We continue at a point where Mehdi Hasan discusses campaigning against Islamic terrorism in the name of Islam, which is irrelevant if such campaigning goes against Islamic teaching. Mehdi claims that Sharia is entirely subjective but if something goes against the express will of Allah, which Mehdi Hasan already has many times in this speech, it cannot be Islamically valid. If Sharia is the law of Allah, in essentials there can only be one version of Sharia, whatever it is, as any contradiction would mean one is wrong. Hasan continues his fallacious case with talk of the number of followers of Islam there are and the age of Islam, which does nothing to prove that Islam is peaceful or to delegitimise the opposing argument in any way.
The main point from this entire speech is Mehdi’s concluding statement. If Islam is a religion of war or violence, why aren’t the majority of Muslims violent? He then acts as if this is an impossible question to answer, but the answer is incredibly obvious. The majority of Muslims is divided into two large groups: one part of that majority does not know that there are verses commanding them to kill or subjugate, and the other part knows those verses are there, but chooses to ignore them. Mehdi Hasan’s main argument is the genetic fallacy once again: the actions of people, whoever they are, do not determine the nature of Islam itself, or show whether or not Islam is violent. Only Islamic scripture can show this, not polls, statistics or opinions, which is why both sides of this debate failed miserably.
Hasan addresses some of the Qur’an’s violent verses, arguing that Islam allows for violence in a specific military context and claiming that some Muslims take these passages out of that context to justify whichever actions they commit. So in order to show that Islam is not a religion of peace, I will examine in their intended context several passages of Islamic scripture in which Allah commands believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers.
While the proponents of the proposition that Islam is not peaceful failed miserably in this debate and Mehdi’s side won, Hasan did not win through positive scriptural evidence, but by means of a rebuttal of the facile points from the other side. Mehdi Hasan was all too easily able to use the same fallacy he decried earlier and say that the reason that so few Muslims carry out acts of violence is because they are wrong on Islamic grounds. If I had been in this debate, I would have presented the Qur’an only.
The Qur’an is defined in Islamic theology as the direct, perfect, unchangeable, eternal, perfectly preserved word of Allah as revealed through Muhammad. The Qur’an never preaches love for unbelievers. In it, Allah commands killing in over 70 verses. We will look at four of them in context. The first is the most famous: Surah 9:29, which was according to Islamic tradition revealed a year after Muhammad conquered Mecca. In it, Allah commands Muslims to ‘Engage in war with those who do not believe in Allah nor in the last day. Nor forbid what Allah and his messenger forbid, nor believe in the religion of the truth among those who have been given the book until they pay the jizya out of hand and they are subdued.’
There is no aspect of self-defence in this passage. Nor does it have any specific context in the Qur’an itself; it just says that Muslims should initiate war against those who do not believe in Allah. This war must continue until all religion is for Allah, as is detailed in Surah 2:193, where Allah decrees: ‘And engage in war with them until there be no sedition and the religion be to Allah. So if they desist, so there will be no transgression except on the unjust’. Only when all religion is for Allah and the unbelievers desist in what they say can this war stop. Is all religion for Allah right now? No. Therefore, Muslims are still commanded by Allah to engage in warfare against unbelievers.
In Surah 5:33, we can see what the reward is when an person wages war against Allah. Allah commands: ‘Surely the reward of those who war against Allah and his messenger and go about to vandalize on the earth is only that they will be killed or crucified or have their hands and legs cut off on opposite sides or they will be banished from the earth. This is their disgrace in this world, and in the hereafter they will have a great torment’. The meaning of this verse is crystal clear: when someone rebels against Allah, their punishment is to be ‘killed or crucified or have their hands and legs cut off on opposite sides’.
