Violence in the Bible and the Qur'an

Answering Islam website ^ | not sure but its definitily after 9/11/01

[AgThorn]

Violence in the Bible and the Qur'an

A Christian Perspective

After the events of September 11^th, the issue of violence and religion has once again come into intense discussions and debate. As soon as Christians and others of good will condemn the Islamic justification and foundation for resorting to violence in the name of God—justifications found both in the Qur'an and the life of prophet Muhammad—we are quickly told that the Bible (especially the Old Testament scriptures) and Christian history are also filled with violence and that we should not single out Islam or the Qur'an in this regard.

For example, Fareed Zakaria, in his report in Newsweek, entitled "Why they hate us: The roots of Islamic rage—and what we can do about it" writes, "The historian Paul Johnson has argued that Islam is intrinsically an intolerant and violent religion. Other scholars have disagreed, pointing out that Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for ‘true Islam’ or quoting the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in it condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern pictures against unbelievers. Quotations from it usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam. Every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of humankind. Through its long history, Christianity has supported inquisitions and anti-Semitism, but also human rights and social welfare."

How can Christians respond to such counter-charges? Are Christians and their scriptures no different than Muslim terrorists and others who use violence in the name of God to destroy their enemies? What can we say in light of our own dark Church history and also graphic passages found in portions of the Old Testament that do not seem to cast any better light on the roots and actions of our own faith tradition? The following are some of my reflections on these questions. Time does not allow me to develop each point fully, but I hope that they can be of some help and bring some clarification to these issues.

1. As Christians we must be very emphatic that Christians have and continue to do many shameful things in the name of Christ, BUT the issue is this: Christians who use violence in the name of God to destroy their enemies have no justification for their actions from Jesus Christ, his life and teachings as found in the New Testament. Whereas, Muslims who are engaged in violence and destruction of anyone who opposes Islam, have ample justification for their actions from the Qur'an and the life and sayings of prophet Muhammad. It is beyond the scope of this paper to quote verses and passages from the Qur'an, the Hadith and biographies of prophet Muhammad (the reader can refer to other articles on this web site, e.g. in the sections Muhammad and his enemies or Islamic Terrorism), but suffice it to say that it is beyond doubt that the prophet of Islam did encourage the killing and intimidation of his enemies, not just in self defense as it is commonly reported by Muslims, but in the promotion of the cause of God and the spread of Islam. Needles to say, the actions of the prophet were in direct contradiction to the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ and his disciples. So the point is not that Christians have never resorted to violence and other horrible atrocities. They have indeed committed many horrible acts, but when they have done this, they have betrayed the very person that they claim to follow. But when Muslims commit such acts, they can in fact claim that they are following the example of their prophet and thus fulfilling the will of God and promoting His cause. That, certainly, is a big difference!

2. When we turn our attention to the Old Testamet and look at passages that are found in the book of Joshua regarding the extermination of the Canaanites living in the land, we can still notice a dramatic difference in those passages and the events in the early history of Islam. The primary theme in those accounts is the issue of God's holiness. Even hundreds of years before the invasion of Canaan, God had told Abraham that the sins of the people living in the land had not reached its limit, but when the inhabitants had defiled the land to its limit, the land was going to "throw them up." In fact, God later warned the nation of Israel to be careful in not repeating the sins of the previous people, otherwise the land was going to throw them up too. So we see that God is using Israel as an instrument of His justice to purge the land of its sinfulness and later in history God used other nations like the Assyrians and the Babylonians as His instruments to cleanse the land by destroying the people of Israel for their sinfulness.

   However, when one reads the early accounts of prophet Muhammad's raids and wars, not only one sees no mention of the theme of divine holiness and its opposition to sin, but the primary motivations that one constantly encounters are the looting of the enemies and the obtaining of booty and the spoils of war or the relief and pleasures of Paradise or conquering the enemies and spreading the rule of the prophet. I am not just repeating an old stereotypical charge against Islam. I have just finished reading the most ancient Muslim biography of prophet Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq in the second century of the Islamic era (translated by A. Guillaume and published by Oxford University Press in 1955). I truly encourage all Muslims and non-Muslims to read this book to see for themselves the violence in the actions of prophet Muhammad and his early followers.

3. Another important point that we need to keep in mind is the fact that the divine command for the destruction of the few cities of Canaan, was for a specific people, a specific time and place and a specific purpose. Nowhere in the later Old Testament period do we see God commanding the nation of Israel to go and attack other pagan nations, either as self-defense or as a way to promote faith in the true God of heaven and earth. However, in the Qur'an, we encounter general commands to kill and destroy the enemies of Islam that are applicable for all times and places and people groups. It is beyond dispute that from the earliest times, right after the death of the prophet, Muslim splinter groups began fighting, killing and assassinating even each other, in the name of God. The history of Islam, down to the present day is filled with the appeals of various Muslims to ever-applicable Qur'anic passages to destroy and kill their enemies.

4. I would like to conclude this brief article by using a popular Islamic analogy. Muslims generally believe that since Islam is the final great monotheistic religion, it is superior in every respect to Judaism and Christianity. Living in the Middle East and growing up in a Muslim country, we were always told that Judaism was like elementary school, Christianity was like high school and Islam is like university. Each religion was from God, but each one became progressively higher and better. Now the question that we must ask is this, how can Islam claim to have a superior ethics to the New Testament, and yet resort back to the use and justification of violence, elements that were supposedly part of the early Jewish tradition? It seems that Islam not only has not improved on the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament in regard to the use of force, but that in fact Islam has gone back many steps in this regard.

I hope that the above comments have been helpful in clarifying some of the issues that we are facing these days regarding the use of violence in the Qur'an and the Bible. As Christians, we must not forget that the lens through which we must look at everything in life and even the Bible is the cross of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, it is the cross that defines for us who God is, what is He like and the means by which He is redeeming the world.

