From Badr to Bondi: Is Islam Inherently Violent? Part 1
On Sunday (14th October) there was once again terrible news of innocent people killed by terrorists associated with Islamic State (ISIS), this time 15 Jews celebrating Hanukkah on Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia. Once again, the spectre of antisemitism and violence associated with Islam raised its ugly head (see Blog #8). People around the world expressed horror, communities – especially Jewish – felt fear and Muslims in particular experienced despair. Despair that, yet again, there will be a wave of statements, social media and blogs claiming that Islam is inherently violent. This will include some from Christians.
But is Islam inherently violent? A slightly humorous anecdote may illustrate a very serious point. Many years ago, I was talking to Mustafa, a Muslim father of young children in an extended family we knew well. He had recently been in prison for supporting Ennahda, an Islamist movement in Tunisia. We got to talking about violence and I asked him about the well-known Sword Verse in Surah at-Tawbah (Q9:5) which says ‘wherever you encounter the idolaters (al-mushrikīn), kill (uqtulū) them’. He explained that Islam is a peaceful religion and that this verse was an early verse in the Qur’an which had been replaced by later peaceful verses in a process called abrogation or al-nāsikh wa al-mansῡkh (later verses replacing earlier verses). I happened to know he was wrong! Surah 9 is a late Medinan surah. If anything, in this traditional form of the concept, Surah 9’s verses would replace verses in earlier surahs. So, I had a choice:
Should I correct him, convince him that Islam is violent – and encourage him to kill me?!
Should I accuse him of taqῑya (deception) – as some Christians would – and break off relations with him because he was untrustworthy?
Or should I accept his erroneous, maybe ignorant, explanation and be glad that he was peace-loving?
I chose to do the latter, with the hope of continuing the conversation at a later date!
This story points to a pressing issue facing Christians. How should they respond to Muslim violence, whether on Bondi beach, in Muslim history or in the pages of the Qur’an?
Of course, Muslims do not have a monopoly on violence. Jewish settlers attack and occupy Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Buddhist monks urge violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar. And neither are Christians immune. A colleague of ours who lived in Nigeria reported in a newsletter how his Muslim neighbours’ house had been burned down – by Christians. He wrote, ‘most of those who’ve been fighting are members of local Evangelical churches – these are our people, and you can’t divorce yourself from your family. This is … the church at war’. Some evangelical Christians were implicated in the appalling treatment of prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. Trijicon, a company run by self-confessed Christians, stamped Bible verses on the gunsights it supplied to American and British armed forces in Afghanistan. This is all without going further back into the historical complicity of Christians in the Rwanda genocide, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, the colonisation of the Americas and the Crusades.
However, in the last two decades it has been Muslim violence that has most regularly hit the headlines. This blog does not explore the violence itself but rather the explanations that different Christians give for the causes of that violence. Part 1 of this blog looks at the causes which some Christians propose that may be said to be ‘internal’ to Islam. Part 2 will look at those which are ‘external’ and rooted in international affairs. The actual causes will always be complex but Christian writers and leaders tend to favour one or the other explanation.
Internal roots of Muslim violence
Some years ago, I was talking to a Muslim friend of mine who is an imam and ‘alim (religious scholar) and asked him about the ‘Islamic violence’ being perpetrated by Islamic State at the time. His response was that it was not ‘Islamic violence’ but ‘Muslim violence’. In other words, he was keen to stress to me that the violence was committed by people claiming to be Muslims but was not sanctioned or commanded by his understanding of Islam or of Islamic teaching. This response should be familiar to Christians, and indeed devotees of any religion, who have at times wanted to disown the actions of others who call themselves fellow believers. Maybe you, as you were reading, wanted to distance yourself from the ‘Christian’ violence that I listed above. Even my use of quotation marks suggests a dissociation.
However, many Christians do not allow this with Muslim violence. They believe that Islam is inherently and essentially violent. In fact, for them violent Islam is ‘true Islam’. This can be seen in any number of books written especially by evangelical Christians but by those of all the different traditions.[1] These books see the root of Muslim violence lying exclusively within Islam itself in its texts, histories and teachings.