In Surah 4:89, we see Allah say: ‘They desire that you should become infidels as they are infidels so that you should be alike. So do not take any of them for friends until they emigrate for the sake of Allah. So if they turn away, so seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take from them as friends or helpers’. The meaning here is simple once again. Someone who turns away from Islam should be killed wherever he or she is found. I’m not sure in what context this could be a positive teaching, why it would ever be necessary, or which Qur’an verse contradicts this, but you may find it surprising that those who must be killed often willingly accept this punishment in accordance with the will of Allah. In the film ‘Art Of Imposture’, on my website Islam Refuted, we observe the willing taunting, humiliation and execution of an apostate called Isa. Other such instances in the movie usually involved the victims acknowledging their punishment before receiving it, especially for the removal of limbs. Although the scenes are blurred, they are obviously very disturbing, so viewer discretion is heavily advised. Despite the emotional weight, it is essential viewing because it gives you a true insight into the people behind the killings. Children are usually willing participants in the executions shown in the movie, and are all too eager to kill their selected victims. You can watch similar videos in NTAuthority’s series ‘Where are the moderates?’ via this link.
Let us now quickly conclude this brief overview, which really has been the tip of the tip of the iceberg, by looking at some non-peaceful verses regarding women. In Surah 4:24-25, sex slaves are legitimised. Allah reveals: ‘And married women [are also forbidden], except all that your right hand possesses. This is the decree of Allah for you. And it is lawful to you, besides this, to seek out women with your money, chaste without fornication. So, whatever you enjoy by it (their sexual parts) from them, so give them their wages; it is an ordinance. And there will be no sin on you about what you have mutually agreed on after the ordinance’ and in 4:25: ‘And whoever among you who cannot have sex (marry) the free believing women, so [marry] those whom your right hand possesses (slaves) from your young believing girls. And Allah knows best your faith, some of you from others. So have sex (marry) with them with the permission of their masters, and give them their wages with fairness, chaste without fornication and not entertainers of lovers. So if they become Muslim, so if they commit indecency, so torment them half of the torment prescribed for [free] married women. This is for those who fear to fall into fornication among you, and if you were patient, it would be good for you. And Allah is forgiving, merciful.’ Allah’s mercy that Mehdi so reveres is on full display here.
Allah says in Surah 4:34 that ‘Men are in charge of women by what Allah preferred some of them above the others and by what they spend out of their money. So good [women] are obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. And of whom you fear rebellion, so preach to them and separate from them in the beds and scourge them. So if they obey you, so do not seek a way against them. Surely Allah was higher, big.’ This is clearly not for a particular time; it is a clear, perfect command in the Qur’an, which is the final revealed scripture intended for all time. An amusing side note here is that this is one of the many verses which conclude by saying that Allah was rather than is, in a grammatical error (a theological impossibility when the Qur’an is the direct and perfectly preserved word of Allah). Usama Dakdok also writes in notes for his translation The Generous Qur’an that ‘women in Islam are dirtier than dirt’, citing Surahs 4:43 and 5:6. Aside from explaining context when necessary, notice how little I have to argue between the points. The Qur’an is clear and explains Allah’s will that way.
My parting challenge here to Medhi Hasan is to name a single verse in the Qur’an that preaches love for unbelievers. I have issued this challenge many, many times, and still have never received a legitimate answer. I contacted Mehdi Hasan some time ago inquiring as to the possibility of a dialogue, but did not receive a response. Aside from me, I am sure others such as Robert Spencer and Sam Shamoun would also love to take on Mehdi Hasan in a formal debate, but his lack of substance would make for an embarrassing trouncing of his position, making it all the more confusing why he is held up as an Islamic apologist at all.
Walter Sieruk says
It’s a good idea not to take at face value the claim that the word Islam means “peace.” For example, the ENCARTA WORLD ENGLISH DICTIONARY copyright 1999 defines Islam as “submission” based on the word “aslama” meaning “he surrendered.” Given the definition it’s an odd phenomenon that after about fourteen hundred years starting on September 12, 2001 the meaning changed from “submission” to “peace.” It’s very well known that if the police are questioning someone and he changes his story something is wrong. Nevertheless, when it comes to Islam no one gets suspicious of the change. The jihadists brag that they will win the war against the West by using the Western ignorance and naive gullible mindset on the subject of Islam against us. It seems that they do have some basis in that claim since so many Westerners are beguiled by the Muslim disinformation campaign.
Isaac Marshall says
Yes; the translation is surrender and another false translation is the title of the Qur’an! Al-Quran Al-Kareem doesn’t mean ‘The Holy Qur’an’ or ‘The Noble Qur’an’, it means ‘The Generous Qur’an’.
