...The verse of tribute concerns the "people of the book" -- generally understood by Muslims to be faith communities possessing a scripture, especially Jews and Christians. The command is to fight those who have been given the book "until they pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled." The command in the sword verse is to "kill the associators (mushrikin) wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush." At face value, therefore, polytheists appear to be at greater risk than Jews or Christians.

... The Arabic verb in all of these verses is not the verb related to jihad. Rather, it is the verb qatala in its first ("to kill") and third ("to fight, try to kill") forms. The Koran contains many other verses using forms of qatala which -- though not imperatives -- appear to encourage fighting or killing. Among these is 61.4: "Allah loves those who fight in his way."

...These are the commands. But what do they mean? That is, of course, a matter of interpretation. Those who want to give a peaceful interpretation to these verses face challenges from both the classical medieval Muslim consensus and the interpretations of popular figures within the 20th-century Islamic revival.

"These are the commands. But what do they mean? That is, of course, a matter of interpretation". And therein lies the problem - a matter of interpretation. It depends upon how you want to "cut it" (no pun intended here.... ahem....).

... Religion of peace? Read the following "selected" Koranic references to fighting and killing infidels (Compiled by Gordon Nickel and found in the same ROP article):

- Baqara (2):190 - "And fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah those who fight you."

- Baqara (2):193 - "Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's"

- Baqara (2):244 - "So fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is all-hearing, all-knowing."

- Nisaa' (4):76 - "Those who are believers fight (yuqaatiloona) in the way of Allah, and the unbelievers fight in the idols' way. So fight (qaatiloo) the friends of Satan; surely the guile of Satan is ever feeble."

- al-Anfaal (8):39 - "Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's entirely."

- al-Taubah (9):12 - "But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight (qaatiloo) the leaders of unbelief."

- al-Taubah (9):29 - "Fight (qaatiloo) those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled."

- al-Taubah (9):123 - "O believers, fight (qaatiloo) the unbelievers (kuffaar) who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness (ghilza)."

- Baqara (2):191 - "And slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come upon them"

- Baqara (2):191 - "But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then if they fight you, slay them (aqtuloohum) -- such is the recompense of unbelievers."

- Nisaa' (4):89 - "then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you find them"

- Nisaa' (4):91 - "If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come on them; against them we have given you a clear authority."

- al-Taubah (9):5 - "Then when the sacred months are drawn away, slay (aqtuloo) the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush."

- Nisaa' (4):74 - "So let them fight (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah who sell the present life for the world to come; and whosoever fights (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah and is slain, or conquers, we shall bring him a mighty wage."

- Muhammad (47):4 - "When you meet the unbelievers, smite (darba) their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads."

From these verses alone, just a few examples from the Koran, t's easy to see that Muslims seeking to find a peaceful message in the Koran are fighting an uphill battle (pardon the non-peaceful reference here) because they "must fight not only the plain meaning of the Koran's text and the current fashion for militancy", but are also up against historical facts.

So does Islam have to be so difficult to interpret in an other than violent non-peaceful and intolerant manner? Nichols argues in his piece that there's an alternative way of confronting the texts (not that the Islamists have any intention of even considering the alternative). He gives the example of how Christianity dealt with the Hebrew scriptures as the word of God - such as by looking at the violent commands as applying for a very particular set of circumstances that no longer apply to modern believers in this time and reject the classical interpretations of these commands as a product of the political tensions of the period:

But this need not be the only way of interpreting these texts. One alternative -- quite common in some faith communities -- might be to decide that these were commands for a very particular set of circumstances, but that they no longer apply to modern believers in this time. Another option, advanced recently by the Turkish scholar Israfil Balci, is to reject the classical interpretations of these commands as a product of the political tensions of the period.

Muslims are not the only scriptural community to face challenges of interpretation. Jews and Christians who regard the Hebrew scriptures as the Word of God must deal with the conquest of Canaan, the commandment of total cherem destruction, the violence of judges like Samson and the bloodshed of kings like David -- among many other materials that suggest Godly approval for aggressive warfare against non-believers.

Conversely, warring Christians who accept the authority of the Gospel must deal with the apparent prohibition of violence in the teachings and life example of Jesus. This discussion has been going on among Christians at least since the Crusades, when critics were heard to say "that it is not in accordance with the Christian religion to shed blood in this way, even that of wicked infidels. For Christ did not act thus."

Within the Christian community, one interpretive option is to read the Hebrew scriptures through the prism of the Gospel. According to the Gospel, Jesus said that he had come not to abrogate the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. Jesus then immediately replaced the law of retaliation with non-resistance, and commanded love for enemies (Matthew 5:17, 38, 39, 44). This way of dealing with difficult materials raises many questions, but it has allowed Christians to pursue pacifism while holding to the authority of the Hebrew scriptures.

In other words, Muslims have to actually WANT to CHOOSE which interpretation they want to READ INTO the Koran for them to be "peaceful" Muslims. Chris at Jawa Report makes the point that the major issue is the infallibility of the text that the literal word of God can not be changed. So any attempts at reinterpretation are often "trumped by extremists" since the extremists are accurately quoting the text and in their demented little minds are only following what Allah told them to do. Koranic literalism is indeed the problem, but getting Islamists and their susceptable, gullible, and often young followers to consider what amounts to a "reinterpretation" of the Koran is a hard row to hoe when a "new" meaning contradicts the actual words in the Koran.

As Nichols puts it in his article, "Interpreting the words of Muslim scripture so that they pose no threat to peaceful coexistence with non-believers thus seems a large challenge."

I call it a hell of a big challenge, for all of us, both reform-minded Muslims and non-Muslims, since all of us have to find a way to live together on the same planet. However, as Nichols' article suggests, In view of the high stakes in the world today, it's a challenge damned well worth taking up. It's high time that proponents of multiculturalism stop trying to convince the rest of us, those among us with our eyes wide open, that traditional Islam is just another peaceful element in "'the Wests' multicultural quilt."

Islam a ROP? As Zarqawi would say - it's all how you cut it!

Hat tip - Jawa Report

Update - From Muslihoon's comments in the Forum :

... someone said, "Islam is not the religion of peace, it is the religion of surrender," referring to the actual meaning of the word "Islam."

What's interesting is that there is one group that has interpreted these violent verses as belonging to another time: Ahmadi Muslims (who exist in two factions, Qadiani Ahmadis and Lahori Ahmadis). There's a very popular translation and interpretation of the Qur'an by one Maulana Muhammad Ali, a Lahori Ahmadi, which does a good job of explaining away such verses. His work actually helps bring Islam into line with modernity. But Muslims took Ahmadis softening of jihad as a rejection of jihad and used it as one justification to declare them to be non-Muslims. Almost no Muslim group or state recognizes them as Muslims, because of which they are also heavily persecuted. Go figure.

Ismaili Shiites also tend to ignore these verses. They're more esoteric in their interpretation of the Qur'an. ... the only solution that will avoid more violence is reinterpreting Islam to bring it in line with modernity.