The media has portrayed a telling picture of the perpetrators of 9/11: a picture of violence and hatred toward America. They have been portrayed as “the main enemy of the West and […] as a hotbed of terrorism that threatens Western civilization and its democratic values” (Khan n. pag., ellipses added). It has gotten to the point that the terms “terrorism” and “Islam” may be viewed as synonymous because of the actions of al Qaeda (Mamdani 235). Because of this kind of portrayal of Islam in the media, questions have come to the minds of Americans, such as, “Is the terrorist organization al Qaeda correctly interpreting the Quran in their use of violence and terror against the West?” or “Are mainstream Muslim leaders correct in saying that al Qaeda is not following the example and teachings of Muhammad?” I will show that in spite of the contrary arguments from Muslim scholars, al Qaeda is following the teachings and example of their prophet in attacking and bringing terror to the United States and her allies.
Before I show al Qaeda is obeying Allah, this fact must be stated: the majority of the 1.2 million Muslims in the world do not commit terror attacks and use violence against non-Muslims (Armstrong n. pag.). Many Muslims would also condemn al Qaeda for their actions (Reuters n. pag.) and can give plenty of scriptures in the Quran (the teachings of Muhammad) to show that they should live at peace and be patient towards unbelievers (Armstrong n. pag.). Armstrong, giving a reference in the Quran, says that “Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190)” (Armstrong n. pag.). Armstrong continues by saying that the 9/11 attacks are “Far from being endorsed by the Quran” and that “this killing violates some of its most sacred precepts” (Armstrong n. pag.). Former President George W. Bush agreed with this statement when he described the teachings of Islam as peaceful when he said “Islam is peace” and that the “face of terror is not the true faith of Islam; that is not what Islam is all about” (“Brutal Truth” n. pag.). But is this really the case? Is al Qaeda disobeying Allah and his Prophet?
One of the main motives behind al Qaeda attacking America and her allies is their religion. The former leader of the organization, Usama Bin Ladin (who was recently assassinated in his Abbottabad compound in May 2011), has claimed that they had their duties as Muslims as a primary motivation for their terrorist attacks. Bin Ladin said, “We are carrying on the mission of our Prophet, Muhammad. The mission is to spread the word of God” (Williams 11). Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, an al Qaeda spokesman has gone on record saying that the entire world must be subject to Allah (Williams 17). It could not be stated more clearly by Bin Ladin and Ghaith that faith is a motive for their jihad (holy war) against America. Hamid writes, “Many Muslims seem to believe that it is acceptable to teach hatred and violence in the name of their religion” (n. pag.). But is al Qaeda defining jihad and waging war in obedience to Allah and his prophet Muhammad?
One of the best ways to find out whether al Qaeda is defining jihad correctly is by going back and looking at the history of Islam and the life of Muhammad. One author wrote “The Prophet Muhammad enshrined the violent ways of seventh century Arabia in a religion of global ambitions” (Davis 76). Muhammad was a “brilliant political and military success and preached the superiority of Islam in this world” (Davis 169). He taught and displayed jihad as more than an internal struggle, but as a defensive and offensive struggle against the infidels or heretics (Davis 243). It was early in the years of Islam that “the struggle of good and evil very soon acquired political and even military dimensions” (Lewis n.pag.). He continues, “Muhammad, it will be recalled, was not only a prophet and a teacher, like the founders of other religions; he was also the head of a polity and of a community, a ruler and a soldier” (Lewis n.pag.). Muhammad “was no stranger to the sword” (Spencer 19). One Muslim writer was willing to make this point
in saying that “we must acknowledge that the terrorists […] are products of Islamic history” (Van der Krogt 140, ellipses added).
From the prior quote, Van der Krogt saw a similarity between actions of Militant Islamists today and those of earlier centuries during the life of Muhammad and his earliest followers. Muhammad commanded that Muslims “invite non-Muslims to Islam, and then fight them if they refuse” (Spencer 7). Muhammad also said “Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make holy war” (Spencer 7). Does this sound like commands of offense or defense? Muhammad also defined jihad in part as a “holy war” when he said “We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad” (Armstrong n. pag.). The greater jihad that he is speaking of in this quote is the internal struggle that the Muslim faces, but the lesser jihad is speaking of holy war. Whether these statements are speaking of offensive or defensive jihad, they are teaching that violence is acceptable.