Qur’an
It is not hard to find texts about killing in the Qur’an. In addition to the Sword Verse above there are verses such as Q2:190-193, Q4:89 and Q5:33 which suggest to some Christians that killing in Islam is the commanded norm. One author reckoned he found ‘109 identifiable war verses’ in the Qur’an, that is ‘one out of every 55 verses’.[2] Such Christians often point out that, contrary to Mustafa above, these verses are all in the later revelations reported to have been received by Muhammad. So, it is claimed, according to the interpretative rule of abrogation, they take the place of any earlier more peaceful revelation. In fact, abrogation is the only interpretative tool mentioned by many Christian commentators and they fail to mention the others that Muslims use, discussed below. Unsurprisingly, abrogation has also been the favoured interpretative method employed by Muslim radicals seeking to justify their violence.
Hadith
There is also violence to be found in the Hadith. One tradition says that ‘the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight (uqātil) against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah’.[3] In another, Muhammad says, ‘embrace Islam first and then fight’.[4] This all suggests to some Christians that Muhammad was a violent man and they point to the fact that, starting with the Battle of Badr in 624 AD, he fought in at least 26 battles and raids as recorded in the Sira. The Sira is the biography of Muhammad found in ancient texts such as those written by Ibn Ishaq or al-Tabari.[5] For instance, Martin Lings, a convert to Islam, wrote a biography of Muhammad’s life based on these sources and included instances of violence, such as when Muhammad condoned the beheading of 700 men of the tribe of Banu Qurayza who had broken a treaty with him.[6]
Muhammad v Jesus
It is then very easy and commonplace for Christians to draw comparisons between Muhammad and Jesus. For instance, an anonymous Orthodox Christian writes, ‘let us concentrate on the two leaders, Jesus Christ and Muhammad. Let us look at their lives, what they both said and more importantly what they did. … Did Muhammad love his enemies or kill them?’ His conclusion is the latter and he is not alone. Many Christian writers contrast Muhammad’s military exploits above with Jesus’ refusal to take up the sword or to seize political power (Matthew 26:52, John 18:36).
History
They follow this up by reviewing the rapid military expansion of Islam after the death of Muhammad and the subjugation of great Christian centres such as Jerusalem, Alexandria and Carthage. Some claim that the advance of Islam has only ever been stopped by military action, such as at Tours (732 AD) or Vienna (1683 AD).[7] They also point to the historical treatment of Christians by Muslims in some places. For instance, historian Philip Jenkins claims that ‘the largest single factor for Christian decline [in Muslim lands] was organized violence, whether in the form of massacre, expulsion, or forced migration’.[8] These are serious charges and such histories cannot be ignored or covered up. They are a legitimate subject of serious study and dialogue between Muslims and Christians, something helpfully noted by Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan.[9]
Jihad
The classical understanding of jihad is another such topic. To this point, I have not mentioned this word, which for many immediately comes to mind when hearing of Muslim violence. Yet ‘jihad is not the Arabic word for war (ḥarb) or the verb for fight (qātil) but has a wider range of meaning connected with ‘struggle.’[10] This may include struggling against injustice, ignorance or even personal sin. However, most Christian writers see it as a physical battle and sometimes (mis)translate it as ‘holy war’. Even Christian scholars who are not usually confrontational in their approach to Islam suggest that ‘the notion that jihad is a spiritual struggle or a last resort in self-defence is purely a post-modern apologia and is hardly borne out by mainstream Muslim scholarship’.[11]
What do Muslims say?
In this, such Christian scholars are supported by the modern Muslim proponents of offensive (rather than defensive) jihad. For instance, Sayyid Qutb (d.1966), an influential early ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood, complained about Muslims who teach that jihad is purely a spiritual struggle.[12] He saw it as an obligation to assert the domination of Islam around the globe by force. This encourages some Christians to point to such ideologues, who still inspire extremist groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and suggest that their interpretations of violent texts are indeed the ‘correct’ versions. By extension, the terrorist organisations which they founded and support are the ‘true’ expressions of Islam. And that is exactly what the jihadis would want them to think. As that is, indeed, their worldview.
However, a 2013 poll reported that globally 72% of Muslims say that ‘suicide bombing and similar acts targeting civilians are never justified’.[13] In other words, a big majority of the world’s Muslims reject terrorism. Of course, this does mean that the other 28% would actually ever take part in such violence – they do not – although they may sympathise with it. It is also significant that the figure condoning attacks on civilians rises to 40% in the Palestinian territories and 39% in Afghanistan. This hints at the impact of injustice, Western policies and the wider context, which will be dealt with in the next blog.
