Time and again, over and over and over again, I either read or hear from people that Islam calls for the murder of "infidels," or all those who are not Muslim. This perception is so pervasive, so entrenched, and I really do not know from where it comes. Yes, there are Muslims who do believe this: 19 of them crashed three planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, killing nearly 3,000 of my innocent American brothers and sisters. But, I don't know from where they got this idea.

"It is the Qur'an, you idiot!!!" I am quite sure some of you just screamed that to your computer screen. Really? Where? I do not know of one verse which directs the believers to kill all "infidels." Yet, I am constantly reminded of the contrary, such as this verse:

"Now when you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overcome them fully..." (47:4).

Or this one:

"O you who have attained to faith! Fight against those unbelievers who are near you and let them find you adamant, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him" (9:123).

Or this one:

"O Prophet! Strive hard (lit., make "jihad") against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be adamant with them... " (66:73).

Yet, perhaps the "poster child" of all the verses in the Qur'an which are cited as evidence that Islam calls for the murder of infidels is this one, the so-called "Verse of the Sword":

"Slay the pagans wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place..." (9:5).

Case closed? Wrong. These verses have a context, and when understood in their proper context, it will become quite clear that the verses cited above are not a carte blanche for Muslims to kill all non-Muslims.

Before I address specific verses, however, a few general principles of the Qur'an when it comes to fighting must be explained. Also, I rely almost exclusively upon Muhammad Asad's explanation of the Qur'an as my source material. Let us begin, then.

In the Qur'an, the principle of fighting is purely self-defensive. According to all available Traditions, the earliest verses revealed with regards to fighting are these:

"Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged and, verily, God has indeed the power to succour them; those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, 'Our sustainer is God!'" (22:39-40).

Along with this verse is 2:190, which says:

"And fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you..."

Thus, it is quite clear that fighting is to be done in self-defense. Now, anyone can commit acts of terror and aggression and say, "it's in self-defense." In fact, that is precisely what Al Qaeda is doing: they claim by killing 3,000 people in New York City and Washington, D.C., they are "defending" the Muslim nation against "Zionist and Crusader" aggression against the Muslims. What sheer rubbish.

The Qur'an clearly states, in the remainder of 2:190 it says:

"...but do not commit aggression, for verily, God does not love aggressors."

"Committing aggression" includes killing innocent civilians in Tel Aviv, Beslan, New York, Baghdad, or wherever. Furthermore, when the enemy ceases its hostility, fighting must cease:

"...but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [willfully] do wrong" (2:193).

Another verse repeats this insistence that hostility must cease when the enemy stops its aggression against you:

"But if they [the enemy] incline to peace, incline thou to it as well, and place thy trust in God: verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing! And should they seek but to deceive thee [by their show of peace] - behold, God is enough for thee! He it is who has strengthened thee with His succour, and by giving thee believing followers" (8:61-62).

Thus, even if the enemy is feigning a peaceful posture, the Muslims are still commanded to cease hostility and "place their trust in God." Thus, it is quite clear that fighting is in self-defense, and aggression is not allowed. Now, Muslims have waged wars of aggression in the past, for sure, and they even called them "jihad against the infidels" in order to justify their desire for territorial expansion. In fact, one of the most pertinent examples of this was the Ummayad Dynasty, which enacted a policy of "jihad" as perpetual warfare. But, such a policy is not Islamically correct, and as the collapse of the Ummayad Dynasty showed, not sustainable.

Still, the point of the matter is, the framework underlying fighting in Islam is self-defense, and all other verses which deal with fighting or call on the believers to "fight the unbelievers" must be understood in this framework. Yet, this begs the question: why are these verses even in the Qur'an at all? Why fight at all? What was the historical context of these verses of the Qur'an which tell the believers to "fight the unbelievers"? It was a very violent one.

From the very beginnings of his ministry, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was opposed by his people. In fact, on the first day he openly called his people to Islam, his own uncle cursed him by saying, "May you perish!" And why? Because he called his people to abandon their worship of idols and worship instead the One God of Abraham. This was unacceptable, however, to the Meccan oligarchy.