This teaching of violence is also seen in the Quran, which was given by Muhammad. The Quran teaches in many places (as I showed earlier) about peace with enemies and displaying patience towards enemies, but it also teaches that violence is acceptable in certain circumstances. The nature of the Quran changed during Muhammad’s lifetime from a focus on tolerance to one of intolerance (Davis 256). For example, the Quran says, “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush” (The Quran, Sahih International Version 9:5). Another verse of “peace” from the Quran is “O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. If there are among you twenty [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred” (The Quran, Sahih International Version 8:65). This does not sound like the internal struggle that modern scholars define jihad as. It sounds like “holy war.” These are only two verses out of the Quran. Multiple more could be shown.
The classical Islamic view which “radical” Muslims today use is that all of the world is divided into two camps, “the House of Islam, where the Muslim law and faith prevail, and the rest, known as the House of Unbelief or the House of War” (Lewis n.pag.). Lewis also makes the point that it is “it is the duty of Muslims ultimately to bring to Islam this “House of Unbelief” (n. pag.). How do they plan to do this? It seems through offensive jihad. This seems to be how Muslims after the death of Muhammad responded to Muhammad’s teachings. Records of the overview of Islam’s growth within a century after Muhammad’s death shows that he wanted an Arab Muslim empire; an empire that could only be gained by force (“Islam” n. pag.).2 At this time, pagans were “required to accept Islam or die” (“Islam” n. pag.). The earliest followers of Muhammad followed in his steps of violence in their conquests in Spain, Central Asia, and India (see fig. 1 above) (“Islam” n. pag.). At the year of Muhammad’s death (632AD), “Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, Spain, France, Italy, and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica were all Christian territories” (Crawford n. pag.). By 732AD, “Christians had lost Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and southern France” because of Muslim expansion (Crawford n. pag.). This kind of Muslim expansion happened all the way up to the time of the Crusades.
Davis writes, “A favorite tactic of Islamic apologists when confronted with Islam’s violent nature is to change the subject” or to point out how other faiths can be violent at times instead of dealing with the questions about Islam’s history and beginnings (Davis 76). When they do this, they are showing that they do not have a defense of Islam’s beginnings. Nonetheless, Muslims mention the Crusades as an example of Christian violence. But is this really the case? Was this an example of Christianity being expanded by the sword? One Professor doesn’t believe so when he examines history:
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. […] So what is the truth about the Crusades? […] For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands. (Madden n. pag. ellipses added)
An honest examination of history shows that the Crusades were not an offensive war started by the Catholic Church. The attacks of Muslims against Christians led to the start of the Crusades. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (CEE) shows these statements by Madden to be true. The CEE says that after Jerusalem was taken over by Muslims, “Fatimid Caliph Hakim began to persecute the Christians and despoiled the Holy Sepulcher” and that because of this, the Byzantine Emperor, “threatened by the Seljuk Turks, appealed to the West for aid” (“Crusades” n. pag.). This is a far cry from the popular teaching that Christians attacked Muslims unprovoked. It was truthfully the “first great western Christian counterattack against Muslim attacks which had taken place continually from the inception of Islam until the eleventh century, and which continued on thereafter, mostly unabated” (Crawford n. pag.). These sources show what followers of Muhammad from the time of his death until the time of the Crusades believed about jihad. Clifford May, in a Korea Times newspaper article said, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet” (n. pag.). This has been shown to be true throughout their history.
Davis says that the underlying difference between violence seen in the history of Christianity and that which is seen in the history of Islam is that violence in Christianity is nowhere mentioned within the New Testament of the Bible, but “violence committed by Muslims in the name of Islam” fulfills the teaching of Muhammad (Davis 82). Some Muslims may point to a statement by Jesus Christ where He states, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (New American Standard Bible, Matt. 10:34), but totally miss the point of the passage.3 Jesus in this text is not talking about war, but about division that His teaching will bring between people, even family members. The following two verses show this. Jesus says “For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW” and “A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD” (New American Standard Bible, Matt. 10:35-36, emphasis in original). This is the main proof text that people point to saying that Jesus taught to take up the sword, but it is a far cry from multiple verses in the Koran that say to use violence, such as the verse that I used in the epilogue of this paper, Surah 9:5, where Muhammad tells his followers, “when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them…” (The Quran, Sahih International Version). In its context, it is hard to get this verse to mean something other than it says. It is condoning violence.
Other New Testament verses that Muslims may point to saying that Christians are told to be violent are verses that refer to Christians as soldiers. One example is in 2 Tim. 2:3-4, where Timothy, a preacher, is told to endure hardship “as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” (New American Standard Bible). Then Timothy is told that he needs to live in such a way “that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier” (New American Standard Bible). The scripture is using the illustration of a soldier to show Christians that they need to focus on the duties that God has given them, even if that means they need to suffer for teaching His word.
