Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Quran Quote of the Day on Peace

The Muslims say "hello" with the phrase "as-Salamu `alaykum"-- "peace be upon you." Once the pagan, polytheistic Meccan tribes started attacking the Muslims and trying to wipe them out, the question was raised of how to repond when a pagan not connected to the Meccans greeted a Muslim.

The instinct was to refuse to accept the sincerity of the greeting, "peace be upon you," which was also a pledge of non-violence toward the person greeted. That tendency was reinforced by greed, since if the Muslims fought these pagan strangers and won, they would legitimately be able to demand loot from them. (This was a tribal, often nomadic society, and that was the custom when tribes raided each other).

The Quran settles this dilemma. It says that Muslims are not to taunt pagans who greet them with "peace be upon you" by shouting, "You're not a Muslim!" They are to accept the sincerity of the greeting, and are not to get so greedy for spoils that they let it affect their judgment of others. When you are offered peace, take it.



Quran 4:94:

. . . Do not say to one who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," seeking the spoils of this life. For God has abundant treasure. You used to be like them, after all, and then God blessed you.



Neither 4:94, nor 4:90, quoted on Friday, imply that pagans must give up their paganism in order to be at peace with, and treated well by Muslims. Rather, the Quran takes a two-track approach. As a monotheistic scripture, it condemns idol worship and warns its practitioners of hell-fire in the afterlife. But as a matter of everyday, this-worldly practice, the Quran commands Muslims to live in peace with pagans who do not make war on them and who approach them in peace.

This is the answer to the reader who asked about the Quran's attitude to atheists. The Quran condemns unbelief as spiritually wrong and as leading to perdition in the next life. But the Quran says Muslims should live in peace with nonviolent pagans in this world, if the pagans are inclined to coexistence with the Muslims.

Readers asked me about the long list of militant verses collected by polemicists against Islam. The answer is that those verses refer to the Meccan power elite in the 620s AD, who were waging a determined military, political and economic war to defeat the Muslims holed up in nearby Medina, and wipe them and the new religion out. It is frankly dishonest to take a verse about, say, the battle of Badr against the militant Meccan pagans ("unbelievers") and imply that it refers to contemporary American Christians or American atheists for that matter. What was objectionable to the Quran in practical terms about the Meccan unbelievers was their murderousness toward Muslims, not their attachment to their star goddesses. Muslims are instructed to be nice to unbelievers who don't share that murderousness.

Note that I am explicating the Quran itself. Later Muslim commentators have interpreted it in many ways, and much Muslim law and practice are based on later customs and traditions. I am here deploying the technique of the hermeneutical circle, using texts from the book to illuminate other texts from the book. This strategy makes sense because we don't have any works we can be sure are as early as, and contemporaneous with the Quran. The biographies of the Prophet were produced nearly two centuries later and more.

Much later Quran interpretation was done by persons who lived in militaristic, feudal societies, or who lived in empires where Muslims were a ruling caste, and their interpretations were shaped by these circumstances. They also tended to lack the techniques of contextual and causal thinking typical of contemporary academic writing. The Quran was produced at a time when the Muslims were a small group, and persecuted by the richer and more powerful Meccan pagans, and the Quran is not picky about the beliefs of the friendly tribes willing to be at peace with the Muslims.

9 Comments:

At 6:51 AM, Blogger Sulayman said...

I like these Quran explanations, and I hope your readers gain some insight. With scary survey results like 46% of Americans claiming an "unfavorable" opinion of Islam, and half of Americans thinking Islam oppresses women (although twice as many women convert as men in America), and a quarter of Americans beliving that Islam teaches violence and hatred, and 20% believe that its okay to lock up Muslims and limit their civil liberties, I'm worried at what's going to happen to me if Islamophobia gets worse in America. People already burned down mosques and the hate crime is sky high. Please keep up the good work of explaining Islam to people.

Prof Cole, you forgot a vital ayah in your explanation: “When you are greeted with a greeting, return it with a better greeting or its equal. Surely, Allah takes account of all things.” (An-Nisa’: 86)

As a result of that ayah, and explained in this fatwa (and another), If a non-Muslim greets with "Assalaamu 'alaykum" ('The Peace be upon you') a Muslim can reply, "Wa 'alaykum," which means "you too."

 
At 10:59 AM, Blogger Mark Zimmerman said...

One claim I hear from people arguing Islam generates violence is that when it comes to resolving contradictions within the Quran, statements made later in time supercede earlier statements, and that the Quran becomes more violent with time. That is to say, all the exortations to peace with pagans are early Quran, which are to be ignored by believers because there are more violent claims in the later Quran.

Now, my sister-in-law is devout Muslim, and she's never heard of this. But I hear the claim a lot from Republicans.

 
At 1:04 PM, Blogger nolips said...

Dr. Cole
Thank you for your explanation of the Quran. Your comments provide some counterweight to the opinions of such people as Sam Harris "The End Of Faith" who contend that Islam, among all religions, is uniquely bellicose

 
At 1:57 PM, Blogger Juan said...

The verses I have been quoting come late in the Quran, so the issue of later abrogation is not really relevant for the most part.

Also, remember that the issue of what verses abrogate others is a matter of later personal opinion among medieval jurists and modern Muslim thinkers are often revising the matter. It isn't as if the Quran announces for the most part that it is abrogating itself. I actually don't think there is much abrogation, and much of what was claimed by the medievals was an attempt to support their vision of the Quran, which was often in my view wrong.