Jayell says
Islam is not a ‘religion’ at all but an aggressive, imperialist, pseudo-theocratic, totalitarian political ideology with a crudely-fabricated religious facade plagiarised from established religions of the region in which it was concocted in order to validate the political and personal financial ambitions of the criminal ‘warlord’ (= criminal ‘godfather’ in today’s parlance) of the self-styled spurious ‘Prophet’ who is reputed to have founded the movement. Two of the main reasons why it has survived for 1,400 years are (a) the level of institutional thuggery and criminality that its ‘creed’ mandates and validates, which facilitates control and appeals to the lowest common denominator of of what might loosley pass for ‘morality’, and (b) the exceptionally low average IQ level of its adherents who are ipso facto easily manipulated and lacking the intellectual capacity to challenge the many discrepancies and inconsistencies of its ‘philosophy’ (if such a grandiose term is appropriate to describe such a transparently-contrived pseudo-intellectual sham).
With this sort of background it is possible to make such ludicrous claims as (a) an entire comprehensive and universally-binding legal system (Sharia) being ‘subjective’ and that system in question is still apparently being able to stand, and (b) to speak of the ‘express will’ of the Supreme Being in whose name this ‘religion’ exists when it is patently obvious that this ‘Supreme Being’ in question has no means whatsoever of direct self-expression..
gravenimage says
Islam is a religion–it is just an evil religion.
Karen Dowden says
Great article and great comments.
Isaac Marshall says
Thanks very much, I appreciate it!
john smith says
Yes,brilliant article Isaac,one thing is for certain he would never debate with you,Robert,or Sam.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Karen.
Mount Zion says
Why is there so much talk about Islam and if it is a religion of peace . We don’t discuss that about Catholoics or Protestants or Bhuddists or Zoroastrians or people of jewish faith , please can anyone answer my question , why is it that the discussion of wether the beautiful and wonderful religion of peace is really a religion of peace ?
David says
Mount Zion: Because muslims lie about it, and those in the know, know it actually a religion of Hate, according to the evidence in the Koran.
Mount Zion says
Exactly
gravenimage says
So true, Mount Zion. This is the classic case of “protesting too much”.
Antônio Garcia says
Islã é uma declaração de guerra contra judeus e cristãos. Foi uma resposta cultural, ideológica e militar contra as religiões que era uma ameaça à forma de vida opressora que a liderança política dos árabes tratam os seres humanos em particular as mulheres.
gravenimage says
Tão verdade, Antônio
David says
Jayell, your exposition of Islam is superb and succint. very well crafted,and full of undeniable facts. The Koran gives permission, and exhorts its followers, to behave in an appalling manner without guilt. How attractive to the weak-minded!
What is surprising, is the number of normal people, through ignorance of the truth about Islam, who believe it, when they are told it is a ‘religion of peace’. Especially when the leaders of the world, proudly proclaim it! Surely the leaders are aware that it is completely untrue? It is either incompetence or complicity.
OLD GUY says
Islam is the religion of peace to the heart of mass murders, rapist and terrorist.
libertyORdeath says
This ridiculous and most prevalent argument that the quran is misunderstood and that when it says something that it really means something else is ludicrous at best. There is no allegory or similie in these passages yet this is the one debate that never seems to end. I would think that the timeless and unchangeable quran should be taken at its word WITHOUT interpretation by mere mortals, no matter how pious or learned. If you do this then the answer is unmistakable – the quran is a violent text that COMMANDS hostility and warfare against the unbelievers. The question of how individual muslims interpret and live out their faith is immaterial which is why Islam is recognized and used in drastically different ways by different Muslims. If you want to disregard the quranic dictates then we are talking about a different religion or sect, but pure Islam is a religion of conquest and subjugation plain and simple.
Isaac Marshall says
I would love to know from Mehdi what the *real* context of Surah 2:193 is: ‘Engage in war with them until there be no sedition and the religion be to Allah’. Also, as Usama Dakdok says so frequently, the entire Qur’an is out of context. When you read it, it’s all over the place within each chapter and devoid of context. Surah 2:193 is important because it established why Muslims are to engage war and lays the foundation for the motivation of ‘engage war’ verses.