At first, the Meccans simply ignored the Prophet's call. Yet, he would not relent, and Islam began to gain a growing, yet still small, number of followers. This began to alarm the Meccan oligarchy, because fundamentally, the message of Islam was a direct challenge to the status quo, one which greatly benefited those in power in Mecca. The Quraysh, the Prophet's main tribe, were the guardians of the Ka'ba, or the main shrine in Mecca. This shrine was originally built by Abraham and his son Ishmael for the worship of the One God. Over time, it was defiled by 360 pagan idols, gods worshiped as intermediaries between man and the Creator.

Prophet Abraham (pbuh) began the practice of an annual pilgrimage to this shrine, and the Arabs followed in this tradition. Quraysh, being guardians of the Ka'ba, would host the pilgrims, but also sell their goods to the pilgrims. In fact, they made rules that entrenched this economic monopoly. One of the prime examples of this is that pilgrims can only circumambulate the Ka'ba with clothes made by Quraysh. If they could not afford such clothes, they must circumambulate naked. Thus, the idolatrous system in Mecca had a direct economic benefit for the Meccan oligarchy. Moreover, their occupation as guardians of the Holy Shrine made their stature among the Arabs even more elevated.

The Prophet's message of "there is none worthy of worship except God" was a direct challenge to this power structure. If the Arabs abandon their worship of the pagan gods, the Quraysh's logic went, Quraysh's economic monopoly vanishes. Moreover, "there is none worthy of worship besides God" also challenged their non-chalant attitude toward the enormous injustice of Arab society in the Seventh Century. When someone pledges that there is none worthy of worship except God, they necessarily accept God's way of doing things and running their lives. Preventing injustice and having concern for the poor and less fortunate is an essential aspect of Islamic ethics, and this was a challenge the Meccan oligarchs were not willing to take up. Thus, they opposed the Prophet's message.

When ignoring the Prophet did not work, they began to actively oppose it. The Prophet, however, enjoyed the protection of his uncle Abu Talib and the clan of Bani Hashim, thus they could not harm him physically. There are some who claim that the only reason the Meccans opposed the Prophet was because he reviled their gods. This is not exactly true. Indeed, the Prophet did revile their gods. Yet, the Qur'an directed him to stop, when the pagans threatened to revile God in revenge:

"But do not revile those [beings] whom they invoke instead of God, lest they revile God out of spite and in ignorance: for goodly indeed have We made their own doings appear unto every community. In time, [however], unto their Sustainer they must return: and then He will make them [truly] understand all that they were doing" (6:108).

Thus, the Prophet stopped, but the Meccans did not stop their opposition. In fact, it only increased. Seeing that they could not harm the Prophet physically, they resorted to physical torture of anyone who converted to Islam. In fact, they killed two people, Sumaya and Yasser, when they refused to give up Islam. The situation became so bad that the Prophet sent away around 70 of his companions, including his own cousin Ja'afar ibn Abi Talib, to Abyssinia for asylum.

Even physical torture did not stop the flow of converts to Islam. Thus, the Meccans boycotted the Prophet, his clan Bani Hashim, and all those who followed Islam. The Meccan oligarchy prevented anyone from buying from or selling to anyone associated with the Prophet. They could not marry to or from Bani Hashim. They were banished to some mountain tracts just outside of Mecca, and there they stayed for three years. When the Sacred Months would come, during which all hostilities must cease, the Meccans would raise the prices of their goods to such an extent that the Muslims could not buy anything. Many Muslims, including the Prophet, went hungry, and his uncle Abu Talib and wife Khadija died as a result of this boycott.

After the boycott ended - and with his main source of support, Abu Talib, now dead - the persecution of the Prophet increased exponentially. Now, not just the elite of Mecca attacked the Prophet, but even young children hurled dust and insults at the Prophet. The Prophet soon realized that there was no hope left for the Meccans to accept his message, and he thus looked to the South, to the sister city of Ta'if, for aid and support. He was immediately rejected, and the leaders of Ta'if sent the street children after him to pelt his legs with stones, bloodying them severely. The situation was so dangerous for the Prophet that he could not return to Mecca except under the protection of Mut'im ibn 'Adi, one of Mecca's most powerful leaders, who pitied the Prophet.

