Comments on the Introduction to the Qur'an by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford World's Classics.
Page xxii : Issues of Interpretations
Abdel Haleem is trying here to make the apology of Islam proning violence. He starts by complaining about the translation of the Qur'an by N.J. Dawood (dating from 1956) that was " taken out of context", and thus giving a wrong idea about the Qur'an allowing Muslims to kill non-Muslims. Let's see what his own translation says then :
I do not see in what the quoted passage of Dawood's translation differ much from Abdel Haleem. "Slay" and "kill" mean the same; "find" and "encounter" in this case also mean the same.
Abdel Haleem then continues saying :
[my bolds]
I am not sure I understand how the message could be one of peace and tolerance when it is question to kill the disbelievers, not convert, persuade, negotiate or whatever other more pacific solution; especially since the Qur'an also says later on (sura 9:5) :
We see that God is indeed most forgiving and merciful, as long as people convert to Islam and pay the alms, even under death threat.
Abdel Haleem tries to justify this passage by explaining :
Abdel Haleem is basically saying that God gave the Muslims the right to fight and kill the polytheists/idolaters because they had broken their agreements, barred others from becoming Muslims, etc. In today's world, little would be needed for Muslims to find similar justifications to kill non-Muslims. Imagine that a Western or Chinese company breaks its agreements with a Muslim-owned company, and that would allow Muslims to kill the "disbelievers". Make it a political issue, and they are now allowed to seek to destroy a whole nation, as they some Muslims organizations or nations are already doing with Israel or the USA, regardless that millions of Israeli and Americans do not have any control on their politicians' speeches or actions, and may even strongly disagree with them. Taking this to everday life, it would mean that a Muslim could kill you if you break an agreement with them, or if you prevent them in any way to convert someone to Islam. So if you tell someone some scientific facts, philosohpical ideas, or religious beliefs other than Islamic, that could thwart a person's attempted convertion to Islam, all the Muslims in the world would have their god's "statutory" approval to kill you.
The problem with the Qur'an is that its world view is far too simplistic, because it was written in the 7th century, and in a part of the world that wasn't the apex of civilization at the time (China, India or the Byzantine Empire were more politically advanced and complex). As Abdel Haleem said himself "the Qur'an makes many general statements", but he also prefaced his translation of the holy book by :
If the Qur'an is believed to be the exact word of God, and therefore so perfect, why is everything so dependent on some obscure events that took place in a desertic tribes land, and all its many generalisations should be understood only "in this context" ? In other words, the Qur'an was good enough when Muhammad received it from God, but it has now expired because the context is no longer relevant. If not, it means that what is written should still be used as a set of creed, rituals, ethics, and laws. But then, one cannot ignore that the Qur'an says explicitly "whenever you encounter the polytheists, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post", unless they convert and pay the alms, of course. For me, either it is a historical relic of a past age, or it does not promote peace and tolerance toward non-Muslims.
Predicting his inability to convince some Western readers, Abdel Haleem carries on his explanations about the "misinterpretations" of the Qur'an :
Here, Abdel Haleem argues that the previous English translation by Dawood has mistranslated the term islam (a devoted monotheist) for Islam (the religion). So Muslims want peace with the Jews and the Christians, the honored "People of the Book", the other monotheists believing in the same God ! How wonderful, Westerners have no reason to fear Islam anymore ! But if the translator thinks that this will make most Europeans or East Asians feel better about Islam, he is deeply mistaken, because a majority of them are atheists, deists, agnostics, neo-pagans, or anyway non-practising Christians (see article). Abdel Haleem's second mistake is to believe that Muslims are indeed better inclined toward the Jews and the Christians, especially when we see that the most violent Islamic organization have the state of Israel and the very Christian Bush administration as their prime target.
Page xxii : Issues of Interpretations
Abdel Haleem said:
Abdel Haleem is trying here to make the apology of Islam proning violence. He starts by complaining about the translation of the Qur'an by N.J. Dawood (dating from 1956) that was " taken out of context", and thus giving a wrong idea about the Qur'an allowing Muslims to kill non-Muslims. Let's see what his own translation says then :
Qur'an translation by Abdel Haleem (sura 2:191) said:
I do not see in what the quoted passage of Dawood's translation differ much from Abdel Haleem. "Slay" and "kill" mean the same; "find" and "encounter" in this case also mean the same.
Abdel Haleem then continues saying :
Abdel Haleem said:
[my bolds]
I am not sure I understand how the message could be one of peace and tolerance when it is question to kill the disbelievers, not convert, persuade, negotiate or whatever other more pacific solution; especially since the Qur'an also says later on (sura 9:5) :
Qur'an (sura 9:5) said:
We see that God is indeed most forgiving and merciful, as long as people convert to Islam and pay the alms, even under death threat.
Abdel Haleem tries to justify this passage by explaining :
Abdel Haleem said:
Abdel Haleem is basically saying that God gave the Muslims the right to fight and kill the polytheists/idolaters because they had broken their agreements, barred others from becoming Muslims, etc. In today's world, little would be needed for Muslims to find similar justifications to kill non-Muslims. Imagine that a Western or Chinese company breaks its agreements with a Muslim-owned company, and that would allow Muslims to kill the "disbelievers". Make it a political issue, and they are now allowed to seek to destroy a whole nation, as they some Muslims organizations or nations are already doing with Israel or the USA, regardless that millions of Israeli and Americans do not have any control on their politicians' speeches or actions, and may even strongly disagree with them. Taking this to everday life, it would mean that a Muslim could kill you if you break an agreement with them, or if you prevent them in any way to convert someone to Islam. So if you tell someone some scientific facts, philosohpical ideas, or religious beliefs other than Islamic, that could thwart a person's attempted convertion to Islam, all the Muslims in the world would have their god's "statutory" approval to kill you.
The problem with the Qur'an is that its world view is far too simplistic, because it was written in the 7th century, and in a part of the world that wasn't the apex of civilization at the time (China, India or the Byzantine Empire were more politically advanced and complex). As Abdel Haleem said himself "the Qur'an makes many general statements", but he also prefaced his translation of the holy book by :
The Qur'an (back cover and preface) said:
If the Qur'an is believed to be the exact word of God, and therefore so perfect, why is everything so dependent on some obscure events that took place in a desertic tribes land, and all its many generalisations should be understood only "in this context" ? In other words, the Qur'an was good enough when Muhammad received it from God, but it has now expired because the context is no longer relevant. If not, it means that what is written should still be used as a set of creed, rituals, ethics, and laws. But then, one cannot ignore that the Qur'an says explicitly "whenever you encounter the polytheists, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post", unless they convert and pay the alms, of course. For me, either it is a historical relic of a past age, or it does not promote peace and tolerance toward non-Muslims.
Predicting his inability to convince some Western readers, Abdel Haleem carries on his explanations about the "misinterpretations" of the Qur'an :
Abdel Haleem said:
Here, Abdel Haleem argues that the previous English translation by Dawood has mistranslated the term islam (a devoted monotheist) for Islam (the religion). So Muslims want peace with the Jews and the Christians, the honored "People of the Book", the other monotheists believing in the same God ! How wonderful, Westerners have no reason to fear Islam anymore ! But if the translator thinks that this will make most Europeans or East Asians feel better about Islam, he is deeply mistaken, because a majority of them are atheists, deists, agnostics, neo-pagans, or anyway non-practising Christians (see article). Abdel Haleem's second mistake is to believe that Muslims are indeed better inclined toward the Jews and the Christians, especially when we see that the most violent Islamic organization have the state of Israel and the very Christian Bush administration as their prime target.
