by Raymond Ibrahim
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2009, pp. 3-12
http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam
Medieval times: The Crusades were violent and led to atrocities by the
modern world's standards under the banner of the cross and in the name of
Christianity. But the Crusades were a counterattack on Islam. Muslim
invasions and atrocities against Christians were on the rise in the
decades before the launch of the Crusades in 1096.
"There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an; the idea that
Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during
the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who
were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam."[1] So announces former nun
and self-professed "freelance monotheist," Karen Armstrong. This quote
sums up the single most influential argument currently serving to deflect
the accusation that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant: All
monotheistic religions, proponents of such an argument say, and not just
Islam, have their fair share of violent and intolerant scriptures, as
well as bloody histories. Thus, whenever Islam's sacred scriptures--the
Qur'an first, followed by the reports on the words and deeds of Muhammad
(the Hadith)--are highlighted as demonstrative of the religion's innate
bellicosity, the immediate rejoinder is that other scriptures,
specifically those of Judeo-Christianity, are as riddled wit!
h violent passages.
More often than not, this argument puts an end to any discussion regarding
whether violence and intolerance are unique to Islam. Instead, the default
answer becomes that it is not Islam per se but rather Muslim grievance and
frustration--ever exacerbated by economic, political, and social
factors--that lead to violence. That this view comports perfectly with
the secular West's "materialistic" epistemology makes it all the more
unquestioned.
Therefore, before condemning the Qur'an and the historical words and deeds
of Islam's prophet Muhammad for inciting violence and intolerance, Jews
are counseled to consider the historical atrocities committed by their
Hebrew forefathers as recorded in their own scriptures; Christians are
advised to consider the brutal cycle of violence their forbears have
committed in the name of their faith against both non-Christians and
fellow Christians. In other words, Jews and Christians are reminded that
those who live in glass houses should not be hurling stones.
But is that really the case? Is the analogy with other scriptures
legitimate? Does Hebrew violence in the ancient era, and Christian
violence in the medieval era, compare to or explain away the tenacity of
Muslim violence in the modern era?
Violence in Jewish and Christian History
Along with Armstrong, any number of prominent writers, historians, and
theologians have championed this "relativist" view. For instance, John
Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for
Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, wonders,
How come we keep on asking the same question, [about violence in Islam,]
and don't ask the same question about Christianity and Judaism? Jews and
Christians have engaged in acts of violence. All of us have the
transcendent and the dark side. … We have our own theology of hate. In
mainstream Christianity and Judaism, we tend to be intolerant; we adhere
to an exclusivist theology, of us versus them.[2]
An article by Pennsylvania State University humanities professor Philip
Jenkins, "Dark Passages," delineates this position most fully. It aspires
to show that the Bible is more violent than the Qur'an:
[I]n terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about
the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact,
the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by
the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more
verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical
violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate
savagery. … If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then
Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of
savagery.[3]
Several anecdotes from the Bible as well as from Judeo-Christian history
illustrate Jenkins' point, but two in particular--one supposedly
representative of Judaism, the other of Christianity--are regularly
mentioned and therefore deserve closer examination.
The military conquest of the land of Canaan by the Hebrews in about 1200
B.C.E. is often characterized as "genocide" and has all but become
emblematic of biblical violence and intolerance. God told Moses:
But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an
inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you
shall utterly destroy them--the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite,
Hivite, and Jebusite--just as the Lord your God has commanded you, lest
they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have
done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God.[4]
So Joshua [Moses' successor] conquered all the land: the mountain country
and the South and the lowland and the wilderness slopes, and all their
kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed,
as the Lord, God of Israel had commanded.[5]
As for Christianity, since it is impossible to find New Testament verses
inciting violence, those who espouse the view that Christianity is as
violent as Islam rely on historical events such as the Crusader wars
waged by European Christians between the eleventh and thirteenth
centuries. The Crusades were in fact violent and led to atrocities by the
modern world's standards under the banner of the cross and in the name of
Christianity. After breaching the walls of Jerusalem in 1099, for
example, the Crusaders reportedly slaughtered almost every inhabitant of
the Holy City. According to the medieval chronicle, the Gesta Danorum,
"the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their
ankles."[6]
In light of the above, as Armstrong, Esposito, Jenkins, and others argue,
why should Jews and Christians point to the Qur'an as evidence of Islam's
violence while ignoring their own scriptures and history?
