A Dialogue With A Muslim, Part 1: Islam a Religion of Peace?

Hello A.H, it took me sometimes to check on your references and on the video you sent in addition to my loaded schedule, hence my late reply. I hope i'll be faster than that in the future. Here is my response with regards to the peace aspects you have tried to argue for. I move it away from Facebook due to technical issues that i encountered with my posting.



I. “yet every single Horrible act that a so called Muslim commit is associated to the Holy Qura'n”

You seem surprised that people associate horrible acts committed by Muslims to the Quran when Muslim themselves who have committed them are quoting the Quran in their defense. You shouldn’t be surprised by that. You may disagree with their interpretation but please don't look surprised. You and I know very well why, it is the case.

II. “let me help and give some Surat & ayats (chapters and verses) of the Qura'n that Goes against any act of terror.”

I really appreciate that you are sharing some Quranic passages that goes against any terror acts. But honesty also requires you to also recognize that the Quran doesn’t only have peaceful Surats & ayats, it also has surats and ayats that are favorable to acts of violence.

III. Texts You Shared to defend peace in Islam:

1. <<Qura'n 6:151 says" .... And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden (prohibited from killing) except by legal(right)".>>

This text you mention is incomplete, and here is the full text:

“Say: Come, I will recite unto you that which your Lord hath made a sacred duty for you: That ye ascribe no thing as partner unto Him and that ye do good to parents, and that ye slay not your children because of penury - We provide for you and for them - and that ye draw not nigh to lewd things whether open or concealed. And that ye slay not the life which Allah hath made sacred, save in the course of justice. This He hath command you, in order that ye may discern.” - Quran 6:151

This verse 151 and the next 152 are about how Muslim parents should treat their children, since parenthood is presented as a sacred duty. They are asked not to slay or kill their children, for Allah made those children lives sacred. However there is, though, an exception when killing those lives is considered acceptable, slaying when it advance the course of justice. This is a bit disturbing since one obviously wonders when is it just (what is considered a course of justice that justify) to kill ones children as a parent? Can you clarify this Ayat for me?

2. <<Qura'n 5:32 says"...If anyone kills a person,it is as if he kills all mankind while if anyone saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind">>

This text you mention is also incomplete and here is the full text:

“Because of that, We decreed upon the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL that ‘whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely’. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.” - Quran 5:32

This portion of the text you quoted was referencing to what was taught not to Muslim but to Jews a.k.a Children of Israel. We now know which passage this Quranic Ayat was referring to. It was a rabbinic commentary found in the Jerusalem Talmud: 

“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.” - Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a)”

I am glad that Muslims are learning from the Jewish rabbinic opinion on how to be peaceful. However, my concern is about the very next verse 33 of the same chapter (Surat) that is now directed to Muslims' behavior and which says,

“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment” - Quran 5:33.

As Nabeel Quershi remarked about these two verses 32 and 33, “This verse is referring to the Muslims, not the Jews anymore, as we can tell in the shift from past tense to present tense. And here, the punishment for mischief is clearly prescribed: execution, crucifixion, mutilation, or at the least, exile. This is the command given to the Muslims.”

3. <<Qura'n 2:256 says, "there shall be no compulsion in(acceptance) of the religion.the right course has become clear from wrong...." plz note that this verse is a proof that Islam's Holy Book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion, they have to willingly choose it.>>

I appreciate the existence of Surat 2 Ayat 256. I really wish the whole Quran was consistent with it. But as you know very well, the Quran has conflicting messages when it comes to how to look at other religions. For example,

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and WHO DO NOT ADOPT THE RELIGION OF TRUTH from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” - Quran 9:29

This doesn’t make sense to me that in one part the Quran, it is said, 'there is no compulsion in Religion', then in Surat 9, Muslims are commanded to fight those who do not have the religion of Muhammad (a.k.a by Muslims standard, the Religion of Truth). If you fight me for what I believe then you are compelling me not to practice my religion in fear that you will fight me. So the Muslim community need to decide which one of the two Surats are they willing to throw away and which one they need to keep. I hope and pray that they delete, erase Quran 9:29 and keep Quran 2:256, otherwise terrorists will continue to coerce civilians by forcing them to recite part of the Quran in order for them to feel safe like it happened in Kenya a year ago.

3. <<Qura'n 2:190 " Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you,but begin no hostilities.God loveth not aggressors...."we see again that killing of innocents is cowrdice not bravery as is seen by you and who ever does the opposite is waging a war against Allah hence my next point>>

This text, you are point out do indeed support a fight for the purpose of self-defense. But this could unfortunately be understood by terrorists as a supporting scripture that give them the legitimacy to fight against anyone they feel like identifying as an aggressor. With the Paris terror attack some wondered why the civilian population was attacked and someone remarked that for some terrorists, the civilian population is not considered innocent since they support with their taxes the armies that invade Muslim majority countries, hence they are regarded as people who supports the aggressors. If this logic is indeed a reflection of the terrorists view points, then every Law abiding civilian living in the West and who pay his/her taxes will be fair game to anyone like Sheik Bin Laden unfortunately. Hence, you need not to convince me that this text you quote means what you say it means, try to convince them for they are the problem.

4. <<Qura'n 5:33-34 says :Indeed,the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger (SAW) and strive upon earth to cause corruption is none but that they be killed...."34 says"except for those who return(repenting)before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is all forgiving and merciful" this still shows that any act of terrorism is forbidden in Islam>>

Unfortunately this verse that you are quoting doesn’t prove what you think it proves. It proves the opposite of your point. It encourages waging war ad infinitum, a vicious circles for many warriors waging vindictive wars against enemy combatants. This verse perpetrates the circle of violence that has proven itself at time to be non-efficacious in bringing justice in communities. If Martin Luther King Jr. did hit back each time they were hit by the White supremacists, then the Civil right movement would have been a failure just like Malcom X movement apparently was.