An inspirational reflection on the Qur'an by an agnostic Jewish author (MUST WATCH)

Lesley Hazleton explores the Koran and finds much that is quite different from what is reported in commonly cited accounts.

Lesley Hazleton (born 1945) is an award-winning British-American writer whose work focuses on the intersection of politics, religion, and history, especially in the Middle East. She reported from Israel for Time, and has written on the Middle East for numerous publications including The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, Harper's, The Nation, and The New Republic.^[1].

Hazleton was born in England, and became a United States citizen in 1994. She was based in Jerusalem from 1966 to 1979 and in New York City from 1979 to 1992, when she moved to her current home in Seattle WA, originally to get her pilot's license. She has two degrees in psychology (B.A. Manchester University, M.A. Hebrew University of Jerusalem).^[2]

She has described herself as "a Jew who once seriously considered becoming a rabbi, a former convent schoolgirl who daydreamed about being a nun, an agnostic with a deep sense of religious mystery though no affinity for organized religion".^[3] "Everything is paradox," she has said. "The danger is one-dimensional thinking".^[4]

In April 2010, she began blogging as The Accidental Theologist <http://accidentaltheologist.com>, focusing on religion, politics, and existence.^[5].

She is currently working on a new biography of Muhammad^[6], to be published by Riverhead/Viking in 2012.


TEDxRainier is an independently organized TED event held in Seattle Washington.

Is Islam a religion of the "sword"?

Additional useful material:

Dark Passages: How the Quran and the Bible can be mis-read
Letter to Editor: Bible, Quran easily quoted out of context

---
Is Islam a religion of the "sword"?
By: Kabir Helminski and Hesham Hessaboula

There are a number of verses in the Qur’an that appear to call for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, and these verses have been too often quoted out of context with what appears to be a willful disregard of the context in which they occur. Among these—and perhaps the most often cited—is the infamous “Verse of the Sword”: “Kill the mushrikeen[1] (those Meccans who had declared war against Muhammad and his community) wherever you find them, and capture them, and blockade them, and watch for them at every lookout…”(9:5). On the surface, this verse would seem to bolster the claim that Islam advocates violence against non-Muslims. There is much more to this story, however. This verse, and the others like it in the Qur’an, have a linguistic, historical, and textual context. Understanding that context is essential in understanding the message of the verse. Careful and unbiased study of these verses, in their proper context, will reveal that the exhortations to fight “idolators” and “unbelievers” are specific in nature and are not general injunctions for the murder of all those who refuse to accept Islam as their way of life. We must remember the challenging historical circumstances of these Qur’anic verses. As is known from the Prophet’s biography, the Meccan oligarchy fought against the Prophet’s message from the very beginning. It resorted to violent repression and torture of the Prophet and his followers when they realized that the flow of converts to Islam was increasing. The Prophet himself survived several assassination attempts, and it became so dangerous for the Muslims in Mecca that the Prophet sent some of his companions to take asylum in the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia. After thirteen years of violence, Muhammad was compelled to take refuge in the city of Medina, and even then the Meccans did not relent in their hostilities. Later, furthermore, various hostile Arab tribes joined in the fight against the Muslims, culminating in the Battle of the Trench, when 10,000 soldiers from many Arab tribes gathered to wipe out the Muslim community once and for all. As we know, the Muslims survived these challenges and eventually went on to establish a vast civilization.


At the time Verse 9:5 was revealed, Mecca had been conquered, the Meccans themselves had become Muslims, and many of the surrounding pagan Arab tribes had also accepted Islam and sent delegations to the Prophet pledging their allegiance to him. Those that did not become Muslim were the bitterest of enemies, and it was against these remaining hostile forces that the verse commands the Prophet to fight. It was in this violent context that the “Verse of the Sword” was revealed. This verse is part of a long chapter entitled “Repentance,” and it was revealed nine years after the Prophet immigrated to Medina.


Yet, verse 9:5 must never be quoted out of context. The verses immediately before and after it explain why verse 9:5 exhorts the believers to “kill idolaters wherever you find them.” The first verses state: “There is immunity from God and the messenger of God for those polytheists (mushrikeen) with whom you have made treaties; So travel the earth for four months, and know that you cannot elude God, and that it is God who brings disgrace upon all who refuse to acknowledge the truth” (9:1-2). The polytheists in these verses are those pagan Arabs who have deliberately broken the treaties they forged with the Prophet. How do we know this? Verse 4 continues: “Except those polytheists with whom you have made a treaty and who have not failed you in anything and have not helped anyone against you; fulfill your treaties with them to the end of their term, for God loves the conscientious.” Had we only quoted only 9:1-2, without the qualifying verse 9:4, it would seem that the Qur’an invalidates all non-aggression treaties made with the non-Muslims so that they can be “slaughtered” according to 9:5. That is clearly not the case. Those who want to malign Islam quote only 9:1-2 and neglect to mention 9:4.