Bible versus Qur'an
The answer lies in the fact that such observations confuse history and
theology by conflating the temporal actions of men with what are
understood to be the immutable words of God. The fundamental error is
that Judeo-Christian history--which is violent--is being conflated with
Islamic theology--which commands violence. Of course, the three major
monotheistic religions have all had their share of violence and
intolerance towards the "other." Whether this violence is ordained by God
or whether warlike men merely wished it thus is the key question.
Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. God clearly
ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples.
Such violence is therefore an expression of God's will, for good or ill.
Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and
recorded in the Old Testament is just that--history. It happened; God
commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was
directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to
become standardized or codified into Jewish law. In short, biblical
accounts of violence are descriptive, not prescriptive.
This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence
of the Old Testament--commanded by God and manifested in history--certain
aspects of Islamic violence and intolerance have become standardized in
Islamic law and apply at all times. Thus, while the violence found in the
Qur'an has a historical context, its ultimate significance is theological.
Consider the following Qur'anic verses, better known as the
"sword-verses":
Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever
you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them
at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and
pay the alms, then let them go their way.[7]
Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day, and do not forbid
what God 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.[8]
As with Old Testament verses where God commanded the Hebrews to attack and
slay their neighbors, the sword-verses also have a historical context. God
first issued these commandments after the Muslims under Muhammad's
leadership had grown sufficiently strong to invade their Christian and
pagan neighbors. But unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Old
Testament, the sword-verses became fundamental to Islam's subsequent
relationship to both the "people of the book" (i.e., Jews and Christians)
and the "pagans" (i.e., Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc.) and, in fact,
set off the Islamic conquests, which changed the face of the world
forever. Based on Qur'an 9:5, for instance, Islamic law mandates that
pagans and polytheists must either convert to Islam or be killed;
simultaneously, Qur'an 9:29 is the primary source of Islam's well-known
discriminatory practices against conquered Christians and Jews living
under Islamic suzerainty.
In fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur'anic
verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam's learned
officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all
reached consensus--binding on the entire Muslim community--that Islam is
to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former
subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely held by Muslim scholars that
since the sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of
Islam's relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some
200 of the Qur'an's earlier and more tolerant verses, such as "no
compulsion is there in religion."[9] Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun
(1332-1406) admired in the West for his "progressive" insights, also puts
to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare:
In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because
of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert
everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force ... The other
religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was
not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense ... They
are merely required to establish their religion among their own people.
That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned
with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to
establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is
under obligation to gain power over other nations.[10]
Modern authorities agree. The Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for "jihad"
by Emile Tyan states that the "spread of Islam by arms is a religious
duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the
whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made
over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be
eliminated." Iraqi jurist Majid Khaduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad
as warfare, writes that "jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost
no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim
community."[11] And, of course, Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic
are even more explicit.[12]
Qur'anic Language
When the Qur'an's violent verses are juxtaposed with their Old Testament
counterparts, they are especially distinct for using language that
transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay
nonbelievers today no less than yesterday. God commanded the Hebrews to
kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and
Jebusites--all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At
no time did God give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by
extension their Jewish descendants, to fight and kill gentiles. On the
other hand, though Islam's original enemies were, like Judaism's,
historical (e.g., Christian Byzantines and Zoroastrian Persians), the
Qur'an rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims
were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book--"until they pay
the tribute out of hand and have been humbled"[13] and to "slay the
idolaters wherever you find them."[14]
The two Arabic conjunctions "until" (hata) and "wherever" (haythu)
demonstrate the perpetual and ubiquitous nature of these commandments:
There are still "people of the book" who have yet to be "utterly humbled"
(especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and "pagans" to be slain
"wherever" one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa). In fact,
the salient feature of almost all of the violent commandments in Islamic
scriptures is their open-ended and generic nature: "Fight them
[non-Muslims] until there is no persecution and the religion is God's
entirely. [Emphasis added.]"[15] Also, in a well-attested tradition that
appears in the hadith collections, Muhammad proclaims:
I have been commanded to wage war against mankind until they testify that
there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God; and
that they establish prostration prayer, and pay the alms-tax [i.e.,
convert to Islam]. If they do so, their blood and property are protected.
