Another central issue of Truthie’s Case For Islam © is that the Quran really doesn’t call for violence, and whatever violence is found there can be explained away. So let’s look at what the Quran has to say.

*disclaimer: for the sake of clarity we will not include Hadith here because they are not counted as Allah’s own instruction.

As mentioned here before, it’s an undeniable fact that the Quran traffics in violence; some as accounts of battles and some as advice for believers. In fact, 8% of all verses in the Quran mention violence or cruelty, which is a much bigger proportion than any other religious book, including the OT. Surahs 4,5,6,8,9, 24 and 47 offer obvious instructions for fighting, just to name a few. The wrath is often directed at Christians and Jews (people of the book) though warnings for infidels in general occur just as well.

Since the calls for violence are obviously there, Muslim apologists opt to do their best to explain them away. My research has found three basic themes they tend to fall back on. We will thus pick apart each one…

Defense A: Quranic violence was for specific tribes or cities and not for the modern world.

Status: Misleading

Unlike the OT’s Joshua or King David, Mohammad could rarely be bothered to identify his enemies when mentioning a battle in the Quran (7:4 or 17:58). Many of his instructions simply tell readers to fight “those people” or to kill them “wherever they are” (9:5 and 9:29 and 2:191 are good examples).  Also, nowhere in the Quran does Allah leave a memo for future generations to become pacifists. Since there are modern clerics teaching men how to beat their wives in line with Mohammad’s instructions, it’s a hard sell that anything in the Quran has a statute of limitations.

Defense B: Mohammad only endorsed violence in self defense or retaliation.

Status: Murky

It is true that Mohammad talked about persecution in several places (2:190), so of all Muslims’ points this one is the most plausible. However, closer inspection reveals a tiny problem…nowhere does Mohammad set the standard of how persecution is defined. Mohammad implies in some parts that Muslims have an Allah-given right to enforce Sharia (33:1) and if infidels resort to violent protests they are persecuting Islam. Similarly, a Muslim could claim that he is being “bullied” into jury duty in a secular court or closing his business on Christmas Day. If a secular government fires a teacher for praying in school, or if a mosque is forcibly closed for being too radical, this kind of persecution could qualify as starting a fight. Futhermore, even when talk of persecution is removed, there are many passages where Mohammad seems to encourage aggressive pursuit of nonbelievers (3:151 or 4:89 or 5:14 or 9:73).

Defense C: Jihad is akin to Paul’s description of spiritual warfare.

Status: Far fetched

This defense simply makes no sense at all. Nowhere in the Quran does Mohammad talk about spiritual warfare or say anything in the same zip code as “our battle is not flesh and blood.” In fact, Mohammad goes in detail to command Muslims to smite pagans on their necks (8:12) or to drag their bodies through boiling water (40:70-72). The only way to believe this defense is to take a completely mystical approach that everything in the Quran is a metaphor, even though Mohammad never implied such. In fact Mohammad insisted that the Quran was easy to understand (54) and written in a clear, precise language (26). Thus this defense seems like a modern scramble to connect jihad with spiritual warfare even against Mohammad’s obvious assertions.

Dunno. Maybe my skeptical brain has been altered by my hatred for Allah and I’m not understanding this the way a Muslim would.