Now, in its proper context, verse 9:5 can be properly understood. Most who quote 9:5 do so incompletely. The full verse reads: “But when the sacred months are past, then kill idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them, and blockade them, and watch for them at every lookout. But if they repent and practice prayer and give alms, then let them go their way; for God is most forgiving, most merciful.” This was a specific command to the Prophet at that specific time to fight those idolaters who were fighting the Muslims; those idolaters who, as 9:4 mentioned, failed in their treaty obligations and helped others fight against the Muslims. It is not a general command to attack all non-Muslims, and it has never signified this to the overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout history. Had it been so, then every year, after the “forbidden months are past,” history would have witnessed Muslims attacking every non-Muslim in sight. The “forbidden months” are four months out of the year during which fighting is not allowed. Three of them occur in a row: the eleventh, twelfth, and first month of the Islamic calendar. This yearly slaughter never occurred. In addition, if one reads on in the ninth chapter, the Qur’an further explains why 9:5 commands the Prophet to “kill idolaters wherever you find them”: “How, when if they get the better of you they do not respect either blood relations or treaty with you? They satisfy you with their words, but their hearts are averse, and most of them are dissolute” (9:8). Further along the Qur’an declares: “Will you not fight people who broke their oaths and planned to exile the messenger, and they took the initiative the first time? Do you fear them? God is more worthy of your fear, if you are believers” (9:13). These pagan tribes, as the Qur’an clearly states, would not hesitate in the least to attack and kill the Muslims at their first chance, and thus they must be fought against. Furthermore, if 9:5 was a general exhortation to kill all non-Muslims, then verse 9:6 would make no sense: “And if one of the polytheists asks you for protection, then protect him, until he hears the word of God: then deliver him to a place safe for him. That is because they are people who do not know.” Yet, verse 9:6 does make sense because the command to “kill idolaters wherever you find them” refers solely to those who are in active hostility to the Muslims. Had verse 9:5 been an open invitation to kill all non-Muslims, it would have been more convenient for the verse to be revealed as soon as the Prophet arrived as leader in Medina, with an army of believers ready to fight to the death for him. Yet, as I previously mentioned, the verse was revealed nine years after the Prophet came to Medina.


Another set of verses seemingly declares that all non-believers are to be attacked and killed: “And let them not think—those who are bent on denying the truth [i.e., unbelievers]—that they shall escape [God]: behold, they can never frustrate [His purpose]. Hence, make ready against them whatever force and war mounts you are able to muster, so that you might deter thereby the enemies of God, who are your enemies as well, and others besides them of whom you may be unaware, but of whom God is aware; and whatever you may expend in God’s cause shall be repaid to you in full, and you shall not be wronged” (8:59-60). Once again, the textual context must be examined. These two verses refer to those who are in active hostility against the Muslim community. An examination of the verses that come before these elucidates this point: “As for those with whom you have made a covenant, and who thereupon break their covenant on every occasion, not being conscious of God—if you find them at war [with you], make of them a fearsome example for those who follow them, so that they might take it to heart; or, if you have reason to fear treachery from people [with whom you hast made a covenant], cast it back at them in an equitable manner: for, verily, God does not love the treacherous!” (8:56-59). When read together, it is clear that 8:59-60 speak of those unbelievers who actively fight against the Muslims and break their covenants “every time.” Again, there is no general exhortation to fight and kill all non-Muslims.


In yet another set of verses, the Qur’an tells the believers to kill non-believers not once, but twice: “…seize them and slay them wherever you may find them” (4:89) and “…seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them: for it is against these that We have clearly empowered you [to make war]” (4:91). We deliberately quoted these two verses out of context to illustrate how deceitful and misleading such a practice is. Again, once the verses are understood in context, it is quite clear that theses verses tell the Muslims to fight only those who fight them. First of all, theses verses are part of a slightly longer passage that begins thusly: “How, then, could you be of two minds about the hypocrites, seeing that God has disowned them because of their guilt? Do you, perchance, seek to guide those whom God has let go astray—when for him whom God lets go astray you can never find any way?” (4:88) The verse speaks of the “hypocrites,” which begs the question of who these “hypocrites” are. They are those Muslims who feigned outward acceptance of Islam, but secretly worked for the destruction of the Muslims. They constantly acted as a fifth column within the Muslim community in Medina. Chief among them, as we discussed earlier, was Abdullah ibn Ubay. This man worked continually to harm the Muslims. For example, on the way to the mountain of Uhud, where the second battle against the pagans in Mecca took place, Abdullah ibn Ubay told his followers to go back home because he did not think a battle was going to be waged. His followers, and some true believing Muslims, obeyed him, and the Muslim army was cut by two-thirds, from 1000 men to approximately 300. During this battle, the Prophet was severely wounded and was nearly killed by the Meccans.


Yet, despite their treachery, verses 4:89 and 4:91 do not call on the Prophet to “kill them all,” but only those who are in open hostility to him: “They [the hypocrites] would love to see you deny the truth even as they have denied it, so that you should be like them. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies until they forsake the domain of evil for the sake of God; and if they revert to open enmity, seize them and slay them wherever you may find them. And do not take any of them for your ally or giver of succor” (4:89) [emphasis added]. Furthermore, 4:90 explains that if these hypocrites do not fight the Muslims, they are not to be harmed: “Unless it be those that have ties with people to whom you yourselves are bound by a covenant, or such as come to you because their hearts shrink from [the thought of] making war either on you or on their own folk… Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.”


The same is true for the following verse 4:91: “You will find others who would like to be safe from you as well as from their own folk, but who, whenever they are faced anew with temptation to evil, plunge into it headlong. Hence, if they do not let you be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them: for it is against these that We have clearly empowered you.” [emphasis added] Yet again, the Qur’an says to fight only those who fight against the Muslims.


It should be quite obvious by now that there is a recurring theme in the above verses: fighting is only in self defense, and it is only against those who fight against the Muslims. Indeed, Islam is a religion that seeks to maximize peace and reconciliation. Yet, Islam is not a pacifist religion; it does accept the premise that, from time to time and as a last resort, arms must be taken up in a just war. If Muslims are fought against, Islam demands that they fight back. Hence, one will find very belligerent verses in the Qur’an, such as the ones I quoted above. But, as we mentioned, these verses exist in a context and are specific in their scope. They are not general exhortations to violence. The Qur’an is quite clear about this. The verses concerning fighting that were revealed soon after the Prophet arrived in Medina are self-defensive in nature: “Victims of aggression are given license [to fight] because they have been done injustice; and God is well able to help them” (22:39). Why was this permission granted? The Qur’an continues: “[They are] those evicted from their homes without reason except that they say, ‘Our Sustainer is God’…” (22:40).


