"You shall destroy all the peoples ... showing them no pity." (7: 16) "... All the people present there shall serve you as forced labour." (20:12) "... You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town – all its spoil – and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you." (20:14-15) "... You shall not let a soul remain alive." (20:17) All these quotations are from the part of the Old Testament called the Torah (Deuteronomy), a scripture that is holy to both Jews and Christians. But very few people, especially in academia or even in popular culture, would sanely suggest that the Torah sanctions violence. The reason of course is that these verses and others much like them are subject to various interpretation and contextual assumptions. So why there is a wide perception that the Qur'an sanctions violence? Like the Torah, the Qur'an contains a number of verse references which address states of war. And also like the Torah and the wider Old Testament canon, those Quranic verses have been taken out of context and subjected to tragic misinterpretation and misrepresentation. They have been intentionally misused by some Muslims and non-Muslims alike to advance wholly political agendas, with total disregard for accompanying teachings that overwhelmingly condemn self-aggrandising militarism and offensive war-mongering. The Qur'an repeatedly emphasises that defensive war -- fighting to protect oneself against invading enemies -- is the only kind of combat sanctioned (2:190 - 191). In numerous other examples, it teaches that the use of force should be a last resort (2:192; 4:90); that normal relations between peoples, nations and states, whether Muslim or not, should be peaceful (49:13); that necessary wars must be limited in time and space (2:190); that maximum effort must be applied at all times to advance the cause of peace (10:25); that whatever means are undertaken to work for peace during a conflict (such as mediation and arbitration) must be attempted over and over again until resolution is achieved (8:61); that freedom of religion must be granted to everyone (2:256), and so on. As with any Holy Book, every verse of the Qur'an must be read and interpreted within its own context and against the background of the Qur'an as a whole. For example, those Quranic verses which condone Muslims fighting non-Muslims (9:5, 29 and 36), are not directed against the non-Muslims for being outside the faith, but because those non-Muslims were aggressors and/or transgressors (evil-doers). But if taken alone, and interpreted in isolation, such verses could lead one to believe that the Qur'an advocates war-like relations between Muslims and non-Muslims until the latter surrender or convert. So widespread are such de-contextualised assumptions that one Qur'an verse (9:5) was mislabelled "the Sword Verse." When viewed against more than 100 other parallel Quranic verses, such extreme interpretations of these statements invalidate their own logic. For example, one of the most fundamental Quranic teachings is, "There shall be no coercion in matters of faith" (2:256), which lays down categorically that any attempt at the forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited and condemned. This precludes any legitimate possibility of true Muslims demanding or expecting that a defeated enemy should embrace Islam as the price for immunity or mercy. Thus, the dangerously extremist interpretation that a state of war is normal between Muslims and non-Muslims is an exaggerated exception, expressed by a very small minority of scholars, among them the Egyptian Sayed Qutb, in his book of Quranic interpetation entitled, "Fe-zelal-al-Qur'an". In actual fact, his views were at odds with the prevailing opinions of his peers, including Abdo, Rida, Al-Gazali, Draaz, Khallaf, Shaltout, el-Khoudry, and many other respected scriptural authorities. Great damage to Quranic understanding was done, however, by the western Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, who consulted only Qutb's interpretations in his book, The Political Language of Islam, where he wrote that, "According to the jurists, the natural and permanent relationship between the world of Islam and the world of the unbelievers was one of open or latent war, and there could, therefore, be no peace and no treaty. Truces and temporary agreements were, however, possible, and for these the jurists found precedent even in the Qur'an." Both the Qutb and Lewis interpretations are dangerous in their narrow focus and selectivity, not only for Muslims today, but for world peace at any time. By contrast, Prof. Mohamed el-Gazali in his book, 100 Questions on Islam, recounted how Imam Ibn Taymia, well known for his conservative views on Quranic interpretation, addressed the crucial question "Should Muslims fight non-Muslims because they are transgressors, or because they are non-Muslims?" Ibn Taymia responded categorically (and similarly to the majority of scholars – including Imam Malik, Ahmed, and Abo Hanifa) that, "It is because they are transgressors, not because they are non-Muslims." He also added that only a small minority of interpreters, such as Imam el-Shafee, insisted on viewing war as acceptable for the sole reason that one's opponents are non-Muslims. Ibn Taymia agreed with the interpretation of the majority because he believed it was right in the light of the whole Qur'an. Today, those who assert that the Qur'an advocates war against non-Muslims are also notoriously selective. Take, for example, the use of 4:74, which states that those who fight in the cause of God will be rewarded. And the quote often conveniently stops there. But the following verse (4:75) explains that Muslims are only allowed to fight those oppressors who directly attack them, especially those who oppressing the most vulnerable among them; old men, women, and children For the last 1400 years, Muslims and their religious scholars have dealt – and are still dealing – with the important question of how much of the Qur'an is binding on Muslims at all times and how much of its teachings apply only to the age of the Prophet Mohamed and the particular circumstances in which he and his followers lived. This is a continually difficult question, but one on which impressive scholarly work has been done; more yet is needed. To be continued next week.