I am saying, as an academic observer, let the text speak. When you listen, it is an advocate for peace, except where a vicious attempt at ethnic cleansing has been launched on a community, in which case it advises believers to fight a good war. In a way, it is very American...

 
At 2:42 PM, Blogger ent lord said...

Many of those who rely on polemic, explicate the Q'ran as they explicate their own Bible, one sentence at a time or one sentence from this Gospel and this phrase from the OT and this clause from Paul and try to construct a rational worldview from this. Therefore, it seems the world and its problems to them boils down to making it as simple as possible.

 
At 9:59 AM, Blogger Edward Ott said...

Excellent article on the Quran really enjoyed reading it. actually printed it out to share with friends.

salam

 
At 10:27 AM, Blogger JD said...

Mark Zimmerman wrote: "One claim I hear from people arguing Islam generates violence is that when it comes to resolving contradictions within the Quran..."

There are no contradictions in the Qur'an. :)


"...statements made later in time supercede earlier statements"

The issue of abrogation doesn't really apply in these instances, not only for the reasons given by Dr. Cole, but because most (if not all) of the abrogated ayat deal with rules concerning how Muslims are to live a proper life (e.g., the three ayat dealing with alcohol).


"...and that the Quran becomes more violent with time."

Trying to understand the Qur'an without knowledge of its historical context is difficult at best and seemingly near impossible for many non-Muslims. Portions of the Qur'an were frequently revealed after a particular event had occured, providing guidance and understanding for the early Muslim community as to what had just happened. This is especially the case with Surah 8, Spoils of War, which many Christians use as "evidence" for the Qur'an "exhorting" violence; they do not seem to understand that the surah was revealed after the Battle of Badr, not before.


"That is to say, all the exortations to peace with pagans are early Quran, which are to be ignored by believers because there are more violent claims in the later Quran."

This belief can be refuted simply by looking at when the five ayat that Dr. Cole has discussed so far were revealed. Only one (25:63) was revealed in the "early" Qur'an, being classified in the late Meccan period. The other four were revealed in the Medinan period, in the last ten years of the Prophet's (pbuh) life. (Surah 28, Al-Qausas, is considered a late Meccan surah, but ayat 52-55 and ayah 85 were revealed at Medina. Dr. Cole refers to 28:55.)

 
At 5:22 PM, Anonymous Jaz Aliyar said...

I'm glad that there are people like you out there, who are willing to look and the Quran and study it. I was beginning to think people like you no longer existed, because all you see these days is abuse targetted at Islam. May God bless you. Peace be with you.

 
At 8:40 PM, Anonymous Bananas In Pajamas said...

I feel there has been a misrepresentation of the Quranic idea of abrogation.

Quote: "Also, remember that the issue of what verses abrogate others is a matter of later personal opinion among medieval jurists and modern Muslim thinkers are often revising the matter."

This simply incorrect. There is no disagreement at all about how abrogation takes places and which verses supersede the new ones. For 1500 years muslims regardless of sect have been in agreement on the matter because the Quran itself explains the matter of abrogation to us.

Now how abrogation works can best be demonstrated by an example: Alcohol. As explained by the doctors, it is impossible for an alcohol addict to give up alcohol in one go, and doing such could have harmful consequences. You should also know that alcohol/wine was very popular amongst the people at the advent of Islam. For these reasons, the forbidding of alcohol was given in step-down manner. First they were told not to approach prayer "intoxicated", and then it is better if they didn't drink it, and then don't drink it. All the verses are still in the Qur'an btw.

However, the important point to note is that abrogation is not tantamount to corruption and contradiction within a scripture - which appears to be your view of abrogation.

For example the verse that says "do not pray intoxicated" does not contradict "do not drink", even though the former command regarding alcohol has been superseded by the latter.

Do you now still look down upon abrogation ?

Let's consider all the options then. Alcohol is bad and we want to forbid it. What do we do ?:
1) Issue a command saying as of this point on, no one should drink alcohol. -> Issuing such an impossible task is most certainly not going to work.
2) Use the step down approach, as explained above. -> This works. We know it works, because it has worked
3) Don't forbid alcohol at all, and let the people continue in their disgusting ways. -> This isn't even a viable option, as it defeats the original objective !

Tell me then, which is the best method ? One that doesn't work, or one that works ?

The answer is clear as day. The method adopted by the Qur'an would be the most efficient

Even then, the abrogation is only of verses dealing with legal issues. There is no abrogation of verses explaining historical events. The Qur'an doesn't describe the creation of the universe in one section, and then directly contradict this creation sequence in another section. But you see this in Genesis in the Bible.

Secondly, there are instances of abrogation in the Chumash (Torah) as well. Israel is given the land of cannaan as a homeland. Yet, two tribes change their mind and asked for cattle land east of it. Now, God has already stated that the Israelites will only take what has been apportioned. Yet, God acquieces to the prayers of the two tribes (manasseh and benyamin). Another instance is when God abrogates the Torah to answer the prayer of four Israelite women -- I forget the exact chapter. The most famous example is the idea in the Torah that the children will pay for the sin of their father for four generations which was abrogated under the prophethood of Isaiah that no longer shall the son have the sin of the father visited upon him. So you see abrogation is seen in the Torah and other portions of the Tanakh. It is nothing new.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home