1. The Qur'an is Infallible
Muhammad is the last of God's prophets. Unlike the progression in the Bible from Old Testament to New, there can never be a new covenant between Allah and Muslims because the Qur'an teaches Muslims that Muhammad was the seal of the prophets. Comparisons between the violence in the Qur'an and the Bible deal almost exclusively with the Old Testament, but because Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, there is no way to reform the Qur'an by presenting a new interpretation of God's laws, such as happened with the introduction of a pacifist Christ to the Bible.
2. Abrogation
To the Muslim, the Qur'an contains no contradictions. How can God contradict Himself? There are merely instances where God sent down a commandment and then at a later time changed his mind about it. This is known as abrogation.
The tone of Muhammad's revelations changed drastically after the hegira (migration) to Yathrib (pre-Islamic Medina), where he established a base of power, complete with a substancial and ever-growing treasury and a consideral number of soldiers to fight at his call. Previous to this, Muhammad wished deeply for the pagans, Christians, and Jews to believe in his message and convert to Islam. He needed them. Thus, there are several verses in the Qur'an which appear to show tolerance and respect towards the People of the Book (Jews and Christians):
This of course is in contradiction to several other verses, one in which Allah turns the Jews into apes and pigs; another, here, which warns Muslims against taking Jews and Christians as friends and allies:
As those of us aware of the example of the Jews of the Banu Qurayza and the Banu Nadir know well, being one of them had become unpleasant towards the end of Muhammad's life. Indeed, anyone who is considered to have turned their backs on Islam, whether it be to make friends with Jews or Christians, or to leave Islam completely, or even to call into question a single commandment of God's, is punishable by death by Islamic law--the Word of God and the example of Muhammad. For example:
There are dozens of Qur'anic verse and hadith which seem to contradict the five tolerant verses quoted previously. Where does this fall into place? To understand this we must understand the concept of abrogation and then view the revelations in the (theoretical) order in which they were recieved. Abrogation, put in simple terms, means that God decided to change his mind and replaced an earlier revelation with one that is alike to it or better:
When you open up a Qur'an you see that it is divided into 114 surahs (chapters). There are no other divisions to it, like there is the Old and New Testament of the Bible, for example. After the first surah, which is kind of like a Lord's Prayer of Islam, all chapters are presented from longest surah ("The Cow, 286 verses) to the shortest ("Mankind", 6 verses). But to Islamic jurists, there are different periods of revelation, and two distinct tones to the commandments revealed in these respective periods.
Scholars differ on the exact chronology of the surahs. Theodore Noldeke's is the widest accepted presentation, found here. All scholars, however, divide the surahs into Meccan and Medinan periods. With hardly an exception, all of the tolerant, peaceful verses appear in the earlier Meccan surahs. Muhammad was a wannabe prophet, in a city full of pagans, Jews, and Christians with their own accepted, established religious practices. He needed them to listen to them. The original qiblah (direction faced when praying) was towards Jerusalem, not Mecca. Muhammad had to deal with the various tauntings and abuses meted out by the people of his city, particularly the pagans who ran the city, since the kabaa was a source of wealth due to pilgrims and merchants who often stopped there as they traveled between Syria and Yemen. Thus the verses he "recieved" in Mecca were often warnings to mankind and pleas for them to listen to God's final prophet. Islamic jurists often explain the peaceful tone of the Meccan verses due to Muhammad's lack of power, as explained in the following Qur'anic verse:
In Medina, Muhammad becomes powerful. His raids on Meccan caravans bring him growing wealth and prestige, and a greater following. In medieval Arabia, concepts of right and wrong were associated with victory and defeat. Those who were right were victorious; those who were wrong were defeated. Muhammad was usually victorious.
As his following grew with each military victory and his ever growing treasury, his need for Jews and Christians and pagans to hear him lessened to the point where he had no need for them at all, and in fact felt them deserving of his now powerful wrath. Thus verses towards disbelievers become increasingly vicious and hateful, ending with surah 5, which commands Muslims to never take Jews and Christians for friends and protectors. This follows chapter 9, which exhorts Muslims to kill the Mushrikun (pagans, idolatators, disbelievers in Allah) wherever they can be found using every method of warfare...until they pay the poll tax in humiliation recognizing the superiority of Islam. Note the contrast between the five tolerant verses above and the numerous verses below:
Thus the rare tolerant verses found in the Qur'an were all replaced, or abrogated, by the myriad, frequent violent, hateful verses revealed at later dates, and it is these later verses which Muslim scholars throughout history have taken to be the authority. Again, it is important to note that individual Muslims, by their own ability to reason, have the power to decide for themselves how to interpret Islamic doctrine. Many of them, particularly in the West, may not even be aware of abrogation, or recognize its importance. They may think that where the Qur'an contradicts itself, the Muslim is free to choose which idea to latch onto. The point is, as always, that what we in the West consider to be the "extreme" or "radical" interpretation is only extreme or radical in contrast with our own Western sense of morality; it is still a correct way of looking at it, and, with the example of Muhammad's life in mind, probably the most accurate. It is not extreme at all, not when taken in context with scripture.
Context
Jihad is a term that is hotly debated and widely misunderstood, even by many of today's Muslims. Does it mean "holy war"? "Struggle"? What is the difference between the lesser jihad and the greater jihad? What is the real meaning of the jihad verses in the Qur'an? Can we ignore them or relativise them? What is their proper context?
Jihad is often considered the "sixth pillar" of Islam. It comes from the Arabic verb jahada, which means "he strove". Jihad is often referred to as "struggle" or "striving" in the way of God. It can mean different things, one of which can be deemed "holy fighting", the concept of which is far more prevalent in Islamic texts than the so-called "greater" jihad.
The hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim contain entire books on jihad, and the Qur'an is littered with verses devoted to it. It's not a pretty sight. The first verse of the Qur'an that deals with jihad is 002.190, for which the Qur'an translated by Al-Hilali and Khan provides the following footnote:
This footnote is known as tafsir, or Qur'anic commentary, which provides the Muslim with the proper interpretation and context of Qur'anic verse. Since Al-Hilali and Khan could easily be dismissed as extreme, radical, or just plain wrong by someone who is not aware of Islamic scripture (or is lying through his teeth), let's provide our own context to that footnote by quoting directly from the Qur'an and the hadith and using our own common sense. Al-Hilali and Khan tell us that By Jih�d Islam is established, All�h�s Word is made superior, and His religion (Islam) is propagated. This sentence is of utmost importance and is pivotal to Islam.
First, there are two verses in the Qur'an which basically say the same thing: Fight the disbelievers until only Allah is worshipped:
Those familiar with the various English interpretations may have noticed that the term fitnah is a source of confusion. I currently have access to, either in print or on the internet, five interpretations of the Qur'an--Marmaduke Mohammad Pickthall, M. H. Shakir, Yusuf Ali, Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali & Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, and N.J. Dawood; of these five, only the Al-Hilali/Khan Qur'an leaves the Arabic term fitnah in the verse and adds their own interpretation. Compare and contrast:
Obviously Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Shakir translate fitnah to mean tumult, oppression, and persecution; Dawood translates it to mean idolatry, whereas Khan/Al-Hilali interpret it to mean disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides All�h. This is important, because two translations show a commandment that declares anyone who does not worship Allah an enemy that must be fought against, while the other three make it seem as though Allah orders Muslims to fight only those who persecute or oppress them. Which is correct? And how does Islam define 'persecution' and 'oppression'?
Interpretations of verse are not always trustworthy. Muslim interpreters and propagandists have the luxury of knowing that the vast majority of Westerners cannot read or speak Arabic, thus they are free to decieve us as they will. Fortunately for us, the Khan/Hilali Qur'an often intermixes Arabic terminology where they apparently feel the English translation is inappropriate or inadequate, and these terms often provide insight where other translations confuse. So we focus on source of the confusion, the Arabic word fitnah. According to T.S. Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, fitnah is defined as sedition (incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority); strife (bitter sometimes violent conflict or dissension); commotion (a condition of civil unrest or insurrection), a term specially used for those wars and commotions which shall precede the Resurrection[LINK].
This suggests that fitnah represents a challenge to lawful authority--Allah's authority--and has nothing to do with persecution or oppression, unless you view it from Allah's point of view, which suggests that not recognizing His authority and hindering others from the Truth is persecution inandof itself.
Further, if this commandment is merely a call to self-defense, then why does Allah order Muslims to fight disbelievers until Islam is the only religion left standing? Two out of the four translations say specifically that Islam must reign supreme throughout the whole of the world; altogether and everywhere. There is no room for negotiation or an alternative end to the hostilities, except of course that any surviving disbelievers repent and convert to Islam. Indeed, the Qur'an and the tradition firmly establishes that there are only three choices disbelievers face: death, subjugation and humiliation, or conversion:
[MUSLIM 019.4294] It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.
Ironically, the same apologists who claim violent verses are taken out of context are quick to quote "peaceful" passages out of context. No other verse epitomizes this better than verse 005.052, which states that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. But when read with the following two verses, we see that the context of this verse makes it among the more disturbing passages in the Qur'an:
The context of this is not a call to reject violence, but a warning to Jews: obey Muhammad or face a terrible torment in this world and the next. Ibn Kathir, among the most venerable tafsir commentators in Islam, cites hadith explaining that the commandment not to kill is applicable to Muslims only; those who "spread mischief in the land" (hinder people from the truth (ie. Islam)--the disbelievers) are not protected. Similarly, there is no doubt that the context of verse 008.039 is that Allah is commanding Muslims to wage jihad until Allah alone is worshipped. That no God has a right to be worshipped but Allah (L� ilaha illall�h) is the foundation of jihad. Any other justification is a distraction; a convenient excuse.
Even if the context of these verses were in doubt, the hadith solidifies their context once and for all. Several verses of Bukhari and Muslim expand on 002.193 and 008.039:
This is one of the most well-attested traditions of the prophet. Bukhari quotes Muhammad as saying this 5 times; Muslim 3 times, and Abu Dawud once, all through different chains of narration (one example can be found here). This means that either Muhammad said it often or to many people or both. Several traditions tell us of a man who came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." Clearly the word "fight" is taken to mean "wage war", as Muhammad refers to the way disbelievers can "save their lives and property" from him. We're not talking about "fight" as in "fight global poverty" or "fight against bigotry." As I will show below, Muhammad did not err, nor was he guided by human emotions or desires; he served God faithfully and is a "beautiful pattern to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah." These verses in particular establish Islam's goal of global domination: NO ONE has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and Muslims have been ordered by Allah to fight the disbelievers until the people testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God.
4. The Sunnah: Muhammad's Example
The Sunnah clarifies alot that may be confusing or vague about the Qur'an, and is essential when dictating shari'a law. A proper fatwa must cite both the Qur'an and the sunnah. Anyone who claims there is no violence in the Qur'an is not only a liar but is also intentionally ignoring the violence and debauchery of Muhammad's example that make the violence contained therein all the more worse.
Essentially, the sunnah, as presented by the hadith and the sira, allows for every conceivable act of debauchery and what we consider today to be criminality, with the exception of cannibalism. Imagine every form of crime against humanity, from pedophilia to rape to mass murder: Muhammad is guilty by way of Islam's most authentic texts.
It is no surprise that many Western "Muslims" attempt to dismiss the sunnah as part of Islam, as if the Qur'an by itself were an example of love and tolerance. However, historically the sunnah has been part of Islam, and is a major factor in Islam's terrible history.
Besides clarifying actual commandments in the Qur'an, the sunnah provides other elements of Islamic law that are not found in the Qur'an. Because Muhammad's example is perfect, anything and everything he did in life is not only completely acceptable but often required. For example, proper conduct during the hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) is found in the sunnah. Unfortunately, Muhammad was almost completely morally bankrupt. He married a 6 year old girl (Aisha) and had sex with her when she was nine. Thus, there is a chapter in Sahih Muslim titled It is permissible for the father to give the hand of his daughter in marriage even when she is not fully grown up [LINK]
Muhammad had poets who mocked him in verse murdered. We see this example in contemporary times in the murder of Theo van Gogh, and we understand why people like Ayan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, and Salman Rushdie, to cite but a few examples of authors critical of Islam, live in perpetual danger--in Warraq's case, he lives under a pseudonym.
Muhammad raped his captive females and encouraged his followers to do the same. Muhammad's men came upon a group of women who had been captured, and they desired them greatly. It was forbidden that a pregnant woman be sold, and for this reason they were reluctant to touch them. For some reason they felt it was OK to consult the prophet of God about whether or not it was permitted to rape their captives. Several well-founded hadiths in both Bukhari and Muslim speak of Muhammad's reaction:
This crime is sanctioned by the Qur'an, which instructs Muslims that all married women are forbidden to them, except "those whom your right hand possesses. Thus has Allah ordained for you." (Q 004.024). The context of that verse is provided in the hadiths above, as well as:
These examples do not begin to scratch the surface of the cruelty recounted in the prophetic tradition.
5. Islam's Historical Mainstream
The Crusades were the result of 450+ years of jihad against Christians.
The cruelty of the Ottoman Empire is one of the great untold--or should I say covered up--stories in history. If Islam is a religion of peace why has it ALWAYS been associated with war? Why did the first Rightly Guided caliph, Abu Bakr, make war on apostates after the death of the prophet? Why did he and his successors, particularly Umar, make perpetual war upon the neighbors of the new Islamic state? How did that state begin simply with Mecca and Medina and then, by the time all of Rightly Guided were dead, cover Egypt to Persia; Palestine to the Caucasus? (For a bibliographical survey of Islamic history, see here)
Islam is a religion that was created by 7th century bedouins for 7th century bedouins. It was not meant to be practiced in our 21st century world. The conquests undertaken by the early Muslims would have taken place without Islam, but that way of life--murder, pillage, rape--was forever preserved and encouraged by the religion given to it.
The notion of a tolerant, multi-cultural, pluralistic Islam crumbles to dust upon careful examination of Islamic texts as well as an honest, unrefined, politically-incorrect look at its history. Wherever Islam has clashed with other cultures, whatever record there is of peaceful co-existance is far outweighed by the record of human tragedy.
With these five concepts in hand, there is no way to defend Islam against the violence committed in its name. It is sanctioned by scripture, and has a long and vigorous history. Islam has not nor will it reform. Who among the faithful would dare "reform" the Word of God, Creator of the universe and all that is in it--not just matter and energy, time and space, but also concepts of right and wrong, just and unjust? Who would dare call God immoral?