Islam is Peaceful; Man is Violent

Earlier today 12 UN workers were killed by an Afghan mob protesting the burning of the Quran by Florida pastor Terry Jones. Mr. Jones has previously stated, "Islam is of the devil," and was originally planning to burn 200 copies of the Quran. This kind of unfounded generalization can only hurt U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Today Islamic radicals distort the meaning of “jihad” to justify terrorism. But rather than blame religion for violence, blame human nature, blame people.

According to a Pew poll, 35% said Islam is “more likely to encourage violence than other religions.” Many Islamophobics call Islam a “religion of the sword” because Muhammad used violence. But the Prophet was born in the violent milieu of Arabia, where Muslims had to wage jihad (a struggle) to keep the word of God alive.

Ancient Muslims had no choice but to wage war because they lived in a hostile environment, where it was kill or be killed. The typical code of warfare would seem barbaric to today’s morality. Vengeance was ingrained in society. To limit blood feuds, Arab tribes adhered to the Law of Retribution, similar to “an eye for an eye.” Other traditions included: rape, torture, molestation, mutilation, the murder of noncombatants, and caravan raids, which were considered a “national sport.” As unholy as these occurrences were, eventually Muslims improved the conditions of warfare and outlawed the wanton destruction that was hitherto considered the norm.

Although the Quran contains verses that seem violent, they are exclusively meant for Muhammad’s enemies. The Quran says “slay the polytheists,” “carry the struggle to the hypocrites who deny the faith,” and “fight those who do not believe in God”—but these verses were specifically meant to sanction self-defense against the Quraysh, the biggest threat to Islam back then.

The Quraysh was a group of elitist, capitalist Meccan tribes who held an economic and religious monopoly over Arabia. They controlled and reaped all the financial and political benefits that came with the Kaba, a universal shrine where any pagan Arabian could stop by and worship. This religious and economic hegemony allowed some Qurayshis to become wealthy, while the rest remained poor. When Muhammad preached against inequality and polytheism, he quickly became an enemy of the Quraysh. In order to defend himself and his Ummah, he adopted a “just war theory” known as jihad.

Since Muhammad refuted the notion of a “holy war,” it is unfair to portray Islam as a “religion of the sword.” The Prophet believed war was either just or unjust. Jihad permitted Muslims to struggle against internal sinful obstacles or against external oppression. It was not a religious sanction to wage war, but rather a form of self-defense given “only to those who have been oppressed.”

The doctrine of fighting only in retaliation was perhaps the most telling example of Muhammad’s passiveness. “Do not begin hostilities; God does not like the aggressor,” the Quran says. “But if the enemy desists, then you must also cease hostilities.” While in Medina, the Prophet only ordered bloodless caravan raids against the Qurayash. During the Battle of Badr, Muhammad refused for days to strike first. During the march to the Kaba in 628, Muhammad agreed to a ceasefire and returned home peacefully when he could have easily destroyed the weakened Quraysh. He even spared two Jewish clans that brazenly committed treason, a crime punishable by death. The third Jewish clan that committed treason, the Banu Qurayza, was not so lucky; the clansmen were enslaved and executed. But it was the clan’s protector, not Muhammad, that decided on such a draconian punishment. Thus, in almost every occasion Muhammad preached a peaceful, merciful Islam.

Tolerance and religious freedom are peaceful elements of Islam. “There can be no compulsion in religion,” the Quran says. “To you your religion; to me mine.” After Muslims conquered a region, they did not force its inhabitants to convert, nor did they encourage it. Under Ottoman rule, non-Muslims retained their autonomy and religious freedom because Muslims believed God, Yahweh, and Allah were all the same. These religious communities, known as millets, actually benefited from Islam since they faced lighter taxes and less discrimination. Under the devshirme system, the sultan recruited non-Muslims into the upper echelons of the empire. Not only were Christians and Jews spared, but they were given freedom, autonomy, and opportunities.

In modern times, Islam has been portrayed as a “religion of the sword” locked in irrepressible conflict with the West and the United States, but there are two fallacies with this notion. First, it is people, not religion, that actually partake in conflict; violence, competition and survival are human imperatives. Second, Islamic and Western forms of government are not incompatible. In fact, several prominent Muslims have vouched for an Islamic-Western hybrid style of government.

Consider Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who vouched for a society that was both modern and Islamic. He wanted to combine an updated version of Shariah law with Western education, social welfare, and democracy. However, the trouble came when Egypt’s Colonel Gamal Abd al-Nasser imprisoned and executed most of the Brotherhood. While in jail, Sayyid Qutb radicalized his Brothers and realized that violence was the easiest way to establish his social goal: the “Islamization” of society. Islam itself did not radicalize Qutb since he was originally a peaceful al-Banna follower. Qutb merely used Islam as a tool to justify violent. He fanaticized religion for his own socio-political goals.

Thus, this idea that Islam is “a religion of the sword” is wrong. Islam calls for peace, tolerance, and religious freedom. Any notion of violence was meant specifically to be passive and retaliatory, and was meant to be used exclusively against the Quraysh. In short, Muslims realized they had to fight to keep the word of Allah alive, and so it is written in the Quran. But that does not exonerate the terrorists responsible for 9/11.

Today, Jihadists cite Muhammad’s violent struggle and twist the Quran to justify their political and social agenda. But the extremists who invoke jihad to murder innocents only speak for themselves. They do not speak for all of Islam, and they certainly do not speak for Muhammad. To paraphrase Reza Aslan, fanaticism is a “false idol” of Islam that, like the false deities of the Kaba, must be purged.