The New Testament says that the Christian’s battle is “not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (New American Standard Bible, Eph. 6:12). Even when Jesus was being arrested, He told His disciple Peter to put his sword away (New American Standard Bible, John 18:11). Finally, when Jesus was before Pilate, who would be the one that allows Him to be crucified, Jesus says “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm” (New American Standard Bible, John 18:35).
The Muslim may ask, “But what about the Old Testament scriptures?” When comparing the Quran to the Old Testament scriptures in the Bible, religious historian Philip Jenkins noted that “the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible” (Hagerty n. pag.). It is true that in certain cases God commanded the Jewish people to destroy whole nations and cities in the Old Testament. One verse that is brought up by Jenkins is in 1 Samuel 15, where Saul, the first king of Israel is commanded to totally destroy every Amalekite, including every “man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (Hagerty n. pag.). Hagerty misses the verse before in which God gives Saul the reason why He wants him to destroy the Amalekites. God says that He wanted the Amalekites to be punished “for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt” (New American Standard Bible, 1 Sam. 15:2).
God wanted the Amalekites to be punished for a sin that they committed against Israel a generation earlier. There are no Old Testament passages where God or the Israelites destroy a people unjustly. In every case where people are killed, the reason is to punish them for their sin and rebellion. God is using Israel as an instrument to carry out his just punishment of other nations. The Bible says that we all will reap what we sow (New American Standard Bible, Gal. 6:7). Unlike the Quran, the Bible does not say that “all believers should go and do likewise,” or “this is your instructions; this is your pattern to follow” (“Brutal Truth” n. pag.). The Quran does give open ended universal commands for all Muslims to follow (“Brutal Truth” n. pag.). Whether the Muslim may agree with these interpretations or not, it does not dismiss the fact that throughout the history of their religion, Muhammad and his followers were violent and desired to expand their religion by force.
In spite of all of the above evidence, many Muslim scholars disagree with how al Qaeda has defined jihad as a “justification for killing anyone who isn’t a Muslim” (Slick n. pag.). They say that al Qaeda is not following the teachings of Muhammad and are misinterpreting the scriptures of their sacred text, the Quran. They say that offensive jihad is not allowed by Muhammad. Shah states that Islam is against evils such as terrorism and hatred, and violence is only allowed as an “ultimate option” (Shah 544). Violence is only allowed as an ultimate option, but it is still an option. It is an option that “radical” Islamists are more than willing to exercise.
How do scholars respond to the verses quoted from the Quran that show that violence is acceptable? They do this first by making the point that there are going to be verses about war and fighting in the Quran because it was a time of war and Muhammad on many occasions needed to protect himself and his followers from attack (Omar 159). Armstrong makes this same point, saying that because the Quran was given by Muhammad “in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle” (n. pag.). Omar continues by stating that during the early years of Muhammad’s ministry, he gave his followers permission to “engage in armed resistance, but only under certain stringent conditions” (159). Later on Muhammad and his followers “were to engage in a series of battles to defend Islam against the military aggression of their adversaries” and to avoid persecution (156-60). Omar is saying that violence is only acceptable if it is in defense, not offense.
Secondly, Omar deals with the history of violence in early centuries of Islam by saying that they “erroneously perceived jihad as the instrument of the Islamic caliphate to expand Muslim territories” (161). It is easy to make the claim that early Muslims were erroneous in their beliefs, but it is a lot harder to prove this as a fact, which Omar does not do. He closes his article by giving a response that I alluded to earlier. He concludes that we must “remember that the history of Islam has certainly not been witness to any more violence than one finds in other traditions” (162). He does not account for the history of expansion by violence following Muhammad’s death; he just dismisses it by bringing up ‘other traditions.’
There are also Western scholars, who in their study of jihad, “seek to commend Islam by stressing the spiritual struggle against the self” while “limiting military jihad to defense” (Van der Krogt 127). So Muslim and Western scholars have sought to discredit al Qaeda “as having ‘hijacked’ Islam and jihad” because of waging an offensive jihad (Van der Krogt 127). For the sake of argument, assume that offensive violence is not taught in the Quran by Muhammad, and only self defense is allowed. This is a self defeating argument. What reasoning have top al Qaeda officials given for their jihad of violence against the West? Self defense. Usama bin Ladin on multiple occasions has made this point. In an October 2001 interview on CNN, bin Ladin said that the attacks were done in “defense of our brothers and sons in Palestine, and to liberate our sacred religious sites” (“Interview” n. pag.). Williams records bin Ladin as saying “This is a defensive jihad” (qtd. in Williams 11). So whether or not the Quran teaches that offensive jihad is allowed, al Qaeda does not believe they are bringing an offensive jihad to the West, but a defensive one. They do not believe that they started this conflict. So according to the scholar’s mentioned above, since al Qaeda claims that their jihad against America and her allies is defensive in nature, it is acceptable to Muhammad and taught in the Quran.