[Emphasis added.][16]
This linguistic aspect is crucial to understanding scriptural exegeses
regarding violence. Again, it bears repeating that neither Jewish nor
Christian scriptures--the Old and New Testaments, respectively--employ
such perpetual, open-ended commandments. Despite all this, Jenkins
laments that
Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize
segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions … all are in
the Bible, and occur with a far greater frequency than in the Qur'an. At
every stage, we can argue what the passages in question mean, and
certainly whether they should have any relevance for later ages. But the
fact remains that the words are there, and their inclusion in the
scripture means that they are, literally, canonized, no less than in the
Muslim scripture.[17]
One wonders what Jenkins has in mind by the word "canonized." If by
canonized he means that such verses are considered part of the canon of
Judeo-Christian scripture, he is absolutely correct; conversely, if by
canonized he means or is trying to connote that these verses have been
implemented in the Judeo-Christian Weltanschauung, he is absolutely
wrong.
Yet one need not rely on purely exegetical and philological arguments;
both history and current events give the lie to Jenkins's relativism.
Whereas first-century Christianity spread via the blood of martyrs,
first-century Islam spread through violent conquest and bloodshed.
Indeed, from day one to the present--whenever it could--Islam spread
through conquest, as evinced by the fact that the majority of what is now
known as the Islamic world, or dar al-Islam, was conquered by the sword of
Islam. This is a historic fact, attested to by the most authoritative
Islamic historians. Even the Arabian peninsula, the "home" of Islam, was
subdued by great force and bloodshed, as evidenced by the Ridda wars
following Muhammad's death when tens of thousands of Arabs were put to
the sword by the first caliph Abu Bakr for abandoning Islam.
Muhammad's Role
Moreover, concerning the current default position which purports to
explain away Islamic violence--that the latter is a product of Muslim
frustration vis-Ã -vis political or economic oppression--one must ask:
What about all the oppressed Christians and Jews, not to mention Hindus
and Buddhists, of the world today? Where is their religiously-garbed
violence? The fact remains: Even though the Islamic world has the lion's
share of dramatic headlines--of violence, terrorism, suicide-attacks,
decapitations--it is certainly not the only region in the world suffering
under both internal and external pressures.
For instance, even though practically all of sub-Saharan Africa is
currently riddled with political corruption, oppression and poverty, when
it comes to violence, terrorism, and sheer chaos, Somalia--which also
happens to be the only sub-Saharan country that is entirely Muslim--leads
the pack. Moreover, those most responsible for Somali violence and the
enforcement of intolerant, draconian, legal measures--the members of the
jihadi group Al-Shabab (the youth)--articulate and justify all their
actions through an Islamist paradigm.
In Sudan, too, a jihadi-genocide against the Christian and polytheistic
peoples is currently being waged by Khartoum's Islamist government and
has left nearly a million "infidels" and "apostates" dead. That the
Organization of Islamic Conference has come to the defense of Sudanese
president Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International
Criminal Court, is further telling of the Islamic body's approval of
violence toward both non-Muslims and those deemed not Muslim enough.
Latin American and non-Muslim Asian countries also have their fair share
of oppressive, authoritarian regimes, poverty, and all the rest that the
Muslim world suffers. Yet, unlike the near daily headlines emanating from
the Islamic world, there are no records of practicing Christians,
Buddhists, or Hindus crashing explosives-laden vehicles into the
buildings of oppressive (e.g., Cuban or Chinese communist) regimes, all
the while waving their scriptures in hand and screaming, "Jesus [or
Buddha or Vishnu] is great!" Why?
