The order of chapters [“surahs”] in the Quran has provided some Muslims with a very convenient means of deflection with respect to the definition of “jihad.” Islamic apologists often cite certain passages from the Quran in an effort to prove that Islam is a “peace-loving” religion. They dismiss the several militancy passages in the Quran as being for defense only, and that they applied only during the early years when Mohammed and his followers were under heaviest attack. This is simply not true. These chapters are located near the beginning in copies of the traditional Quran, but they are NOT early with respect to chronology! For example, Quran 9:5 contains “the verse of the sword.” It says,
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the infidels wherever you find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free.”
Verses 29, 30, 73 and 123 of this chapter also contain strong calls for carnal militancy. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 contain several similar warfare passages. While these chapters are early in their placement in the Quran, they are not early in timing. Of the 114 chapters of the Quran, chapter 9 is actually in the 113th position and chapter 5 is in the 112th! Chapter 2 is 87, chapter 3 is 89, chapter 4 is 92. Though Muslims are reluctant to admit it, some of the strongest carnal militancy passages in the Quran are at the book’s very end. The extreme brevity of the last chapter makes this point all the more significant. Chapter 114 contains only 3 verses, which means that the strong pro-jihad teaching of chapter 9 is practically the end of the Quran. This fact is seldom pointed out by Muslims.
Following the Islamic interpretation principle known as “naskh” or “abrogation,” based upon Quran 2:106 and 16:101, earlier passages are negated by later ones that contradictorily address the same subject. This makes chapter placement extremely important. Some Muslims and Islamic apologists would like for us to believe that the traditional placement of chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 is correct, and thus “peace” passages have abrogated killing passages. Again, this is not true. In truth, these militancy chapters are “Medinan,” which means they relate later events, not “Meccan,” which relate earlier events. If anything, the Islamic “abrogation” hermeneutic would actually mean that the earlier “peace” passages were in fact “abrogated” by the latter fighting/killing passages! Incidentally, this is not just my conclusion, it is also the conclusion of many Islamic scholars, and logically so.
I and others have pointed out the Quran’s endorsement of carnal militancy in the advancement of “jihad.” I have cited many such militancy passages in my writings over the years. [See my article, The Battle Cry of the Quran.] Remarkably few Muslims have taken issue with my interpretations. I suspect that the repeated public images of Muslim militants holding a Quran in one hand and an AK-47 in the other has dampened the enthusiasm of those who might otherwise be inclined to explain away the Quran’s many militancy passages. Of course, there are many Muslims on the planet, and many of them do contend that Islam is “peace-loving,” that “jihad” is “a personal struggle,” and that all of those Quran and Hadith passages that encourage fighting and killing are either self-defense passages, figurative, or were “abrogated” by later “peace” passages. And let us not forgot the many pollyannaish defenders of Islam, who though being non-Muslims, yet blindly defend Islam as a “peace-loving religion.” These folks have likely not read the Quran, and are merely parroting the biases of the liberal media who for some strange reason insist upon defending and promoting the religion of Islam. [See my article, The Puzzling Relationship Between Liberals And Islamists.]
For several years I was ignorant concerning the chronological order of the Quran. I assumed that the chapters were placed in their general chronological order. During that time I was vulnerable to the arguments of the Muslims and liberals who led me to question my criticisms of the present nature of Islam. Upon learning the truth about the actual chronological order of the Quran I have become even more convinced that Islam’s own “bible” promotes and encourages carnal militancy in the expansion of Islam.
If I’m Wrong…
Then I am not alone! Millions of Muslims use the Quran’s warfare passages as their reason for fighting and slaying those whom they deem “infidels.” Others may not get their hands bloody, but they use these same passages in Mosques and Madrases to incite the murderous spirit of militant jihad. Are their interpretations wrong? And if so, why are so few “moderate” Muslims willing to firmly oppose them? Bible-believing Christians understand that they are to reprove even their own brethren when such brethren twist the Scriptures and err from the faith (Titus 1:13; 2 Timothy 4:2-4; James 5:19-20; Lk. 17:2-3). To accept a brother in his sin is to accept his sin (2 John 10-11). How can “moderate” Muslims reasonably expect to be accepted if they refuse to refute and reject their carnally militant brethren? Our Constitution and culture can deal with the religious aspect of Islam. It cannot, however, tolerate the political and civic aspects of Islam, as outlined in the Quran and embodied in Sharia Law.
Tim Haile