I recently watched the movie Traitor with Don Cheadle, an entertaining film about a Muslim CIA agent who works his way into a terrorist network in order to prevent a massive scale attack against the U.S. on its own soil. The movie was a good yarn and had some interesting twists; my only complaint is the fact that my previous associations with Don Cheadle, who plays Samir Horn, made it hard for him to be convincing as a Muslim terrorist.
OK, aside from Roger-Ebert-ing.
Without revealing too many spoilers here, the overt motivation for Samir to go under the guise of a terrorist is to provide the U.S. government with information on the terrorist ring-leader. However, he is also doing it for a deeper, more personal reason. As a follower of Islam, Samir believes that “terrorists are the worst enemy of Islam,” and he hopes to open the terrorists’ eyes to the harm they are bringing to Islam’s name.
Which brings up an often debated question: is Islam an innately violent religion that encourages taking all measures to spread a belief, or are its teachings often misconstrued by extremists for their own power or political gain?
Although I am certainly not an expert on Islam, I think it is important to look directly at text from the Qur’an regarding the Jihad (personal and outward struggle to resist sin and spread the faith via Holy War, respectively). Although the Qur’an’s text is interpreted in various ways, here is one translation from the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement at the University of Southern California:
9:29 – “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” (for other interpretations).
Looking at this quote it seems that the use of violence can be condoned if it is a means to bring infidels below Islam’s followers. However, it is often explained by scholars that this is only the case when Muslim lands are being encroached upon; that this violence is only tolerable in the form of defense of the religion and its people.
9:05 – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
Supporting the killing of idolaters, this verse seems contradicted by another verse of the Qur’an that stresses the value of each individual life, and condemns murder.
5:32 – “For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.”
According to this passage it appears that murder is wrong – however, what entails ‘mischief in the land?’ This verse is also commonly translated as being wrong to kill ‘an innocent soul?’ So this brings us to ask who is innocent? Are the non-believers mentioned earlier innocent?
Times change and contexts become outdated, so it is plausible to say that the Qur’an was not written with the intent to promote the type of acts which are carried out today, but rather merely justified defense of the religion, followers, and their home.
It seems that many contradictions arise when terrorist figureheads align themselves with Islam. They publicly claim that the acts which they commit are for the advancement of Islam and the elimination of infidels. However, many terrorists are known to partake in activities that are prohibited by the Qur’an, and are not pious practitioners of the faith they claim to so strongly uphold.
Of the diverse pool of 3,000 people killed at the hand of Muslim terrorists on September 11th, is it not probable to say that at least one was also a Muslim? It seems no matter what the interpretation of the Qur’an may be, this condemns the terrorists for killing at very least one innocent life.
If these people are corrupting the true meaning of Islam, then doesn’t it follow that there should be a great uprising of Muslims who object toward the terrorists’ actions? However, we see the number of terrorist followers grow each day, and the voice of those who oppose the terrorists’ connection with Islam suppressed. It is clear that the latter group of people exist, so let their voice be heard – as of now, it appears they may be losing the battle.
Are Islam extremists obeying the very word of their text, or should they be charged with malpractice, tarnishing the face of a peaceful religion?
“However, we see the number of terrorist followers grow each day, and the voice of those who oppose the terrorists’ connection with Islam suppressed.”
I don’t think you’re wrong, but I’m not sure that there’s any evidence for this point. Certainly, we don’t hear about too many Muslims who are open, outspoken opponents of terrorism, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any. It’s also very difficult to say whether or not the number of “terrorists” is growing each day.
Absolutely – we don’t hear those who are outspoken opponents of terrorism very often. That is why I go on to say that “It is clear that the latter group[Muslims who oppose terrorism] of people exist, so let their voice be heard – as of now, it appears they may be losing the battle.” Of course they exist; there are some, they are just not heard, as you say.
As far as the number of terrorists goes, it is hard to measure. However, it seems that although we have dealt significantly heavy blows to leaders in al Qada, they have seen a resurgence in Pakistan and are still a formidable opponent. Also, the process of globalization is providing varying terrorist cells and rebellious groups more efficient means of communication and logistical planning. If interested in more information on this, I recommend the latest Political Science Quarterly Journal article by Cornellian Jonathan Kirshner: http://www.psqonline.org/
Excellent article. Haven’t seen the movie but plan on it. It is a shame that Islamic opponents of terrorism do not get as much attention, especially considering that I am very good friends with one from high school. In my opinion, terrorists are not true representatives of Islam, as the movie seems to suggest; political motivation is what I think chiefly drives them, and they operate under the “guise” of the religion. That being said, some verses you have brought up (and there are others in the book) from the Qua’ran are questionable; then again, verses apparently condoning violence appear in our own Bible, which are interpreted by most the same way the scholars interpret the Qua’ran, as condoning self-defense. On a side note, Don Cheadle’s probably as convincing an Islamic terrorist as Ashley Tisdale.
HAHA (on the last part)
The problem with examining excerpts from the Qu’ran is that they can be easily manipulated once they are out of their original setting. These phrases that, generally taken out of context, appear to encourage violence are referred to as the “sword verses.” They are used by extremists to justify their abhorrent actions, though if properly reviewed, do exactly the opposite. An excellent example is one of the excerpts used by Ollie (Osheezie): “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush (9:5).” However, the following section is conveniently left out by fanatics such as Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri: “But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat (tax for alms) then let them go their way for God is forgiving and kind (9:5)”. During the Middle Ages, Muslims were in fact much more tolerant of other religions than our European Christian ancestors. Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands were forced to pay a tax, but generally were left to their beliefs and respected as fellow “People of the Book.” Jews and Muslims could not expect the same sort of freedoms from Medieval Christians (the Inquisition, the sack of Jerusalem during the First Crusade, the list goes on. In modern times these roles seem to have been reversed. Christianity is now viewed as a religion of peace and love whereas 1,000 years ago one could argue it was a proponent of religious violence and extremism, while Islam was then considered the peaceful, progressive thinking religion. Therefore, it seems that though scripture and religion are utilized by militant Muslims, Islam has little to do with Muslim extremism. Rather the roots appear to be socio-economic and political.
@ Ussdaddy:
First of all, thanks for the contribution to the conversation.
I find it ironic that you mention the Christian’s actions during the crusades, as I considered writing a follow up movie review after watching “Kingdom of Heaven” the next night. If you are familiar with the film, you may remember the men from the Knights Templar, who relentlessly attacked all those of the Muslim faith regardless of provocation. These Templars and similar men did exist and wreak havoc, and they were terrorists in every sense of the word. You are also absolutely correct in saying that Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri pick and choose only the verses from the Qur’an which they believe justify their actions.
However, in analyzing the verse which you present, more questions are raised. Nearly every translation agrees that Muslims should be peaceful towards those who keep up their payrate and taxes towards the leaders in these Muslim lands. The only caveat to this is the preceding statement regarding the non-believer’s “devotional obligations” from your excerpt.
Another version from USC of the latter half of (9:5):
“but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. ” (in this version ‘devotional obligations’ has been replaced with ‘regular prayers’)
What is implied by “regular prayers?” Are these prayers by the dissenters allowed to be non-Islamic or must they be the daily prayers offered by practicing Muslims? Upon investigation, one may find the following accommodating verses.
(9:11):
“But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith.” (the Islamic faith? Or religious in general?)
The next verse (9:12)
“And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist.”
As is with almost all biblical and religious texts, though, it is sometimes hard to know precisely how things should be conducted, when examples are taken out of the time which they were written.