There is one final aspect that is often overlooked--either from ignorance
or disingenuousness--by those who insist that violence and intolerance is
equivalent across the board for all religions. Aside from the divine words
of the Qur'an, Muhammad's pattern of behavior--his sunna or "example"--is
an extremely important source of legislation in Islam. Muslims are
exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: "You have had a good
example in God's Messenger."[18] And Muhammad's pattern of conduct toward
non-Muslims is quite explicit.
Sarcastically arguing against the concept of moderate Islam, for example,
terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world's
support per an Al-Jazeera poll,[19] portrays the Prophet's sunna thusly:
"Moderation" is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than
three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into
the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their
possessions, their lives, and their women.[20]
In fact, based on both the Qur'an and Muhammad's sunna, pillaging and
plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in
concubinage is well founded.[21] And the concept of sunna--which is what
90 percent of the billion-plus Muslims, the Sunnis, are named
after--essentially asserts that anything performed or approved by
Muhammad, humanity's most perfect example, is applicable for Muslims
today no less than yesterday. This, of course, does not mean that Muslims
in mass live only to plunder and rape.
But it does mean that persons naturally inclined to such activities, and
who also happen to be Muslim, can--and do--quite easily justify their
actions by referring to the "Sunna of the Prophet"--the way Al-Qaeda, for
example, justified its attacks on 9/11 where innocents including women and
children were killed: Muhammad authorized his followers to use catapults
during their siege of the town of Ta'if in 630 C.E.--townspeople had
refused to submit--though he was aware that women and children were
sheltered there. Also, when asked if it was permissible to launch night
raids or set fire to the fortifications of the infidels if women and
children were among them, the Prophet is said to have responded, "They
[women and children] are from among them [infidels]."[22]
Jewish and Christian Ways
Though law-centric and possibly legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent
to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though described in
the Old Testament, never went on to prescribe Jewish law. Neither
Abraham's "white-lies," nor Jacob's perfidy, nor Moses' short-fuse, nor
David's adultery, nor Solomon's philandering ever went on to instruct
Jews or Christians. They were understood as historical acts perpetrated
by fallible men who were more often than not punished by God for their
less than ideal behavior.
As for Christianity, much of the Old Testament law was abrogated or
fulfilled--depending on one's perspective--by Jesus. "Eye for an eye"
gave way to "turn the other cheek." Totally loving God and one's neighbor
became supreme law.[23] Furthermore, Jesus' sunna--as in "What would Jesus
do?"--is characterized by passivity and altruism. The New Testament
contains absolutely no exhortations to violence.
Still, there are those who attempt to portray Jesus as having a similarly
militant ethos as Muhammad by quoting the verse where the former--who
"spoke to the multitudes in parables and without a parable spoke
not"[24]--said, "I come not to bring peace but a sword."[25] But based on
the context of this statement, it is clear that Jesus was not commanding
violence against non-Christians but rather predicting that strife will
exist between Christians and their environment--a prediction that was
only too true as early Christians, far from taking up the sword,
passively perished by the sword in martyrdom as too often they still do
in the Muslim world. [26]
Others point to the violence predicted in the Book of Revelation while,
again, failing to discern that the entire account is descriptive--not to
mention clearly symbolic--and thus hardly prescriptive for Christians. At
any rate, how can one conscionably compare this handful of New Testament
verses that metaphorically mention the word "sword" to the literally
hundreds of Qur'anic injunctions and statements by Muhammad that clearly
command Muslims to take up a very real sword against non-Muslims?
Undeterred, Jenkins bemoans the fact that, in the New Testament, Jews
"plan to stone Jesus, they plot to kill him; in turn, Jesus calls them
liars, children of the Devil."[27] It still remains to be seen if being
called "children of the Devil" is more offensive than being referred to
as the descendents of apes and pigs--the Qur'an's appellation for
Jews.[28] Name calling aside, however, what matters here is that, whereas
the New Testament does not command Christians to treat Jews as "children
of the Devil," based on the Qur'an, primarily 9:29, Islamic law obligates
Muslims to subjugate Jews, indeed, all non-Muslims.