When the Meccans learned of Mut'im's pact of protection, they came to him and asked, "Protector or follower?" He replied, "Only a protector." They said to him, "If you would have said 'follower,' we would have fought you." This to one of the most powerful men of Mecca, showing the deep enmity the Meccans had for the Prophet. When all hope was lost, an unexpected boost came from the North. The people of Yathrib, a city more than 250 miles away, had accepted Islam and now asked for the Prophet to come to them. He took an oath of allegiance from them, and he ordered his followers to emigrate to Yathrib, soon to be called Madinat-un-Nabi, or City of the Prophet. After the Prophet made sure all of his followers left Mecca safely, along with returning the property his enemies had entrusted to him (because of his impeccable honesty), the Prophet himself emigrated to Medina along with his trusted friend Abu Bakr.

Yet, the hostilities did not cease with the Prophet now expelled from Mecca. After he left, the Meccans seized all the property of the Muslims which was left behind in Mecca, including that of the Prophet, and enriched their caravans with it. This was a blatant act of war, and thus the Prophet raided the caravans of Quraysh to get their property back. This led to the first major battle between the Muslims and the Meccans, the Battle of Badr. The Meccans were handle defeated by the Muslims. This enraged the Meccans, and they returned less than two years later with a larger, more powerful army to crush the Muslims at foot of Mount Uhud.

At first, the Muslims easily defeated the Meccans, but when 50 archers disobeyed the direct order of the Prophet, the Meccans regrouped, and the Muslims were defeated. The Prophet himself was severely wounded in the ensuing chaos, and he was nearly killed. Yet, this small victory did not satisfy the Meccans. They returned once more with the largest army ever assembled in the history of the Arabs - 10,000 strong - composed of all the hostile tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. The pagans marched directly for Medina, seeking to wipe out Islam once and for all. This effort also did not succeed, and the pagan Arab army was sent back in defeat.

On top of the relentless attacks and hostility toward the Muslims from the direction of Mecca, many surrounding Arab and Bedouin tribes were also hostile to the Muslims, and they joined in the fight against the Prophet. In fact, these Arab tribes sought to assassinate the Prophet on many occasions. The hostility did not cease until the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah in 628 C.E., and it was only after the Meccans broke the treaty (contrary to some modern accusations) that the Prophet finally marched on Mecca and conquered it in 630.

It was in this terribly hostile environment that the verses commanding the Muslims to "fight the unbelievers" were revealed. This was the historical context of verse 9:5 and others like it. Quite clearly, the verses are commanding the Muslims to defend themselves against the aggression of their enemies, and they are not commands for the Muslims to "kill all infidels." In the next article, we will discuss more fully the infamous "Verse of the Sword" and show that this verse is not a carte blanche for violence against all those who are not Muslim.

Read Part II here

I am curious how you reconcile your statement that you know of no Qur'an statement that calls for believers to kill unbelievers, particularly when you quote 47:4, exhorting "when you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overcome them fully..."

You might say that there is context involved, and indeed there is. But we are also speaking of human beings. Given such a simple directive, many have adopted this "kill them all" attitude, and this has become the "truth" of Islam as it is practiced, in the perception of the targets... that is, us "unbelievers".

You may claim that Christianity is no different, and you would be just as correct, given the history of oppression, bloody and otherwise, that the Church displays.

So I ask you again: how do you reconcile your position that Islam isn't about killing the infidel, when that is what the world sees of the most vocal practitioners of that faith?