Furthermore, when Muslims do fight in war, all is not “fair,” as it has been said. Islamic Law has always recognized principles of just war. Muslims are strictly forbidden to commit aggression: “And fight for the sake of God those who fight you; but do not be brutal or commit aggression, for God does not love brutal aggression” (2:190). The next verse also says, “slay them wherever you may come upon them,” but if the entire verse is read, it is clear that the “slaying” is in also self-defense: “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 fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship [Ka’abah] unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth” (2:191). If the enemy inclines toward peace, however, Muslims must follow suit: “But if they stop, God is most forgiving, most merciful” (2:192). Also read: “Now if they incline toward peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing” (8:61). Moreover, God insists that the Muslims should incline towards peace if their enemies do the same, even though the possibility might exist that the enemy is deceiving them: “And if they mean to deceive you, surely you can count on God, the one who strengthened you with Divine aid and with the believers” (8:62).


Even if those who fight against the believers are other believers, the Qur’an says that they should be fought against: “If two parties of believers contend with each other, make peace between them. Then if one of the two acts unjustly to the other, fight the side that transgresses until it goes back to the order of God…” (49:9) [emphasis added]. Again, fighting is only allowed against those who transgress, those who fight against the believers. Indeed, the Qur’an explains why fighting and warfare is even allowed in God’s Plan. An important reason is to prevent oppression on the earth, in keeping with the Qur’an’s strong insistence that justice be upheld: “Why would you not fight in the cause of God, and oppressed men, women, and children, who say, ‘Our Lord, get us out of this town, whose people are oppressors. And provide us a protector from You, and provide us a helper from You’” (4:75). Yet, an equally important reason—and one that may come as a surprise to the reader—is to protect the free and unfettered worship of God:


“For if God did not parry people by means of one another, then monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques—wherein the name of God is much recited—would surely be demolished. And God will surely defend those who defend God—for God is powerful, almighty” (22:40).


This is truly remarkable. The Qur’an endorses armed conflict, as a last resort, in order to protect Christian, Jewish, and Muslim houses of worship. So much for Islam’s intolerance. This principle is further outlined in this verse: “Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression (lit., fitnah), and all worship is devoted to God alone; but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [willfully] do wrong” (2:193). The verse states that Muslims should fight them on until there is no more fitnah. In verse 2:191 above, again it says that “oppression (lit., fitnah) is even worse than killing.” What is this fitnah?


The word fitnah appears at least 28 times in the Qur’an, and its use and meaning varies depending on the verse in question. Some classical commentators, particularly Ibn Kathir, have written that fitnah, especially in verse 2:193, denotes idolatry. As a result, those who wish to smear Islam use the opinion of Ibn Kathir to speak for the text and claim that the Qur’an says: “Become Muslim or die.” Yet, despite the scholar’s opinion, the text of the Qur’an itself, and how it uses the word fitnah, does not agree with this scholar’s interpretation. For example, in quite a few verses, fitnah means “trial or tribulation”: “And know that your possessions and your children are but a trial (lit., fitnah), and that there is a higher reward in the presence of God” (8:28). Also read: “Every living being tastes death: and We try you with ill and good as a test (lit., fitnah); and you will be returned to Us” (21:35). Yet another verse says: “All the emissaries We sent before you did eat food and walked along the streets. And We made some of you a trial (lit., fitnah) for others; will you be forbearing? For your Lord is all-seeing” (25:20). In other verses, fitnah means corruption and discord (9:47-48) Now, in verse 33:14, fitnah does indeed mean apostasy: “But if they were invaded from the sides, then asked to dissent and join in civil war, they would do so with but little delay” (33:14). The verse literally says “…and they were asked for fitnah, they would do so with but little delay.” The “they” in this verse refers to the Hypocrites, about whom we discussed earlier. The use of the word fitnah here, however, can not be generalized to every other verse in the Qur’an.


Verse 2:193, which exhorts the believers to “fight against them until there is no more fitnah, and all worship is devoted to God alone” must be understood in context. This verse comes after verse 2:190, which commands the believers to fight those who fight them, i.e., the hostile Arabs who stopped at nothing to be the first to draw Muslim blood. In addition, these people, especially the Meccan oligarchy, violently persecuted any new converts to Islam and prevented the free worship of God by these Muslims. It is to this religious persecution, I believe, that the word fitnah in 2:193 refers. This definition of fitnah is supported by another verse, which responded to the Meccans’ claim that the Prophet does not honor the sanctity of the Sacred Months. Recall that the Muslims mistakenly killed a Meccan during one of the Sacred Months, when fighting between enemies is strictly forbidden. The verse reads: “They ask you [O Muhammad] about fighting in the sacred month. Say, ‘Fighting then is an offense; but more offensive to God is blocking the way to the path of God, denying God, preventing access to the sacred mosque, and driving out its people. And persecution (lit., fitnah) is worse than killing…” (2:217). Again, here the fitnah about which the verse is speaking is the prevention of access to the path of God and His Sacred Mosque, driving out the believers from Mecca, and even denying God Himself. All this is the violent repression of religious freedom, and this must be prevented, even if it means armed conflict. Again, this whole discussion about fighting until there is no more fitnah follows the same theme of fighting only in self-defense. A more careful analysis of the Qur’an—in its proper historical, linguistic, and textual context—clearly shows that it does not give a general, time-honored exhortation to kill all non-Muslims. That Islam calls for a “war on unbelievers” is sheer fallacy and utter fantasy.


Footnotes:
[1] Literally, “those who “partnerize” God,” i.e. those who place their trust in imaginary gods, i.e. who worship the idols of their own superstition or self-interest.


Copyright Baraka Institute 2010

CAIR-LA Rep Comments on the Fla. Quran Burning on Fox

CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush comments on the planned burning of copies of the Quran by a Florida church on Fox's "Money Rocks."

Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran? (NPR report)

by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
for NPR
March 18, 2010

Listen to story

As the hijackers boarded the airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, they had a lot on their minds. And if they were following instructions, one of those things was the Quran.

In preparation for the suicide attack, their handlers had told them to meditate on two chapters of the Quran in which God tells Muslims to "cast terror into the hearts of unbelievers."

"Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them," Allah instructs the Prophet Muhammad (Quran, 9:5). He continues: "Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites! ... Hell shall be their home, an evil fate."

When Osama bin Laden declared war on the West in 1996, he cited the Quran's command to "strike off" the heads of unbelievers. More recently, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan lectured his colleagues about jihad, or "holy war," and the Quran's exhortation to fight unbelievers and bring them low. Hasan is accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, last year.

Given this violent legacy, religion historian Philip Jenkins decided to compare the brutality quotient of the Quran and the Bible.

Defense Vs. Total Annihilation

"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.

Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.

Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."

Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.

'Holy Amnesia'

But Jenkins says, even though the Bible is violent, Christianity and Judaism today are not for the most part.

"What happens in all religions as they grow and mature and expand, they go through a process of forgetting of the original violence, and I call this a process of holy amnesia," Jenkins says.

They make the violence symbolic: Wiping out the enemy becomes wiping out one's own sins. Jenkins says that until recently, Islam had the same sort of holy amnesia, and many Muslims interpreted jihad, for example, as an internal struggle, not physical warfare.

Andrew Bostom calls this analysis "preposterous." Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, says there's a major difference between the Bible, which describes the destruction of an enemy at a point in time, and the Quran, which urges an ongoing struggle to defeat unbelievers.

"It's an aggressive doctrine," he says. "The idea is to impose Islamic law on the globe."

Take suicide attacks, he says — a tactic that Muslim radicals have used to great effect in the U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. It's true that suicide from depression is forbidden in Islam — but Bostom says the Quran and the Hadith, or the sayings of Muhammad, do allow self-destruction for religious reasons.

"The notion of jihad martyrdom is extolled in the Quran, Quran verse 9:1-11. And then in the Hadith, it's even more explicit. This is the highest form of jihad — to kill and to be killed in acts of jihad."

'Out Of Context'

That may be the popular notion of jihad, says Waleed El-Ansary, but it's the wrong one. El-Ansary, who teaches Islamic studies at the University of South Carolina, says the Quran explicitly condemns religious aggression and the killing of civilians. And it makes the distinction between jihad — legal warfare with the proper rules of engagement — and irjaf, or terrorism.

"All of those types of incidences — [Sept. 11], Maj. Nidal Hasan and so forth — those are all examples of irjaf, not jihad," he says. According to the Quran, he says, those who practice irjaf "are going to hell."

So what's going on here? After all, we all have images of Muslim radicals flying planes into buildings, shooting up soldiers at Fort Hood, trying to detonate a bomb on an airplane on Christmas Day. How to reconcile a peaceful Quran with these violent acts?

El-Ansary says that in the past 30 years, there's been a perfect storm that has created a violent strain of Islam. The first is political: frustration at Western intervention in the Muslim world. The second is intellectual: the rise of Wahhabi Islam, a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam subscribed to by Osama bin Laden. El-Ansary says fundamentalists have distorted Islam for political purposes.

"Basically what they do is they take verses out of context and then use that to justify these egregious actions," he says.

El-Ansary says we are seeing more religious violence from Muslims now because the Islamic world is far more religious than is the West. Still, Jenkins says Judeo-Christian cultures shouldn't be smug. The Bible has plenty of violence.

"The scriptures are still there, dormant, but not dead," he says, "and they can be resurrected at any time. Witness the white supremacists who cite the murderous Phineas when calling for racial purity, or an anti-abortion activist when shooting a doctor who performs abortions.

In the end, the scholars can agree on one thing: The DNA of early Judaism, Christianity and Islam code for a lot of violence. Whether they can evolve out of it is another thing altogether.

---

Excerpts: "Jesus Wars"

by Philip Jenkins

Dark Passages: How the Quran and the Bible can be mis-read

Dark passages

Does the harsh language in the Koran explain Islamic violence? Don't answer till you've taken a look inside the Bible

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_passages/?page=full

WE HAVE A good idea what was passing through the minds of the Sept. 11 hijackers as they made their way to the airports.

Their Al Qaeda handlers had instructed them to meditate on al-Tawba and Anfal, two lengthy suras from the Koran, the holy scripture of Islam. The passages make for harrowing reading. God promises to "cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks!" (Koran 8.12). God instructs his Muslim followers to kill unbelievers, to capture them, to ambush them (Koran 9.5). Everything contributes to advancing the holy goal: "Strike terror into God's enemies, and your enemies" (Koran 8.60). Perhaps in their final moments, the hijackers took refuge in these words, in which God lauds acts of terror and massacre. (Click here for a better understanding of those verses)

On a much lesser scale, others have used the words of the Koran to sanction violence. Even in cases of domestic violence and honor killing, perpetrators can find passages that seem to justify brutal acts (Koran 4.34).