Does this mean that no self-professed Christian can be anti-Semitic? Of
course not. But it does mean that Christian anti-Semites are living
oxymorons--for the simple reason that textually and theologically,
Christianity, far from teaching hatred or animosity, unambiguously
stresses love and forgiveness. Whether or not all Christians follow such
mandates is hardly the point; just as whether or not all Muslims uphold
the obligation of jihad is hardly the point. The only question is, what
do the religions command?
John Esposito is therefore right to assert that "Jews and Christians have
engaged in acts of violence." He is wrong, however, to add, "We
[Christians] have our own theology of hate." Nothing in the New Testament
teaches hate--certainly nothing to compare with Qur'anic injunctions such
as: "We [Muslims] disbelieve in you [non-Muslims], and between us and you
enmity has shown itself, and hatred for ever until you believe in God
alone."[29]
Reassessing the Crusades
And it is from here that one can best appreciate the historic
Crusades--events that have been thoroughly distorted by Islam's many
influential apologists. Karen Armstrong, for instance, has practically
made a career for herself by misrepresenting the Crusades, writing, for
example, that "the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a
Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in
fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars
against Islam."[30] That a former nun rabidly condemns the Crusades
vis-Ã -vis anything Islam has done makes her critique all the more
marketable. Statements such as this ignore the fact that from the
beginnings of Islam, more than 400 years before the Crusades, Christians
have noted that Islam was spread by the sword.[31] Indeed, authoritative
Muslim historians writing centuries before the Crusades, such as Ahmad
Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri (d. 892) and Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari
(838-923), make it clear tha!
t Islam was spread by the sword.
The fact remains: The Crusades were a counterattack on Islam--not an
unprovoked assault as Armstrong and other revisionist historians portray.
Eminent historian Bernard Lewis puts it well,
Even the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was
itself a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an
imitation. But unlike the jihad, it was concerned primarily with the
defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory. It was,
with few exceptions, limited to the successful wars for the recovery of
southwest Europe, and the unsuccessful wars to recover the Holy Land and
to halt the Ottoman advance in the Balkans. The Muslim jihad, in
contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that
would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or
submitted to Muslim rule. … The object of jihad is to bring the whole
world under Islamic law.[32]
Moreover, Muslim invasions and atrocities against Christians were on the
rise in the decades before the launch of the Crusades in 1096. The
Fatimid caliph Abu 'Ali Mansur Tariqu'l-Hakim (r. 996-1021) desecrated
and destroyed a number of important churches--such as the Church of St.
Mark in Egypt and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem--and
decreed even more oppressive than usual decrees against Christians and
Jews. Then, in 1071, the Seljuk Turks crushed the Byzantines in the
pivotal battle of Manzikert and, in effect, conquered a major chunk of
Byzantine Anatolia presaging the way for the eventual capture of
Constantinople centuries later.
It was against this backdrop that Pope Urban II (r. 1088-1099) called for
the Crusades:
From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible
tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears,
namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians [i.e., Muslim Turks]
… has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by
the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into
its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has
either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for
the rites of its own religion.[33]
Even though Urban II's description is historically accurate, the fact
remains: However one interprets these wars--as offensive or defensive,
just or unjust--it is evident that they were not based on the example of
Jesus, who exhorted his followers to "love your enemies, bless those who
curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who
spitefully use you and persecute you."[34] Indeed, it took centuries of
theological debate, from Augustine to Aquinas, to rationalize defensive
war--articulated as "just war." Thus, it would seem that if anyone, it is
the Crusaders--not the jihadists--who have been less than faithful to
their scriptures (from a literal standpoint); or put conversely, it is
the jihadists--not the Crusaders--who have faithfully fulfilled their
scriptures (also from a literal stand point). Moreover, like the violent
accounts of the Old Testament, the Crusades are historic in nature and
not manifestations of any deeper scriptural truths.
