Islam IS violent, not just militant Islam

Submitted by Tim Cresswell (United States), Jan 21, 2004 at 13:24

Profound? The Quran is not overly complex with a lot of symbolism subject to multiple interpretations or contextual application. It is remarkably easy to grasp unless one intends to adulterate what it says. Your example of the 2d Amendment is not an example of apparently simple but is in reality complex. Quite the opposite; its an example of something simple which is adulterated to mean the opposite of what it plainly says. The Quran, by contrast, is simply violent and requires adventuresome adulteration to find that it does NOT command mass murder.

Complex and contradictory. Contradictions in the text have been studied and reconciled over the centuries through extensive scholarly study. Indeed, when scholars study something for years, you can bet they are adulterating it. The words in print just aren't that complex.

Static: An unchanging holy scripture cannot account for change over time. If the Koran causes terrorism, then how does one explain the 1960s, when militant Islamic violence barely existed? Dr. Pipes, I am surprised to hear you say this. While the recent BRAND of violence may be a new and innovative way of expressing Islamic violence, the entire history of Islam is one of war, death, oppression, squalor, and every imagineable form of violence. Not violent during the 60's? Please. Islam attacked Israel over and over again in unprovoked aggression.

Partial: Holy books have vast importance but do not create the immediate context of action? This is terrible reasoning that doesn't merit your signature, Dr. Pipes. The command of violence against nonMuslims is clear, direct, and inescapable to all who believe the Quran. Sura 5:33, If Islam is resisted "Their punishment is … execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides, or exile from the land." Sura5:49, "If they reject your judgment, know that it is Allah's wish to scourge them for their sins." Sura8:59, "Let not the unbelievers think they will ever get away … strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy… rouse the faithful to arms! If they incline to peace, make peace with them." Sura 9:5, "Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war." Sura 9:73, "Prophet, make war on unbelievers and hypocrites, and deal rigorously with them."

The foregoing citations sometimes are directed at "Prophet" and sometimes directed at "believer". I suppose that in an intellectually deficient way, one could argue that the "prophet" directives were intended for Muhammad only and only toward those particular enemies at that particular time, but that would be a poor argument. The context from which these passages originate were clearly intended to be general in application and implementation. It is universally accepted that all believers are to emulate the "Prophet" by doing what he did. That some "muslims" aren't as fundamental about Islam doesn't alter the message of Islam. To argue that some don't take the Quran as seriously as others doesn't address the issue.

While so called "moderate "Muslims don't take all of the Quran seriously or literally enough to implement the more violent commands of the Quran, can we say that a Muslim who doesn't take his Quran seriously is a Muslim? The Old Testament of the Bible is a history book. While Joshua was commanded by God to destroy utterly the enemy occupying the promised land, it was unique to that person in dealing with that particular enemy. Joshua was not commanded to go forth and destroy all "unbelievers" for all time. Such a reading would require more of that adventurist adulteration of the plain words written down 3500 years ago.

Terrorism is not our enemy. Islamism is our enemy. Terrorism is a methodology.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".