAM as the last religion, it was the times of Makka where prophet started peacefully and wrote letters to far flung kings. He never resorted to any voilance although He could have adopted way of voilance but did not. Then by working peacefully alot of resistance came from different circles mostly from those whom Quran regards them as mushrikeen-e-makka. It was due to the resistance of mushrikeen-e-makka that Muhammad (PBUH) migrated to Madina for the welfare of his own desciples and those who have accepted Islam so they can live in peace and harmony and spread the word of God. It was there in Madina, a perfect example of completely brotherhood, that Ansar of madina and the migrants from Makkah tied up in a brotherly relation due to preachings of Islam.

Here comes your question that why then Muhammad (PBUH) attacked mushrikeen-e-makka?

The answer is that migration was an order from GOD to give the mushriks time so they can consolidate and think over the finality of Muhammad as the last prophet. When this time was passed, which is called ITMAM-E-HUJJAT, then in surah tauba the order came that now mushrikeen-e-makka have fully understand but they are not accepting ISLAM and Muhammad as final prophet of God with his revelation. It was only then that Muhammad with his force attacked the mushrikeen-e-makka and when finally Fateh-e-Makka happened, prophet has announced a general pardon to all those who accepted Islam.

This was the order of events, there is no case mentioned in Quran which can second that Islam has resorted to aggression and tried to enforce its hegemony over its co-religionist.

A definition of Mushrik is the one who understand very well that Islam is the final religion and Muhammad (PBUH) is the final messenger from God BUT did not accept it.Quran regarded them as Mushrik.

I hope this clears the confusion and justifies the voilance which you have mentioned. If you posses any differences I would like to debate on it.

@Sakk
 

O man!!!!!!!! don't you think I put forward rather a simple question and your reply was extremely complicated.

Anyhow here goes that the thing i never sought for, that is, the debate:

All I got from you is that:

1- Islam presents the only acceptable set of beliefs and prayers and lifestyle
for every human being.
2- From now (at the announcement of Islam as the Final Religion) onwards,
the human beings will be classified into two categories: those who believe
(Muslims) and those who do not believe (Mushriks).
3- The Prophet after doing his best to preach the religion declares ITMAAM E
HUJJAT
4- After this declaration, it is now legal to set war on those who still are
adamant not to embrace Islam and this is the "Order of The God"


My God .... that seems more like "Al Qaeda's Declaration" and it can only be followed by suicide bombers who i am not.

Khuda ka Khoof karo bhai. Jahan tak mera knowledge hay islamic history kay baray main ,I must say Muslims have never been that much violent as much you made them.

But still they aggresed.

Finally, let me clarify that in my earlier post, I made no comment about Prophet Muhammad. I am well aware of the self defense (which is legal even according to UN charter: article 51) nature of his wars against Meccans. I questioned about that history of aggression which started at a full fledged pace during Umer's Caliphate and perfected by the Ummayad Caliph Waleed Bin Abdul Malik.

So my earlier question is still there. Why Muslims went on conquering state after state in much the same ways as Alexander the Great or Chengez Khan or Adlof Hitler did. Who devised this scheme and why? If they wanted to spread the message of God why did they not go the way Pope Paul or Buddha went --- and went successfully.

Jaazib, we need more Muslims like you who follow the Sunnah. These other guys are on the path of Yazid and Bani Ummayah, thinking about war and empires.

@ roomi
 

Brother,
may b,m offensive but sorry to say,u hav no temperament to tolerate.u love christians,their sects,their ways,u lov paul and budha,go for it.m really astonished on the example that u quoted..i.e virginity...dont u ever read abt charter of medina,conquest of medina,dealings with ambassadors,rights of human beings on equal basis.
whom u r gonna follow,those who did not take bath all of the life.analyse,they r no more religious.christianity does not prevail in their souls and system..bhai ap ne ziada books parhi ho gi i believe but thora samajh k parha karain,ziada faida ho ga...criticise us cheez ko karo jahan criticism karna banta ha.overclever hona .not good..sorry brother,if u mind my harsh words but these r really true.