In fact, far from suggesting anything intrinsic to Christianity, the
Crusades ironically better help explain Islam. For what the Crusades
demonstrated once and for all is that irrespective of religious
teachings--indeed, in the case of these so-called Christian Crusades,
despite them--man is often predisposed to violence. But this begs the
question: If this is how Christians behaved--who are commanded to love,
bless, and do good to their enemies who hate, curse, and persecute
them--how much more can be expected of Muslims who, while sharing the
same violent tendencies, are further commanded by the Deity to attack,
kill, and plunder nonbelievers?
Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum and author
of The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007).
[1] Andrea Bistrich, "Discovering the common grounds of world religions,"
interview with Karen Armstrong, Share International, Sept. 2007, pp.
19-22.
[2] C-SPAN2, June 5, 2004.
[3] Philip Jenkins, "Dark Passages," The Boston Globe, Mar. 8, 2009.
[4] Deut. 20:16-18.
[5] Josh. 10:40.
[6] "The Fall of Jerusalem," Gesta Danorum, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[7] Qur. 9:5. All translations of Qur'anic verses are drawn from A.J.
Arberry, ed. The Koran Interpreted: A Translation (New York: Touchstone,
1996).
[8] Qur. 9:29.
[9] Qur. 2:256.
[10] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, Franz
Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958,) vol. 1, p. 473.
[11] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (London: Oxford
University Press, 1955), p. 60.
[12] See, for instance, Ahmed Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi'l-Islam: Dirasa
Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar University, 2003).
[13] Qur. 9:29.
[14] Qur. 9:5.
[15] Qur. 8:39.
[16] Ibn al-Hajjaj Muslim, Sahih Muslim, C9B1N31; Muhammad Ibn Isma'il
al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (Lahore: Kazi, 1979), B2N24.
[17] Jenkins, "Dark_Passages."
[18] Qur. 33:21.
[19] "Al-Jazeera-Poll: 49% of Muslims Support Osama bin Laden," Sept.
7-10, 2006, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[20] 'Abd al-Rahim 'Ali, Hilf al Irhab (Cairo: Markaz al-Mahrusa li
'n-Nashr wa 'l-Khidamat as-Sahafiya wa 'l-Ma'lumat, 2004).
[21] For example, Qur. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50.
[22] Sahih Muslim, B19N4321; for English translation, see Raymond Ibrahim,
The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007), p. 140.
[23] Matt. 22:38-40.
[24] Matt. 13:34.
[25] Matt. 10:34.
[26] See, for instance, "Christian Persecution Info," Christian
Persecution Magazine, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[27] Jenkins, "Dark_Passages."
[28] Qur. 2:62-65, 5:59-60, 7:166.
[29] Qur. 60:4.
[30] Bistrich, "Discovering the common grounds of world religions," pp.
19-22; For a critique of Karen Armstrong's work, see "Karen Armstrong,"
in Andrew Holt, ed. Crusades-Encyclopedia, Apr. 2005, accessed Apr. 6,
2009.
[31] See, for example, the writings of Sophrinius, Jerusalem's patriarch
during the Muslim conquest of the Holy City, just years after the death
of Muhammad, or the chronicles of Theophane the Confessor.
[32] Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000
Years (New York: Scribner, 1995), p. 233-4.
[33] "Speech of Urban--Robert of Rheims," in Edward Peters, ed., The First
Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), p. 27.
[34] Matt. 5:44.
Related Topics: History, Islam, Jews and Judaism  | Raymond Ibrahim
To receive the full, printed version of the Middle East Quarterly, please
see details about an affordable subscription.
You are subscribed to this list as khairi2@pc.jaring.my.
To edit your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, go to
http://www.meforum.org/list_edit.php
To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to
http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php
You may post or forward this text, but on condition that you send it as an
integral whole, along with complete information about its author, date,
publication, and original URL.
The Middle East Forum
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment