Justification for war and violence in the Quran

[sayak83]

Verses 190-194 in the Cow Surah (2nd one) is much discussed in the context of legitimizing war and violence in the Quran. So I thought I would put up a seperate thread on the topic in addition to the general one (LINK). Here is an online version
Surah Al-Baqarah [2:190]

But I will put in the translation from Harper Collins Study Quran and Abdel Haleem:-

Fight in the way of God those who fight against you, but do not transgress. God does not love transgressors.
And slay them wheresoever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you, for strife/persecution/temptation/sedition (fitnah) is worse than slaying.
But do not fight with them near the sacred mosque until they fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the recompense for disbelievers. But if they desist, then truly Allah is forgiving and Merciful.
Fight them until there is no more strife (fitnah) and worship is devoted to Allah. But if they desist, then there is no more enmity save against the wrongdoers.
A sacred month for a sacred month and retribution for forbidden things. So whosoever transgresses against you, transgress against him in a like manner, and reverence God, and know that God is with the reverent.


Certain basic points.
Islam is not a pacifist religion as it clearly calls for violent resistance and war for any violence done to them.

Quran forbids Muslims from being aggressors.

However it believes in a "if you slap me, I slap you back equally hard" doctrine in which any perceived transgression against Muslims is to be responded with a retaliation of equal magnitude.

Furthermore Quran rejects the notion of "limited warfare" explicitly saying that the killing of war can be brought be bear to any place wherever the unbelievers who are party to the war are located.

Finally Quran believes in high intensity warfare. The only acceptable conclusions of war are:-
1) The warring unbelievers sign a peace treaty with the Muslims. The peace treaty is to be followed but the specific people whom Muslims believed were responsible for the aggression/transgression will have to be punished (probably with death) in any such peace treaty.
2) No peace treaty but outright conquest. Then the war and killing is to be continued till all sedition, resistance and unbelief are exterminated and the entire conquered nation have become Muslim and follow the Quran.

I well let everybody judge, but the ameliorating impact of no first aggression and adhering to treaties are counter-balanced by highly aggressive total war type doctrines as well as carte-blanche to resist anything perceived to be detrimental to Islam in society by violence if necessary.

Thoughts?

 

[Spiderman]

When I first started coming to RF I was very anti-Islamic and I've changed a lot since then. I don't want to go back to making comments like I used to.

But the Koran has many calls to violence. Muhammad and the first Muslims were violent conquerors. I don't see how anyone can argue with that. It's just a Historical and Quaranic fact!

 

[Sakeenah]

Islam isn't a pacifist religion and muslims don't claim it is.
These verses were revealed at a time when the early Muslims, were getting persecuted by the Quraysh. These verses have nothing to do with harming innocent non-believers. They were revealed concerning those who used to oppress, persecute and kill Muslims.


(2:190 ) This verse tells us to “fight those who fight you” this is referring to self-defence, but at the same time it commands Muslims not to transgress ( you can look this up in Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas and Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi).

(2:191) tells us that the killing involved in the incident was only aimed at those who tried (or did) expelling people by force ( you can look this up inTafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir).

The next sentence in the verse “and fitnah is worse than killing”. Here fitnah doesn't mean disbelief or disbelievers.

The word ‘fitna’ in this context is understood by classical scholars to mean, to hinder and forcefully make Muslims disbelieve in the message of Islam.
The Word fitnah here means the use of force and violence to make a person change his religion.

(see:Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645-722 AD), Tafsir In Kathir and Tafsir Jalalayn). The verse meaning was aimed at the early Muslims who were persecuted and killed, just for believing in Islam. The Quraysh forcefully made Muslims leave the religion of Islam, under persecution.

If the verse as you claim allows the killing of non-Muslims, the same verse wouldn’t say to the Muslims not to start fighting until they fight first. So just reading the verse shows that it was a war of self-defence.

Here are some Muslim and non-Muslim Quran translations for 2:191.

Non-Muslim Translation:

Arthur John Arberry And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers. Quran 2:191

Muslim Translations:

Muhammad Asad And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away – for oppression is even worse than killing…

“And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” – Quran 2:192

“Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.” Quran – 2:193

The verse says if they “cease”, then God is Forgiving and Merciful. This means that if they stop fighting and persecuting the Muslims for their beliefs, God would forgive their past acts against the believers.

The word “fitna’ (persecution) is used again in this verse. From the same sentence in 2:193, the verse tells us that if the the oppressors stop the aggression then they should be left alone. But if they continue with persecuting and killing Muslims, then they were allowed to fight back. This shows that these verses were revealed as a result of the early Muslims who wanted to live freely to practice their religion.

“…until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah… 2:193”

When we read the part before “worship” is mentioned we understand what this verse means. Here we are told that the aim for the Muslims 1400 years ago was that there be no more persecution, and that people be free “acknowledge worship for Allah” meaning a person is free to follow his religion without getting persecuted, oppressed for their beliefs by opressors

the verse (2:194):

“[Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.” Quran 2:194

We read that if a person ‘assaults’ you then you can defend yourself the the same way perpetrator did (see: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas)

conclusion: These verses aren't a justification for violence it's about clear self-defence.

 

[Pastek]

I well let everybody judge, but the ameliorating impact of no first aggression and adhering to treaties are counter-balanced by highly aggressive total war type doctrines as well as carte-blanche to resist anything perceived to be detrimental to Islam in society by violence if necessary.

Thoughts?

I don't like the title of the thread you make the sense of this verse general, while it was specific for Mecca.
And the context of the verse is that meccans were first the oppressors.

 

[sayak83]

Thoughts?

I don't like the title of the thread you make the sense of this verse general, while it was specific for Mecca.
And the context of the verse is that meccans were first the oppressors.

Where does it say this in the Quran? All verses were revealed at a specific point of time, but does it mean that they only apply at that time point?

I think its kind of preposterous to claim that God would take all the trouble of revealing His final commands to a messenger to be read and believed by all, and make verses in them parochial to the time and place of the dictation.

 

[Pastek]

Where does it say this in the Quran? All verses were revealed at a specific point of time, but does it mean that they only apply at that time point?

But do not fight with them near the sacred mosque until they fight you there;

I think its kind of preposterous to claim that God would take all the trouble of revealing His final commands to a messenger to be read and believed by all, and make verses in them parochial to the time and place of the dictation.

Same in the Bible, it's most of time verses talking about specific periods, specific nations.

Verses must sometimes be understood individualy (prayers, fasting etc) and other things must be understanding most of time with context.
This is true for the Bible and the Quran too.

 

[Kirran]

This is true for the Bible and the Quran too.

Not of the Bhagavad Gita. While it uses a context for illustration, its teachings are universally applicable. Same goes for other texts, such as the Ashtavakra Gita and the Daodejing.

And to be fair, much of the New Testament and parts of the Old Testament likewise.

 

[sayak83]

But do not fight with them near the sacred mosque until they fight you there;

Since Muslims have one and only one sacred mosque in the world (and not many sacred mosques in various regions), making and exception to the sacred mosque does not make it a local command.
For example :- A law that allows US armies to bomb anything apart from the Statue of Liberty does not limit the statute of the law to New York.

Same in the Bible, it's most of time verses talking about specific periods, specific nations.

The OT explicitly says that its laws are only for the children of Israel. However all Jews are to adhere to them

Quran says the opposite in its opening verses,
Cow chapter verse 2
This is the Scripture in which there is no doubt, containing guidance
for those who are mindful of God, 3 who believe in the unseen,
keep up the prayer, and give out of what We have provided for
them; 4 those who believe in the revelation sent down to you
[Muhammad], and in what was sent before you, those who have
firm faith in the Hereafter.