Hold on there Bob J, I wonder have ever read the ENTIRE Quran or are simply cut and pasting verses out of context that you 've read and heard by ignorant folk ? When it comes to fighting "infidels" the Quran refers to those Arab Pagans who fought and persecuted the first generation of Muslim, furthermore it applies to those who persecute Muslims. So it doesnt apply to you and your loved ones. Have you read the parts in the Quran where it talks about relations with non-Muslims or did you conviniently skip them ? So no, neither I nor my co-religionists spend every waking fantasizing about chasing after infidels down the streets. And to correct the fallacy that most of the world sees Islam in this negative light, thats what you THINK. Infact most of the world hold Americans in contempt for their actions, and I'm not talking merely about the desecration of the Holy Quran by war criminals in the Gitmo Gulag. Anti-Americans isnt just in Islamic countries. Ever wonder why ?
Dr.Hassaballa, you sir need to quit grovelling and show some dignity instead of pandering to malicious and ignorant fools who care nothing for facts or figures.

Driveby, get off his back. Where is the "grovelling" in the Hassaballa's article? Can you quote it? It looks more to me like education.

It's called apologetics (apo logos) and it's how Christianity was initially spread to Europe and how Islam came to dominate parts of Southeast Asia. What's wrong with taking a friendly posture, even if under attack? What's wrong with being the bigger person?

I'll be blunt: Hassaballa's articles stimulate admiration for Islam on my part. No, not because i previously harbored idiotic stereotypes about rabid Moslems, but for the more specific reason that it is always inspiring to see the act of gentleness, the generousness of heart, which is implicit in patient explanation. The experience of which i would maintain makes me in turn less malicious, less ignorant in your eyes. Or perhaps you think the best way to achieve that is via constant kicks to the groin?

DriveBy, the article wasn't about American excesses. It was about the statement that Hassaballa made in his first paragraph: he claims he doesn't know where the Muslims who do believe that all the infidels need to be killed got the idea in the first place. He states emphatically that they didn't get it from the Qur'an. He then goes on to quote... out of context or not... a piece from the Qur'an where it certainly sounds, to any reasonable observer, like that holy writing does indeed contain a justification for the kill-them-all position.

You can't claim not to know how someone can draw scriptural underpinnings for a perpetual war on the unbeliever, and then show me the quote that gives someone that underpinning! That is what I am asking of asking Hassaballa to reconcile.

Actually Bob J, once again you've dodged the real issue here, whether Hassaballa raises it or not. One doesnt need a religious injunction or indoctrination to do what some Muslims do, this is a useful fantasy your opinion makers and leaders put out to dodge the real issues. Dropping a 500 lb daisy cutter on civilians is all what some people need to motivate them. I was seeing red myself when I saw the treatment the scum at Abu Gharib gave to the prisoners, almost all of them held without any charges. And you have the audacity to question why anti-Americanism is common these days ? Hell, your own AM blowhard Limbaugh described as a "fraternity hazing."
I ask you again have you ever read the Holy Quran by yourself ? I'd wager you havent, instead you've lazily taken a a verse or two and blatantly twisted it around to claim that you've got a perpetual war declared on you by dark skinned semites from the Middle East because you're an "infidel." Dont delude yourself. Its not for Hassaballa to do your job for you.
But then again, some people only believe what they want to believe despite facts and figures. Just ask your leaders about those fabled WMDs.

biomuse2,
I dont see gentleness, I see appeasement. One can be polite but firm when dealing with lies and fables. That isnt a kick to the groin, but a dose of reality.

DriveBy, you are precisely the kind of individual who poisons any hope of understanding between people. Do not presume to read anything into my words that isn't there in print. The article above is not about American excesses. That's the second time I've raised that point, and you've ignored before; don't do it this time. The article is about where the justification for killing infidels comes from. The author claims it isn't from the Qur'an, but then offers a quote which certainly sounds like it supports exactly that. I'm asking for him to reconcile the contradictory positions. And you start spouting about daisycutters...

You know nothing about my position on the matters of American involvement in world affairs, and I have no intention of enlightening you, since you're clearly convinced of the rightness of your assumptions. And you have the temerity to accuse me of believing only what I want to?! Examine yourself, first.

My question to the author still stands. It is couched in challenging language for a reason, which I don't expect you to understand. Dr. Hassaballa, hopefully, is made of stronger intellectual material.

BobJ,

Let us say the Ayat is true and it tells Muslims to kill infidels than what? We conclude, indeed Islam and Muslims are an intolerant and war hungry people. What is your objective in raising this point?

It seems that you are the one who is not interested in dialogue but more in the interest of promoting Islamaphobia. Am I wrong to assume?

Best,

Let us look at the Ayat in question.

047.004
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

Unbelievers are the meccans(pagans) who are waging war against the Prophet Muhammad and his followers.

The question to ask is there a war waged against Muslims? No, not in the sense of all out war but war is being waged against Muslims in subtle ways ie. War on Terror, Media war, ideological wars,oil wars etc.

The question to ask if war is being waged against you, are you suppose to wait idly and let the massacre occur? No, you defend yourself, and the Muslim will continue to defend themselves, as would be expected by any sane human being.

Later,

Basit, yes, you are wrong to assume.

If, as you say, we accept that "Islam and Muslims are an intolerant and war hungry people", then what would you have us, who are not Muslim, do? Should we, then, wait idly, fervently hoping that the intolerant and war hungry people do not notice us, or bring death to us? You seem to be asking us to do what you would not do.

I do not promote a fear of Islam. I seek to understand the effects it has on the motivations of those who follow it. For that reason, I am as uninterested in the study of the esoterica of the Qu'ran as I am in the esoterica of the Bible, the Torah, or any other holy writing. Scholars of all three religions can very ably defend the "true meaning" of their particular religion's texts. But true scholars are not the ones bombing marketplaces, firing missiles into crowds or dropping bombs on villages.

Look at it this way: the average person who is a fervent believer in their religion generally will only go so far in their understanding of the underpinnings of that religion. They will be familiar with the forms, and with some of the more approachable maxims... the "soundbites" of their faith... but rarely will they understand more. It is for this reason that most religions have taught lessons by parable and metaphor. Those who found and promote religious sects know that the rank-and-file believer is either incapable, unwilling, or unfamiliar with deeper modes of thought to be "bothered" by the deeper levels of meaning in religion. This is not a good thing, by any means, but it is so, and it is so for humanity as a whole, regardless of their religion.

If a religion's tenets are taken at their simplest (and most believers of any faith will do just that), and those tenets have an expansionist, aggressive component (and Christianity and Islam both do), then the average believer of that faith is going to believe that "multiple and subdue" is the right way to go. For members of any faith not to recognize their own aggressive and expansionistic tendencies is to allow to exist a situation whereby those tendencies will be channeled into violence and a war-footing aimed against anyone who is different.

I have heard members of Christian sects vehemently state that their faith is about love and acceptance. In their next breath, they talk about "bringing everyone to Jesus", even if they have to be severely intrusive to do it. I have seen statements released by Moslem clerics calling on their faithful to put down all non-Moslems. The rank-and-file is going to accept that call as proper, even if most of them never lift a finger to harm another.

But the fact that most, Christian or Moslem, never harm another through direct action does not permit members of either faith to claim that their religion doesn't have those agressive components that justify religious war.

Dr. Hassaballa is writing that we've got it all wrong, that there is no justification to be taken from the Qu'ran for killing infidels outright. I believe that he is not taking into account that there might be enough adherents to Islam that do believe in that justification, to make the "kill infidels" faction more powerful than the ones who adhere to the peaceful side of Islam.

DONÌT LISTEN TO BOBJ, HE DOESNÌT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!!!!

DONÌT LISTEN TO BOBJ, HE DOESNÌT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!!!!

DONÌT LISTEN TO BOBJ, HE DOESNÌT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!