Citing examples such as these, some Westerners argue that the Muslim scriptures themselves inspire terrorism, and drive violent jihad. Evangelist Franklin Graham has described his horror on finding so many Koranic passages that command the killing of infidels: the Koran, he thinks, "preaches violence." Prominent conservatives Paul Weyrich and William Lind argued that "Islam is, quite simply, a religion of war," and urged that Muslims be encouraged to leave US soil. Today, Dutch politician Geert Wilders faces trial for his film "Fitna," in which he demands that the Koran be suppressed as the modern-day equivalent to Hitler's "Mein Kampf."

Even Westerners who have never opened the book - especially such people, perhaps - assume that the Koran is filled with calls for militarism and murder, and that those texts shape Islam.

Unconsciously, perhaps, many Christians consider Islam to be a kind of dark shadow of their own faith, with the ugly words of the Koran standing in absolute contrast to the scriptures they themselves cherish. In the minds of ordinary Christians - and Jews - the Koran teaches savagery and warfare, while the Bible offers a message of love, forgiveness, and charity. For the prophet Micah, God's commands to his people are summarized in the words "act justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). Christians recall the words of the dying Jesus: "Father, forgive them: they know not what they do."

But in terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted. One cherished psalm (137) begins with the lovely line, "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept"; it ends by blessing anyone who would seize Babylon's infants and smash their skulls against the rocks.

To say that terrorists can find religious texts to justify their acts does not mean that their violence actually grows from those scriptural roots. Indeed, such an assumption itself is based on the crude fundamentalist formulation that everything in a given religion must somehow be authorized in scripture. The difference between the Bible and the Koran is not that one book teaches love while the other proclaims warfare and terrorism, rather it is a matter of how the works are read. Yes, the Koran has been ransacked to supply texts authorizing murder, but so has the Bible

If Christians or Jews want to point to violent parts of the Koran and suggest that those elements taint the whole religion, they open themselves to the obvious question: what about their own faiths? If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of savagery. Of course, they are no such thing; nor is Islam.

But the implications run still deeper. All faiths contain within them some elements that are considered disturbing or unacceptable to modern eyes; all must confront the problem of absorbing and reconciling those troubling texts or doctrines. In some cases, religions evolve to the point where the ugly texts so fade into obscurity that ordinary believers scarcely acknowledge their existence, or at least deny them the slightest authority in the modern world. In other cases, the troubling words remain dormant, but can return to life in conditions of extreme stress and conflict. Texts, like people, can live or die. This whole process of forgetting and remembering, of growing beyond the harsh words found in a text, is one of the critical questions that all religions must learn to address.

Faithful Muslims believe that the Koran is the inspired word of God, delivered verbatim through the prophet Mohammed. Non-Muslims, of course, see the text as the work of human hands, whether of Mohammed himself or of schools of his early followers. But whichever view we take, the Koran as it stands claims to speak in God's voice. That is one of the great differences between the Bible and the Koran. Even for dedicated fundamentalists, inspired Bible passages come through the pen of a venerated historical individual, whether it's the Prophet Isaiah or the Apostle Paul, and that leaves open some chance of blaming embarrassing views on that person's own prejudices. The Koran gives no such option: For believers, every word in the text - however horrendous a passage may sound to modern ears - came directly from God.

We don't have to range too far to find passages that horrify. The Koran warns, "Those who make war against God and his apostle . . . shall be put to death or crucified" (Koran 5.33). Other passages are equally threatening, though they usually have to be wrenched out of context to achieve this effect. One text from Sura (Chapter) 47 begins "O true believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads."

But in such matters, the Bible too has plenty of passages that read painfully today. Tales of war and assassination pervade the four books of Samuel and Kings, where it is hard to avoid verses justifying the destruction of God's enemies. In a standard English translation of the Old Testament, the words "war" and "battle" each occur more than 300 times, not to mention all the bindings, beheadings, and rapes.

The richest harvest of gore comes from the books that tell the story of the Children of Israel after their escape from Egypt, as they take over their new land in Canaan. These events are foreshadowed in the book of Deuteronomy, in which God proclaims "I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh" (Deut. 32:42). We then turn to the full orgy of militarism, enslavement, and race war in the Books of Joshua and Judges. Moses himself reputedly authorized this campaign when he told his followers that, once they reached Canaan, they must annihilate all the peoples they find in the cities specially reserved for them (Deut. 20: 16-18).

Joshua, Moses's successor, proves an apt pupil. When he conquers the city of Ai, God commands that he take away the livestock and the loot, while altogether exterminating the inhabitants, and he duly does this (Joshua 8). When he defeats and captures five kings, he murders his prisoners of war, either by hanging or crucifixion. (Joshua 10). Nor is there any suggestion that the Canaanites and their kin were targeted for destruction because they were uniquely evil or treacherous: They happened to be on the wrong land at the wrong time. And Joshua himself was by no means alone. In Judges again, other stories tell of the complete extermination of tribes with the deliberate goal of ending their genetic lines.

In modern times, we would call this genocide. If the forces of Joshua and his successor judges committed their acts in the modern world, then observers would not hesitate to speak of war crimes. They would draw comparisons with the notorious guerrilla armies of Uganda and the Congo, groups like the appalling Lord's Resistance Army. By comparison, the Koranic rules of war were, by the standards of their time, quite civilized. Mohammed wanted to win over his enemies, not slaughter them.

Not only do the Israelites in the Bible commit repeated acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, but they do so under direct divine command. According to the first book of Samuel, God orders King Saul to strike at the Amalekite people, killing every man, woman, and child, and even wiping out their livestock (1 Samuel 15:2-3). And it is this final detail that proves Saul's undoing, as he keeps some of the animals, and thereby earns a scolding from the prophet Samuel. Fortunately, Saul repents, and symbolizes his regrets by dismembering the captured enemy king. Morality triumphs.

The Bible also alleges divine approval of racism and segregation. If you had to choose the single biblical story that most conspicuously outrages modern sentiment, it might well be the tale of Phinehas, a story that remains unknown to most Christian readers today (Numbers 25: 1-15). The story begins when the children of Israel are threatened by a plague. Phinehas, however, shrewdly identifies the cause of God's anger: God is outraged at the fact that a Hebrew man has found a wife among the people of Midian, and through her has imported an alien religion. Phinehas slaughters the offending couple - and, mollified, God ends the plague and blesses Phinehas and his descendants. Modern American racists love this passage. In 1990, Richard Kelly Hoskins used the story as the basis for his manifesto "Vigilantes of Christendom." Hoskins advocated the creation of a new order of militant white supremacists, the Phineas Priesthood, and since then a number of groups have assumed this title, claiming Phinehas as the justification for terrorist attacks on mixed-race couples and abortion clinics.

Modern Christians who believe the Bible offers only a message of love and forgiveness are usually thinking only of the New Testament. Certainly, the New Testament contains far fewer injunctions to kill or segregate. Yet it has its own troublesome passages, especially when the Gospel of John expresses such hostility to the Ioudaioi, a Greek word that usually translates as "Jews." Ioudaioi plan to stone Jesus, they plot to kill him; in turn, Jesus calls them liars, children of the Devil.

Various authorities approach the word differently: I might prefer, for instance, to interpret it as "followers of the oppressive Judean religious elite," Or perhaps "Judeans." But in practice, any reputable translation has to use the simple and familiar word, "Jew," so that we read about the disciples hiding out after the Crucifixion, huddled in a room that is locked "for fear of the Jews." So harsh do these words sound to post-Holocaust ears that some churches exclude them from public reading.

Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions . . . all are in the Bible, and occur with a far greater frequency than in the Koran. At every stage, we can argue what the passages in question mean, and certainly whether they should have any relevance for later ages. But the fact remains that the words are there, and their inclusion in the scripture means that they are, literally, canonized, no less than in the Muslim scripture.

Whether they are used or not depends on wider social attitudes. When America entered the First World War, for instance, firebrand preachers drew heavily on Jesus' warning that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. As it stands, that is not much of a text of terror, but if one is searching desperately for a weapon-related verse, it will serve to justify what people are going to do anyway

Interpretation is all, and that changes over time. Religions have their core values, their non-negotiable truths, but they also surround themselves with many stories not essential to the message. Any religion that exists over long eras absorbs many of the ideas and beliefs of the community in which it finds itself, and reflects those in its writings. Over time, thinkers and theologians reject or underplay those doctrines and texts that contradict the underlying principles of the faith as it develops. However strong the textual traditions justifying war and conflict, believers come instead to stress love and justice. Of course Muslim societies throughout history have engaged in jihad, in holy war, and have found textual warrant so to do. But over time, other potent strains in the religion moved away from literal warfare. However strong the calls to jihad, struggle, in Islamic thought, the hugely influential Sufi orders taught that the real struggle was the inner battle to control one's sinful human instincts, and this mattered vastly more than any pathetic clash of swords and spears. The Greater Jihad is one fought in the soul.

Often, such reforming thinkers are so successful that the troublesome words fade utterly from popular consciousness, even among believers who think of themselves as true fundamentalists. Most Christian and Jewish believers, even those who are moderately literate in scriptural terms, read their own texts extraordinarily selectively. How many Christian preachers would today find spiritual sustenance in Joshua's massacres? How many American Christians know that the New Testament demands that women cover their hair, at least in church settings, and that Paul's Epistles include more detailed rules on the subject than anything written in the Koran? This kind of holy amnesia is a basic component of religious development. It does not imply rejecting scriptures, but rather reading them in the total context of the religion as it progresses through history.

Alternatively, one can choose to deny that historical experience, and seize on any available word or verse that authorizes the violence that is already taking place - but once someone has decided to do that, it scarcely matters what the text actually says.

Philip Jenkins teaches at Penn State University. He is the author of "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia -- and How It Died."

© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.


Read more:

Letter to the Editor: Bible, Quran easily quoted out of context

Urban Legends on Islam: The 9/11 verse in the Quran

Beware sensational translations of holy verse, torn out of context

Why did you mention Egypt?

I recently gave a Friday/Jum’aa sermon/Khutba at one of the Southern California mosques focusing on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I spoke about the stronger role American Muslims and others need to play to inform the public about the sufferings of all Gazans. I criticized the Israeli government for its policies of strangulating the people of Gaza by imposing a total siege. I also criticized the Egyptian government for its role in the siege. After all, Israel does not control Gaza’s southern border with Egypt; Egypt does.

After the sermon, a young man approached me and asked: “Why did you negatively mention Egypt in your Khutba?”

I asked him if there was anything inaccurate in what I said. He said: “No, it is accurate. However, why single out Egypt when other Arab countries and leaders have continuously betrayed the Palestinians too?”

I explained that I never hesitated and would never hesitate criticizing any government, including my own, when it commits injustice. However, the topic of this Khutba was specific and addressed the current siege on Gaza. To reassure him, I reminded him that, in my Khutba, I genuinely praised the heroic and generous Egyptian people for the way they welcomed their suffering Palestinian brothers and sisters who forced their way across the border to get food and medicine.

In an attempt to keep him happy, I asked my new friend: “what would you have said if you were giving the Khutba?”

With a smile on his face, he replied: “I would have just focused on Israel and left other Muslim countries alone.”

At that moment, I realized that I am facing a more serious issue than just a person feeling nationalistic hearing his country of origin criticized.

I spent the next few minutes reminding him that our Islamic teachings require that we always stand out for justice, especially when injustice is being committed by “our own”. I stressed how hypocritical it is for us to be willing to criticize Israel’s apartheid policies against Palestinians, but then choose to be deliberately silent when wrongs are perpetrated by a so-called Muslim government.

In conclusion, I reminded him that Almighty Allah says in the Qur'an:

O you who believe, stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well acquainted with all that you do (An-Nisaa' 4:135).

Finally, I believe that he agreed with me that it is really not necessarily about Israel, Egypt, or even Palestine, it is about standing out for justice.

When Ignorance is not bliss, but rather pure bigotry and shame

A recent Associated Press story stated that about two dozen Oklahoma lawmakers plan to return copies of the Qur'an to a state panel on diversity created by Gov. Brad Henry after a lawmaker claimed the Muslim holy book condones the killing of innocent women and children.

The lawmaker, Rep. Rex Duncan, is obviously ignorant. Hey, there is no shame in being ignorant. We all are ignorant about many things. But it is a disaster when one is in denial of his/her ignorance and even makes judgments and bigoted decisions based on that ignorance. There is absolutely not a single verse in the Qur'an that condones the killing of any innocent people, including women and children. If anything, Islamic teachings clearly and strongly stresses the value and sanctity of every human life. Even in times of defensive just wars, Muslims are unequivocally forbidden from harming women, children, the old, non-combatants, the wounded, animals, and even the environment.

Rep. Duncan went on spewing more lies and hate, saying: "we never hear those...Muslims opposing the practice of violence on innocent people".
Mr. Duncan, do yourself a favor and read the following site to learn about some of the efforts Muslims undertook in face of terrorism.
http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx

Well, this lawmaker's shameful ignorance did not stop here (some politicians just don't know when to stop talking). When asked if there was any double standard since lawmakers received a Centennial copy of the Bible earlier in the year from The Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, Rep. Duncan was quoted saying:

"Mine is proudly on my desk on the Capitol and I don't think I ever read a part of it that condones the killing of women and children in furtherance of God's word."

Here is another proof that Duncan does not read much, if any. To say that Christian teachings (like that of Islam and Judaism) forbid the harming of innocent people, including women and children, will be accurate. But to say that he never read a part of the Bible that condones such killing is definitely inaccurate. Either Duncan never really opened the Bible gift given to him (what kind of a claimed Christian must he be? Probably a politician who panders to the Christian Right!), or he is reading a different Bible than the one I studied in my Christian schools.

Like all scriptures (and probably more than others), the Bible carries many verses dealing with violence. Such verses tend to be manipulated by extremists to justify their radical and violent views and actions. The Holocaust, slavery, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and even the murdering of abortion doctors are all a result of such twisted interpretations. Rep. Duncan, don't feel singled out, such radicals exist in every religion. But to claim that such text does not exist is really dumb. Sorry, I had to use that word.
I strongly suggest reading: Beware sensational translations of holy verse, torn out of context

Here is a sample of such verses in the Bible:

In the New Testament, Jesus was quoted saying:

I come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled (Luke 12:49)

But those my enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me (Luke 19:27)

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all thing that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be they wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matt 13: 41-42)

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword (Matt 10: 33-34)


The Old Testament includes:

Ezekiel 9:4-6. And the Lord said unto him... Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women; ...and begin at my sanctuary.

I Samuel 15:2,3. Thus says the Lord of hosts, ...Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Isaiah 13:15-16. Everyone that is found shall be thrust through; ...Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Hosea 13:16. Their infants shall be dashed in pieces and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Numbers 31:17-18. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves (as concubines).

Psalm 137:9. Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes their little ones against the stones. [the Babylonians' children.]

Exodus 35:2 states the anyone working on the Sabbath should be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Deuteronomy 13:6-8, 8-9 'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.' 'You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.'


Again, such verses do not define the Christian teachings of peace and forgiveness. But the truth is that those verses are part of the Bible. As a Muslim, I am taught to learn about others based on their interpretation of their religious beliefs, not based on the actions of the fringe followers. (I wish Rep. Duncan follows that rule too)

The ignorance expressed by Rep. Duncan is certainly not bliss this time. It is pure bigotry and shame. There was a time when lawmakers were true leaders; leaders who were expected to be intelligent, informed, wise, uniting, and with common sense. Gone are the good old days.
Today, some of those false "leaders" lead by their ignorance and by the fear of the "other" that they instill in their constituencies.

Fortunately, most Christians that I know and closely associate with (including family members and friends), do not follow Rep. Duncan's deformed brand of Christianity which preaches hatred toward others.

At the end of the AP story, spokesman Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations was quoted saying:

"It just points to the amount of education about Islam and the American Muslim community that is needed in all levels in our society, including elected officials."

I could not have said it any better. He just is much more diplomatic than me.

Urban Legend on Islam: The 9/11 verse in the Quran

Urban legends come in different types. Some are meant to entertain and others are meant to demonize and dehumanize a group of people. Once a group of people is dehumanized, it becomes much easier to discriminate against, harass, or even subject such people to a genocide. The examples of what happened to Jews by Nazi Germany, Bosnian Muslims by Serb Nationalists, and Chechens by Russians, provide us with tragic proof from our history.

Here is an example of an email that keeps surfacing on various lists, poisoning the minds of uninformed people.

Read down to the very bottom highlighted in green, IT'LL GIVE YOU GOOSE-BUMPS!!!

You don't want to miss this! ((*_*) )

VERY INTERESTING-

This is something to think about: Since America is typically represented by an eagle.
Saddam should have read up on his Muslim passages ...
The following verse is from the Koran, (the Islamic Bible)

Koran ( 9:11 ) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle.. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the l ands of Allah; And there was peace.
(Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?!

