Scripture & Ideology: Muslims on Killing “Infidels”

The dramatic growth in Islamic terrorism in recent years has caused many people to reexamine Muslim scriptures in the effort to learn what sort of inspiration might be there for violence. Some argue that the Qur’an instructs Muslims to kill infidels, but is this true? If it were true, then we should expect to see a lot more Muslims killing a lot more non-Muslims, but we don't. More paranoid Christian conservatives warn that they are just waiting for the right moment, but maybe the situation is more complex than they are able to comprehend.

Huda, the About Guide to Islam, writes:

For example, one verse (in its snipped version) reads: "slay them wherever you catch them" (Qur'an 2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are "they" that this verse discusses?

The preceding and following verses give the correct context: "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression" (2:190-193).

It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed and prevented from practicing their faith. In these circumstances, permission is given to fight back -- but even then Muslims are instructed not to transgress limits, and to cease fighting as soon as the attacker gives up. Even in these circumstances, Muslim are only to fight directly against those who are attacking them, not innocent bystanders or non-combatants.

Huda is quite correct that the full context makes it clear that Muslims are not instructed to go around killing “infidels” willy-nilly. There are conditions and there are restraints. Still, that isn’t the whole picture either. A reasonable person reading the above should come to reasonable conclusions and reasonable policies. Fighting against oppression is a good thing, right? If that were all there were to it then why is there so much killing done in the name of Islam?

The problem is that simply delineating a set of conditions for using violence does not end the debate. There is still the question of how to define what those conditions mean. For terrorists like Osama bin Laden, those conditions have been fulfilled: there has been an invasion (foreign troops in Saudi Arabia in particular) that requires a defensive war, the attacker has not given up, and they are trying to suppress the faith (through the existence of secular dictatorships rather than theocratic, Islamic governments).

Moderate Muslims would argue that these conditions aren’t enough to justify terrorism. Many would deny that these conditions come anywhere close to the conditions required for warfare — secular governments don't necessarily oppress religion and Western involvement in the Middle East isn't necessarily an invasion (though it may not be entirely desired, either). Others, obviously, think that they are enough — and it would be hard for Christians in the West to always disagree (how often have we heard conservative evangelical Christians complain about how secularism is a form of oppression to them?).

The point is that simply noting the existence of limits on where and when violence is allowed does not mean that there isn’t scriptural warrant for saying that Muslims are commanded to kill infidels. The conditions are ambiguous enough that there is a great deal of wiggle room for someone looking to rationalize what they want to do. The Qur’an isn’t unique in that, but because Muslims believe that it contains the direct words of God rather than simply words inspired by God, it is perhaps a bit more dangerous in this regard than most religious scriptures.

This is a perpetual problem with religion, and one that doesn't typically exist in secular ideologies. Religious scripture is as malleable as any text, especially in the context of old religions that have a lot of added traditions to go along with the text. This means that scriptural support for just about any position can be found and once it is, followers are convinced that they are following the Will of God. This precludes compromise and creates problems that you just can't find among people arguing over the meaning of Kant, Plato, or even Marx.