Bob J, you're not listening. I cant speak for the Christian sects since I'm not a Christian myself. You have not answered my questions and are simply dodging the real issues. I have already explained to what an infidel means in the Quranic sense. I have also asked you repeatedly if you have ever read the Quran in its entirity. You have never answered, instead you keep insisting the majority of Muslims are out to get because you insist on being an "infidel."
You also cite "Moslem clerics" who are out to get you. How about some names ? Or does FOX news not give the names ? What about the thousands of Muftis, Imams who have condemned terrorism ? You dont seem interested in what they say.
Let me get to the point, you sir are an ignoramus who insists on repeating the same old tired polemic. I'll bet the farm you have never even met a Muslim, much less had a conversation with one. You simple want to hold on your petty little prejudices.
As I've explained before, anti-Americanism is the responce to the barbaric acts committed in Abu Gharib, to the desecration of the Holy Quran in the Gitmo Gulag. Dont need a cleric or madrassah to get anyone fired up, you're doing a splendid job of that yourselves. I for one, am not interested in conversing with people who insist that history, facts and figures are irrelevent.

l

DriveBy, page back through the posts I've made, and find for me anywhere that I've claimed there are Moslem clerics "out to get" me. I've asked for clarification from the author, and you insist on putting words in my mouth. I'm not letting you. The author has yet to reconcile his position; that's all I'm waiting for.

By the way, if you bet that farm... you lose. I'm sure you'd like to think that anyone who turns a critical eye on the practitioners of your religion in its various permutations is just anti-Mulsim. That's as bad as any Jew who says that anyone who's critical of the practitioners of that religion is an anti-Semite, and I don't buy that position either.

Oh, and basit... that's a wonderful technique of handling disagreement you have there... urge people not to listen. Brilliant riposte. I'd rather urge people to think, and gather information for themselves, which is why I came here. A pity that the only answers I get are to be accused of beliefs I do not hold, and having someone prance around telling people not to even listen to me.

When will you people learn?

BobJ,

Reread my second post. I have put the Ayat in question in perspective. It is your choice to continue in your ignorance.

Again I will ask:

Is war being waged against Muslims and are they suppose to idly stand by and watch their own destruction?

Best,

PS I was using a technique that "the west" has mastered. Repeat something often enough and becomes Truth.

DONÌT LISTEN TO BOBJ, HE DOESNÌT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!!!!

DONÌT LISTEN TO BOBJ, HE DOESNÌT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!!!!

DONÌT LISTEN TO BOBJ, HE DOESNÌT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!

I sure wish the author would stick to his original argument. It doesn't help to spread the word of Islam's tolerance, that the author quickly reverts to proving how despicable all Americans are, as showing that any argument from an American is therefore dispicable. Hey, all grant that are Americans are despicable dogs whose only interest is in committing war crimes. That's not the point, even if all Americans are despicable, and held to be so by the whole world, deservedly that hardly shows that Islam is tolerant. Whether Americans deserve destructions wasn't the point at issue.

Looking over the posts above, it looks like old Bob won. He is objective and honest, unlike the people who can't understand simple words. The text says "Slay the infidels wherever you find them". That is very clear. The only logical counter-arguement is to say that text is poorly written and confused and what it really means is.... (as Muslims have proposed here, but cannot admit for reasons that are well-known). Doesn't the Quran say it is easy to understand? The fact is that Islam is oppressive, intolerant and discriminatory. It is unbelievable to see the verbal and intellectual gymnastics that Muslims do to justify the unjustifiable.
Kactuz

Look, I think it's best as mentally and supposedly intellectually we develop as individuals, we must be called on to evaluate our own existences and experiences. The notion of leaving it all up to god to tell us what to do is just ridiculous. Here's an idea: If god wants us to kill each other so much, LET HIM DO IT! We are supposed to be ALL created in God's image and by this logic why would such an Omnipotent and Omniscient being create defect? He wouldn't! Simple thing is THERE IS NO NEED FOR GOD - Our vain natures as Humans create and recreate, and JUSTIFY God's grand plan according to our OWN devices and greeds. Muslims and Christians just have to grow up, evolve in their spirituality and realize It's just an "old book", that may not be relevant any more to today's world, and the development of this religionist anachronism is what hinders our societal and spiritual growth. It creates disharmony and removes focus away from the war that WILL kill us all and the war we ARE losing - the war against Mother Nature. Our planet is dying, and Christian, Jew and Muslim are fighting amongst each other because their GOVERNMENTS believe that their GOD tells them to? Are you all idiots? Why can't we have great Muslim heroes like Saladdin again? Or How Christ-like was the last Christian you met?

There is NO God.. Now deal with it.