I BETTER NOT HEAR OF ANYONE BREAKING THIS ONE OR SEE IT DELETED.
This is a ribbon for soldiers fighting in Iraq.
Pass it on to everyone and pray. Something good will happen to you tonight at 11:11 PM. This is not a joke.
Someone will either call you or will talk to you online and say that they love you.
Do not break this chain.

Send this to 13 people in the next 15 minutes

Now this would have been really amazing, except that there is no such verse in the Quran, not anywhere in the Quran. The lying bigot who originally wrote this message and the ignorant person who is forwarding it to others without verifying its accuracy are just willingly contributing to the anti-Muslim sentiment which is the cause of a growing number of cases of hateful attacks and discrimination against Muslims in the world.

Unless we all commit ourselves to dialogue, learn, and understand other people, most of us will continue to fall prey to such ignorance and deception.

Ironically, the actual verse 9:11 says:

But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge.

What an irony. The verse speaks about repentance and brotherhood. It also reminds us that such revelation are explained and understood by those who have knowledge, not the ignorant ones; the same ignorant bigots who engage in forwarding such hateful messages to begin with.

Indeed, Allah/God is the Most Wise, the All Knowing.

Letter to Editor: Bible, Quran easily quoted out of context

Letter to the Editor
August 29, 2006
North County Times
www.nctimes.com

Andy McIntosh ("Islamic history, words at odds," Community Forum, Aug. 24), posed questions to Muslims, and I am more than happy to respond, in efforts to dispel myths about Islam and counter ignorance and Islamophobia.

The Quran, like other scriptures, cannot be understood except within its context. A verse in the Quran that Mr. McIntosh quoted specifically refers to Muslim armies involved in a defensive battle.

Similarly, one verse in the Bible can easily be taken out of context. It says, "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep..." (1 Samuel 15:3)

Islam forbids aggression and, like Christianity, has rules for a just war. Those rules are limited to self-defense or protecting people who encounter injustice, as stated in the following verses in the Quran:

"Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loves not aggressors." (2:190)

Additionally, the Prophet Muhammad said, "Do not kill women or children or noncombatants and do not kill old people or religious people. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies."

Just as the Bible has been abused by fanatics to justify the Crusades, slavery and the Holocaust, so have fanatics abused the Quran to further their murderous agenda.

Islam, like other religions, teaches respect, peace and tolerance for everyone. I also wish peace on Mr. McIntosh and followers of all faiths.

Hussam Ayloush
Executive director,
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Southern California

---
Read more:

Dark Passages: How the Quran and the Bible can be mis-read

Urban Legends on Islam: The 9/11 verse in the Quran

Beware sensational translations of holy verse, torn out of context

Beware sensational translations of holy verse, torn out of context

Quoting the Quran
Beware sensational translations of holy verse, torn out of context

The Press Enterprise
Friday, July 22, 2005
By HUSSAM AYLOUSH
http://www.pe.com/


Editor's note: When a reader recently wrote to us with a provocative question about the nature of Islam, we sought a response from a Muslim leader from the Inland region. The query and answer are published here.

Peaceful precepts?
Parvez Ahmed's commentary ("Blame Islam game misguided pastime," July 15) states that the bombings in London were committed by "Islamic extremists" and were universally condemned by major Muslim groups throughout the world as being totally against the precepts of Islam.
I have a simple, straightforward question and I'd like a simple, straightforward answer. The Quran, sura 47:4, states, "When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives."
How do Parvez Ahmed and the others reconcile their statements with the command of Allah as recorded in the inerrant word of Allah by Muhammad, His prophet?

WALTER MARTIN CLARK, Riverside


Imagine a letter to the editor asking Christians or Jews to reconcile Christianity or Judaism in light of an out of context verse from the Bible, such as: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3)

Or this verse: "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)

This is certainly not a fair or scientific way to understand the Bible nor the peaceful message of Christianity or Judaism. The Quran, like all other scriptures, can not be understood except within its context. Taking a verse out of its theological or historical context can lead to mis-interpretations, often the hallmark of extremists. Just as the Bible has been abused by fanatics to justify slavery and holocaust, so have Muslim fanatics abused the Quran to further their murderous agenda.

The verse that the writer referred to, verse 4 from chapter 47 specifically refers to Muslim armies involved in a battle encounter. Here is a more authentic, and less sensational, translation:

"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates."

Islam forbids wars of aggression and, like Christianity, sets strict conditions for a just physical warfare. Those conditions are limited to self-defense or removing injustice against other people, as stated in the following verses in the Qur'an.

"Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loves not aggressors." (2:190)

"And why should you not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed? - Men, women, and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You, one who will protect; and raise for us from You, one who will help.'" (4:75)

Moreover, Islam imposes strict rules and ethics on its adherents involved in such just wars. For example, the Prophet Muhammad said: "Do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or religious people, (and he mentioned priests, nuns, and rabbis). Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies."

The Prophet also said: "whoever unjustly harms a Christian or a Jew will not even smell the scent of paradise."

Islam's core message is to foster good relationship among all people, regardless of race, color, or religion. The Qur'an teaches Muslims to revere all prophets, including Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Moses, John the Baptist, and Jesus and to respect their followers. Peace, respect, and fair cooperation are the basis of all human relationships. The murderous acts of a few, whether Muslims or others, should not shake our eternal faith that we, as human beings or believers in God, can live in harmony on this planet of ours.

I invite those who wish to learn more about the American Muslim community to visit www.cair.com

---
Read more:

Dark Passages: How the Quran and the Bible can be mis-read

Letter to Editor: Bible, Quran easily quoted out of context

Urban Legend on Islam: The 9/11 verse in the Quran