---

Related articles: The Goodness of God

---

Answering Islam Home Page

[OK]

Any comparison of Christianity with Islam must not focus on the Old Testament. Christianity is named after the teachings of Christ, who updated and modified many old testament teachings (for example he repudiated the doctrine of an eye for an eye, etc). Christianity is the New Testament. To compare the Koran with the New Testament is the proper comparison. There is nothing in the New Testament that promotes any sort of violence, killing, or forced conversion. These ideas are soundly condemned.

[borntodiefree]

I don't completely agree with you, Christ was the fulfillment of the old testimant. Christ did not do away with the idea of an eye for an eye, what he did do away with was the precept that the conservatives...oops I mean Pharasiees had made it an issue of one person retaliating against another. But if you go back and read it, it was the doctrine of the rules of governement. That is what Leviticus 24 the whole chapter is about government, not individuls.

I guess this could probrably be a whole new thread, but oh well.

[wwjdn]

I can't argue with that...have a great day.

[OK]

That is interesting and of interest to scholars, I suppose, but the main point here is that Christianity is the following of Christ. He taught forgiveness and love, never violence, killing, or forced conversions. Those comparing some statements in the Old Testament to show that Christianity is just as violent as Islam are misguided, since Christ brought a new covenant of forgiveness and love to replace the old covenant of vengeance and judgement.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Especially since not all (and perhaps only one) of the faiths can be the one true faith.

Too bad Faithful and True left the indelible stamp of prophecy on His Word.

Then again, the master of history (or Alpha and Omega) can do such things.

[AgThorn]

I hate the religious aspects of our present situation. I, for one, wouldn't shed a tear if ALL organized religions never existed.

Hmmm. that then assumes that civilization would have made it this far without our religious side. I guess you might argue that we could have gone further, but all examples of a "Godless" society that I can think of in history says just the opposite.

So you may not shed a tear, but then again you may not be able to if it wasn't for the faith of our fathers.

[AgThorn]

You are most welcome ... someones link led me to it, it might have even been one of yours!

[stboz]

Boy, somebody is missing a great opportunity.

Texas Death Match! L. Ron Hubbard vs. The Prophet!

Chained together to the END!

Getcher peanuts! Popcorn! Cold beer! The match of the century!!

[He Rides A White Horse]

Pottery has been smashed before.....and it usually hasn't been good for the other side.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Damned those feet of clay.

[BikerNYC]

Any comparison of Christianity with Islam must not focus on the Old Testament.

Are you saying the god of the old testament is somehow different than the god of the new testament? That he changed his views and kind of "mellowed out" in his old age? Or can we take the directives of god to the ancient hebrews to be the true directives of the god of both the old and new testmaments?

[borntodiefree]

We are in agreement, I am just making the distinction that their is a difference on how we respond as individuals that are offended versus how government punishes a crime.

I believe in turning the other cheek, I also believe that if you kill some one, the government has a duty to exterminate that person as an example to others of the price of that sin in a Judeo-Christian society.

One other note is that the word Christ was using is someone smacking you/trying to intimidate you. He was not referencing someone trying to kill you that is a different word.

[borntodiefree]

Agreed, violance as punishment is to be utilized only by a rightious government. Violance by an individual is only applicable to the defense of another or of themselves in a life threatening situation.

[OK]

Are you saying the god of the old testament is somehow different than the god of the new testament? That he changed his views and kind of "mellowed out" in his old age? Or can we take the directives of god to the ancient hebrews to be the true directives of the god of both the old and new testmaments?

That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that Christianity is named after Christ. By definition, a Christian follows the teachings of Christ. The point being that Christ advised love and compassion, the same as Krishna and Buddha. These teachings are in stark contrast to the Koran.

[OK]

That is not unreasonable. I would put it a little differently in that the issue is who initiates the violence. The Koran advises believers to initiate violence against non-believers. That is why many see Islam as evil.

[Kevin Curry]

Many Muslims try to defend their faith by pointing out that the Koran asserts that Jesus was a great prophet. But they deny just as emphatically that Jesus Christ was put to death on the cross and that he was physically resurrected from the dead. Moreover, they consider it a great heresy to believe and teach that Jesus Christ is God, the Word, the Creator through Whom and by Whom all things were made.

Muslims therefore praise a form of godliness (or holiness) in Jesus Christ but deny the the all-important Power thereof. This isn't a minor point of disagreement. It is an unbridgeable point of disagreement. If all Jesus Christ was merely a great prophet, the Christian faith is a lie and wholly in vain.

By denying the Sonship of Jesus Christ, his physical death and resurrection, Muslims confesses that Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran are directly, squarely, and emphatically anti-Christian. The Koran's nod to Jesus Christ as a prophet is theological legerdemain, a subtle but profound hoodwink and lie.

[AgThorn]

Muslims therefore praise a form of godliness (or holiness) in Jesus Christ but deny the the all-important Power thereof. This isn't a minor point of disagreement. It is an unbridgeable point of disagreement. If all Jesus Christ was merely a great prophet, the Christian faith is a lie and wholly in vain.

I have always found it fascinating and illogical for Muslims to acknowledge that Jesus was born "not of man", i.e. they acknowledge the virgin birth, but yet they try to put him on an equal playing field with Mohammed but further denying his death/resurrection.

The logic they use just escapes me. They acknowledge that Jesus was "made" by God, I believe they put Him in the same unique category with "Adam" in their beliefs.

To me, or for that matter to any agnostic or athiest that would want to do any form of comparitive religion, any serious study would seem to show that the muslim faith has to be a very illogical faith, with very poorly defined "roots".