Al Qaeda also claims they are following Muhammad’s teachings of retaliation (or lex talionis). The Quran teaches that “if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed” (The Quran, Sahih International Version 16:126). Based on this verse of the Quran and others, al Qaeda operative Sulaiman Abu Ghaith made the point that they have the right through Islamic law to kill up to 4 million Americans (including 2 million children) and to exile, wound, and cripple many more. Only when parity is reached, when America is repaid for what they have done against Islamists, can they stop (Williams 20-21). They believe that their past actions and future plans are acceptable to Allah and his prophet Muhammad.
It has been shown from the life and teachings of Muhammad that we see two completely different pictures; one picture of a prophet of peace, and a second of a holy warrior. His example and teachings changed dramatically during his ministry. The focus of his revelations that he supposedly received from Allah changed “from tolerance to intolerance” and his own example “evolved from a persecuted preacher to a conquering warlord” (Davis 256). This has been seen not only in his life, but also in the lives of his followers in his lifetime to today. It has been shown that al Qaeda uses their Muslim religion as their motivation. They claim to follow the example and teachings of Muhammad, who did display violence against unbelievers in his life. They claim to follow Muhammad’s teachings in the Quran that teach about violence against unbelievers (which teach both offensive and defensive jihad). Finally, their claims of “self-defense” meet the definition of what modern scholars claim is acceptable under the teaching of Muhammad. Al Qaeda is being true to the latter years of their prophet’s life and following in the footsteps of his earliest followers.
-----
Works Cited
Armstrong, Karen. “The True, Peaceful Face of Islam.” Time.com. 23 Sept. 2001. Web. 21 Apr. 2012. < http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,175987,00.html>.
“Brutal Truth About Islam.” Youtube.com. 07 Aug. 2008. Web. vterroe. 22 Apr. 2012.
Crawford, Paul F. “Four Myths about the Crusades.” The Intercollegiate Review. 46.1 (Spring 2011): 13-22. EBSCOhost.
“Crusades.” Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition. 01 Nov. 2011. Web. 21 Apr. 2012. EBSCOhost.
Davis, Gregory. Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World. Los Angeles: World Ahead. 2006. Kindle Book.
“Expansion of Islam to 750 C.E.”. web.cocc.edu. Web Map. 21 Apr. 2012.
Hagerty, Barbara Bradley. “Is the Bible More Violent than the Quran?” npr.org. 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 22 Apr. 2012< http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788>.
Hamid, Tawfik. “Islam Should Prove It’s a Religion of Peace.” Wall Street Journal online. 09 Mar. 2009. Web. 22 Apr. 2012.
“Interview of Osama bin Laden by Tayseer Allouni with English Subtitles.” Youtube.com. 17 Sept 2011. Web. 3leeya. 09 Apr. 2012.
“Islam.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2012.
Khan, Nasir. “Images of Islam and Muslims in Western Media.” ForeignPolicyJournal.com. 18 May 2010. Web. 31 Mar 2012.
Lewis, Bernard. “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” theatlantic.com. Sept 1990. Web. 31 Mar 2012.
Madden, Thomas F. “The Real History of the Crusades.” thehaca.com. Web. 21 Apr. 2012
Mamdani, Mahmood. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. New York: Random House Digital, Inc., 2005. Kindle Book.
May, Clifford. “How to stop putting gasoline in Islamist tank.” Korea Times.com. 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2012.
New American Standard Bible Updated Edition. The Lockman Foundation. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, 1995.
Omar, A. Rashied. “Islam and Violence.” Ecumenical Review 55.2 (2003): 158-62. Print. EBSCOHost
Quran, The: Sahih International Version. Quran.com. Web. 31 Mar 2012.
Reuters. “Bosnia: Imams Condemn Violence.” New York Times Online. 05 Nov. 2011. Web. 22 Apr. 2012.
Shah, Zahid. “Jihad and Terrorism: A Comparative Study.” Dialogue 4.4: 526-54. EBSCOHost.
Slick, Matt. “Jihad: holy struggle or holy war?” Carm.org. Web. 31 Mar 2012.
Spencer, Robert. Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t. Washington D.C.: Regnery, 2007. Kindle Book.
Van der Krogt. “Jihad without apologetics.” Islam & Christian-Muslim Relations. 21.2 (April 2010): 127-42. EBSCOHost.
Williams, Paul L., The Al Qaeda Connection. International Terrorism, Organized Crime, and the Coming Apocalypse. New York: Prometheus, 2005. Print.
