Source: The Independent
Wednesday 4 March 2015
By Adam Walker
The Koran has violent passages, but it also has others that explicitly tells us how to interpret them — and it’s bad news for critics of Islam
Isis has sharpened many people’s sense of paranoia towards Islam. The majority of Muslims have a peaceful reading of the Koran, but as Isis commits more and more atrocities, the argument that the Koran equally invites a violent interpretation of its teachings has begun to gain ground.
A quick internet search that throws up certain passages which, read at face value, could prove these suspicions correct. For example, critics of Islam often cite verses such as: “fight such of the disbelievers as are near to you”; or to “kill the idolaters wherever you find them”. Passages such as these leave an impartial observer wondering — is Islam simply a matter of interpretation? Is the line between a peaceful Muslim and a terrorist simply a matter of which verses you follow and which you ignore?
No, is the emphatic answer of the Koran. Whether Islam is peaceful or extreme is not just a matter of interpretation, and for the simple reason that the Koran tells you exactly how to interpret it. Once you’ve read how it works, you’ll understand exactly why the verses above aren’t actually calling for “Death to the West”, but are in fact completely reasonable in their context. If that sounds far-fetched, then keep reading.
WHY THERE’S NOTHING ISLAMIC ABOUT THE ‘ISLAMIC STATE’
The Koran clearly states that it contains two types of verses: context-independent verses, and context-dependent verses. Context-independent verses are unambiguous and timeless principles which can be applied in every situation. Context-dependent verses are those that are specific to particular situations, and can’t be read in isolation. The Koran then goes on to condemn those who cherry-pick verses to suit their own selfish ends, and tells its reader to take all the verses together before coming to any conclusions.
“Peace” is one of the literal meanings of Islam, and its ultimate aim. And as such, it explicitly teaches that there is no compulsion in matters of faith. Regarding war, it teaches that Muslims are only ever allowed permitted to fight defensively, stating that “permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged – and Allah indeed has the power to help them”.
The verses that are often quoted by critics are, like those at the beginning, cherry-picked context-dependent verses. They were only applicable at a time when war had been openly declared against Muslims because of their faith. They were being driven out of their homes and routinely assassinated. “Fight them until there is no persecution and religion is freely professed for Allah”, says the Koran. But if they stop oppressing you, it warns, then remember that “no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors“. Verses such as these mention fighting “disbelievers” because the division of the two sides was one of belief – non-Muslims who were the aggressors, and Muslims, who were being killed for their acceptance of Islam.
As for how Muslims should co-exist with peaceful people of other beliefs, the Koran couldn’t be clearer: “Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes”. For everyone else, it is taught that you should be kind and act fairly towards them.
So just to be clear: Islam is not simply a matter of interpretation, because the Koran itself tells us how to interpret it. Any other interpretation is either willfully dishonest or just plain ignorant.
Once this has been accepted, then can we recognise the evil of Isis without letting them divide us? It is unity across diversity that is the best way to defeat them. Repel evil with that which is best, says the Koran (or: don’t stoop to their level). And this is something that I hope we can all agree on, regardless of our religious beliefs.
Additional Reading
Two Hundred Verses about Compassionate Living in the Quran
Forty Hadiths or Sayings of the Prophet Muhammad about Compassionate Living
Adam Walker has said the same things just like many of the writers are saying about Islam – that it is a peaceful religion etc etc. All religions are peaceful in the beginning. What is so special about Islam that it could be guaranteed to remain peaceful after 1400 years. I call such write ups apologetic and not a defence of Islam.
Let us see how the extremist followers of Quran (after 1400 years of the advent of Islam) will justify their actions to Adam when he says:
“They were only applicable at a time when war had been openly declared against Muslims because of their faith. They were being driven out of their homes and routinely assassinated. “Fight them until there is no persecution and religion is freely professed for Allah”, says the Koran. But if they stop oppressing you, it warns, then remember that “no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors“.”
As far as the extremist interpretation of these verses is concerned, it would be that the Muslim World has been under attack by the West and “war has been openly declared because of their faith”. ever since the Crusaders and the Spanish Inquisition and has continued till the present day in different forms – attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Somali, Central Asian Republics, the puppet regimes in the Muslim World etc etc.
As far as the extremist mindset is concerned, it is not the Muslims who are in danger but his religion, Islam is in danger. Under such circumstances, it becomes the duty of a Muslim to do “Jihad” against the enemy.
It is time that Muslim scholars should stop trying to disassociate with the ISIS phenomenon. They have to own it as a possible interpretation of the verses of Quran. Because it is only after owning this phenomenon by the Muslim Scholars that one would find out the real cause of the rise of this “Jihadi Mindset”. Also, was it the common Muslim who interpretted these verses out of context or were they the scholars themselves, big names in the Muslim World who first did the wrong interpretation and then promoted it repeatedly, that even the non-Muslim scholars started quoting those Muslim scholars.
It will also expose the intentions of those Muslim Scholars of why did they indulge in that exercise. Were they genuine and sincere to Islam and the Muslim World when they distorted the interpretations of these verses? Or were they indulging in that exercise just to oppose the Reformer of the Age, the Promised Masaiah, who had categorically forbade “Jihad of the sword”?.
When Obama says that ISIS is not Islam, all the scholars readily agreed with him. Because the attention has been diverted from the blame coming to them. Obama should have for once indulged in “blame game” and should have let these so called Muslim scholars be blamed for their mischief. Or he should have openly declared that the interpretation by the Promised Masaiah is correct and according to the spirit of Islam, Peace. But he too stopped short, perhaps, that is politics. Saudis and the CARs countries have oil, and the west needs that.As such it is US startegic interests which once again intervened, and the Truth and Peace had to wait.
Munir Varraich
Sweden