The Quran states at the very outset that it is a guidance book by God for all who believe in Him. Thus every injunction has to be read universally by default until a very clear and undeniable case can be made otherwise.

Verses must sometimes be understood individualy (prayers, fasting etc) and other things must be understanding most of time with context.
This is true for the Bible and the Quran too.

The verse itself would guide how it is to be read, and not anything else.

 

[Sakeenah]

Where does it say this in the Quran? All verses were revealed at a specific point of time, but does it mean that they only apply at that time point?

I think its kind of preposterous to claim that God would take all the trouble of revealing His final commands to a messenger to be read and believed by all, and make verses in them parochial to the time and place of the dictation.

These verses were revealed when the early muslims were persecuted, see my post(#3) above. These verses are not a justification for violence but self defence and yes it can be applied now. According to Islam if someone tries to harm you and your family you have every right to defend yourself. I don't see what's wrong with self defence.

 

[sayak83]

Islam isn't a pacifist religion and muslims don't claim it is.
These verses were revealed at a time when the early Muslims, were getting persecuted by the Quraysh. These verses have nothing to do with harming innocent non-believers. They were revealed concerning those who used to oppress, persecute and kill Muslims.


(2:190 ) This verse tells us to “fight those who fight you” this is referring to self-defence, but at the same time it commands Muslims not to transgress ( you can look this up in Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas and Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi).

(2:191) tells us that the killing involved in the incident was only aimed at those who tried (or did) expelling people by force ( you can look this up inTafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir).

The next sentence in the verse “and fitnah is worse than killing”. Here fitnah doesn't mean disbelief or disbelievers.

The word ‘fitna’ in this context is understood by classical scholars to mean, to hinder and forcefully make Muslims disbelieve in the message of Islam.
The Word fitnah here means the use of force and violence to make a person change his religion.

(see:Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645-722 AD), Tafsir In Kathir and Tafsir Jalalayn). The verse meaning was aimed at the early Muslims who were persecuted and killed, just for believing in Islam. The Quraysh forcefully made Muslims leave the religion of Islam, under persecution.

If the verse as you claim allows the killing of non-Muslims, the same verse wouldn’t say to the Muslims not to start fighting until they fight first. So just reading the verse shows that it was a war of self-defence.

Here are some Muslim and non-Muslim Quran translations for 2:191.

Non-Muslim Translation:

Arthur John Arberry And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers. Quran 2:191

Muslim Translations:

Muhammad Asad And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away – for oppression is even worse than killing…

“And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” – Quran 2:192

“Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.” Quran – 2:193

The verse says if they “cease”, then God is Forgiving and Merciful. This means that if they stop fighting and persecuting the Muslims for their beliefs, God would forgive their past acts against the believers.

The word “fitna’ (persecution) is used again in this verse. From the same sentence in 2:193, the verse tells us that if the the oppressors stop the aggression then they should be left alone. But if they continue with persecuting and killing Muslims, then they were allowed to fight back. This shows that these verses were revealed as a result of the early Muslims who wanted to live freely to practice their religion.

“…until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah… 2:193”

When we read the part before “worship” is mentioned we understand what this verse means. Here we are told that the aim for the Muslims 1400 years ago was that there be no more persecution, and that people be free “acknowledge worship for Allah” meaning a person is free to follow his religion without getting persecuted, oppressed for their beliefs by opressors

the verse (2:194):

“[Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.” Quran 2:194

We read that if a person ‘assaults’ you then you can defend yourself the the same way perpetrator did (see: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas)

conclusion: These verses aren't a justification for violence it's about clear self-defence.

This is a reasonable interpretation. But I will check a bit more carefully to see if it holds up. I am concerned about the additions within the [] brackets. They are not there in the sentence and the justification for adding them is unclear. I am also concerned that "fitnah is worse than slaying" gives the followers of Quran the ability (if they so desire) to justify the use of violence against any perceived form of oppression or transgression.