The reason that the majority of Muslims, including your Muslim neighbours, have not yet killed you is not that they are bad Muslims, disobeying their texts, but rather that they have other interpretations of the verses and teaching above. Eminent institutions within both Sunni Islam (e.g. Al-Azhar in Cairo and Zaytouna College in the US) and Shi‘i Islam (e.g. the Qom Seminary in Iran) use other interpretative tools in addition to abrogation.[14]
They believe that these verses were revealed to Muhammad at a time when the Muslim community was at war with other tribes. Therefore, killing others is only permitted in a time of war or when a Muslim community or nation is defending itself. In other words, they look at the asbāb al-nuzūl (the occasions of revelation). For them, the context of the words is important.
They consider al-ʿāmm wa al-khāṣṣ (the universal and the particular). They believe that there are some principles – such as peace – which run throughout the Qur’an and take priority over specific commands – such as fighting – given for a moment in time. They also use the principle of tafsῑr bil-qur'ān (interpretation of the Qu’ran by the Qur’an) to clarify ambiguous verses using what they consider to be clear verses. They point to the conditions in the text surrounding verses such as Q9:4-6. Of course, peace-seekers and jihadis will disagree over these interpretations and there is robust debate within Muslim communities about such things.[15]
In acknowledging that Muslims have different interpretations of their texts, Christians would not be saying that they believe Muhammad was justified in the wars he fought or that the text of the Qur’an is ‘true’ or ‘good’. Rather they would be acknowledging – and encouraging – the humanity in the majority of their Muslim neighbours.
Choices
So, as we reflect on the sad events at Bondi Beach, Christians have a choice and a responsibility not to fan the flames of extremism and Islamophobia. As with antisemitism (see Blog #8), they can support the jihadi account of Islam as an inherently violent religion locked in perpetual conflict with all non-Muslims and insist that this is ‘true’ Islam. If their goal is to convince Muslims that Islam is a false religion and to convert them to Christianity, then they face an uphill struggle to convince over a billion people that their tradition is wrong. They even risk driving vulnerable Muslims into the hands of the jihadis.
They also risk alienating peace-loving Muslims, whom they often accuse of taqῑya (deception) and of ‘cherry-picking’ eirenic texts whilst ignoring the difficult verses (something which many Christians do with the Bible). This will lead to a breakdown in communication and trust, ensuring that dialogue is meaningless or absent rather than rigorous.
On the other hand, Christians can embrace complexity and accept that religious people – including Christians – will always interpret their traditions and texts in different ways – for good or ill. I for one am grateful that the vast majority of Muslims I know have found peaceful ways to interpret their difficult scriptures and come to terms with their troubling history – as I too have to do.
[1] See for example, Patrick Sookhdeo. 2007. Global Jihad: the future in the face of militant Islam, Pewsey, Isaac Publishing; Mark Gabriel. 2002. Islam and Terrorism: what the Qur'an really teaches about Christianity, violence and the goals of the Islamic jihad, Lake Mary, FL, Creation House; or Robert Spencer. 2007. Religion of peace? : why Christianity is and Islam isn't, Washington, DC, Regnery Pub.
[2] Don Richardson. 2003. Secrets of the Koran, Ventura, CA, Regal, 19.
[3] Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 33
[4] Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 56, Hadith 24
[5] For instance, see Alfred Guillaume. 1955. The Life of Muhammad: a translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
[6] Martin Lings. 2006. Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources, Rochester, VT, Inner Traditions, 232.
[7] I use AD (anno domini) in preference to CE (common era). This system of counting years is not ‘common’ to all cultures, and to suggest so is more imperial and patronising than simply to admit its cultural origin. Other civilizations, including Muslims (AH – Anno Hegirae), have their own systems for numbering the years.
[8] Philip Jenkins. 2009. The Lost History of Christianity: the thousand-year golden age of the church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia - and how it died, San Francisco, CA, Harper One, 120.
[9] Tariq Ramadan. 2017. Islam: the essentials, Milton Keynes, Pelican, 163-4.
[10] See Ch.9 in my 2024 book Evangelical Christian Responses to Islam: A Contemporary Overview, London, Bloomsbury, 141.
[11] John Azumah. 2008. My Neighbour's Faith: Islam explained for African Christians, Lakewood, WA, Hippo Books, 41.
[12] Sayyid Qutb. 1964. Milestones, New Delhi, Millat Book Centre, Ch.4 ‘Jihad in the Cause of God’.
[13] The World’s Muslims: religion, politics and society. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 2013, 36.
[14] A later blog will deal with these interpretations and Christian responses to them.
[15] For an example of this, see my article about two Muslim magazines, ‘The “truth” about “Dabiq”: Christian reflections on Muslim responses to Daesh propaganda. CMCS Research Briefings, 5, 2015, 9-10.