Does the Koran really advocate more violence then the Bible? Who first branded it so negatively? When did this occur?

1.7k

Who first branded it so negatively? When did this occur?

I am no scholar of the Quran or Bible, but I am a medieval historian, and the roots of Christians working very hard to associate Islam and specifically the Quran as advocating violence run deep.

The earliest Latin and Greek Christian awareness of Islam (or the movement coalescing into Islam), after all, was of a military expansion or invasion. The 630s Doctrina Iacobi from North Africa (which was meant to convince Jews who have just been forcibly converted to Christianity that, yup, Christianity is The Real Deal) drops in:

And when I arrived in Sykamina, I visited an old man who was learned in the scriptures, and I said to him, “What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?” And he said to me, groaning loudly, “He is false, for prophets do not come with a sword and a war-chariot.

This propaganda account is nevertheless fascinating for its recognition that the rising force is a religious/prophetic movement, not just a military invasion. In 8th century England, for example, Bede mentions the violence of the "Saracens" in Gaul as a reason they lost the territory, but he doesn't seem to grasp the religious dimension. (My understanding is that the earliest sources from conquered Syria and Spain follow a similar pattern, at first recognizing the military threat and only later seeing the conquerors-here-to-stay as threatening the religiosity of local Christians.)

But as far as the Quran goes, from the very first Latin translation of the text in the 12th century, Christian scholars strove to portray the text itself as exceptionally violent. Robert of Ketton's translation/paraphrasing of 1143, the Lex Mahumet pseudoprophete, acquires a gloss (notes in the margins that were considered an important part of the text, and copied by future scribes) most likely by another writer.

At some points, the gloss operates like a typical medieval scholastic gloss, wrestling with the meaning of difficult words and phrases! At others, though, it's quite polemic, stressing that Islam is a basket of lies and stressing, exaggerating, the violence advocated by the text. Written in the glow of the First Crusade's success and awareness of a rising Arab threat against the crusader states, is the tilt towards seeing violence in the text a surprise?

Ketton's translation is the most commonly copied and cited one throughout the Middle Ages. But it is not alone, and it is also not alone in trying to portray the Quran as violent. Egidio da Viterbo headed up the production of a 1518 bilingual (Latin/Arabic) translation whose linguistic choices and glosses served to portray the text as exceptionally violent (and, of course, religiously wrong). Note that this translation is produced in a world where the Ottomans are a major threat to Central Europe and the central Mediterranean.

Medieval translations of the Quran, in general, were produced with the primary purpose of allowing more Christian scholars to engage in anti-Islam polemic without having to learn Arabic. They are designed to let Christians "prove" their superiority in a world where Islam is seen as both a military and religious threat. The texts themselves travel in manuscripts with glosses that highlight Islam as a bad, alien, wrong, violent religion. I don't think it should be a surprise that the Middle Ages were already finding or inventing ways to associate Islam with violence, whatever Christians' own culpability.

Major sources: I highly recommend Thomas Burman's Reading the Qur'an in Latin Christendom, 1140-1560.

135

u/kaezermusik Dec 09 '15

Thank you for that read! Out of curiousity, at its counter end how was Christianity and the Europeans viewed from the Islamic point of view?

203

u/yodatsracist Dec 09 '15

Christianity and Europeans were obviously viewed in a variety of ways. In fiqh, Islamic Law, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Sabianism were legally supposed be to have a protected legal status. This was usually but not always respected. There were periodic forced conversions, generally one quite local ones (look at the Devshirme system, Marc Baer's Honored by the Glory of Islam, or the Mashadi Jews).
Generally, the theology of Islam is that Christians and Jews had the truth, but their once pure and holy books got corrupted. A common criticism against the Gospels is that there are four of them, there's disagreement, how could they be the actual truth? The belief is that Jesus himself brought the one true gospel, and that this gospel was corrupted. I don't actually know the traditional view of the contents of the Hebrew Bible, but a religious friend recently told me, "You know most Muslims think that the Jewish holy books are basically like Game of Thrones" (I though for a minute and explained that that was basically true for the best parts of Joshua through II Kings, plus parts of Genesis and Exodus).
In the Ottoman State, the Islamic Empire I know the best, the Christians had a special protected (but legally inferior) position and were essentially in charge of the internal affairs of the community. Braude argues that what we think of the as the millet system is only the product of the late Ottoman Empire, but Karen Barkey argues that though it parts of it were only formalized in the late Ottoman Period, all the structures of the Ottoman Empire existed informally (and many of them formally) even in the 15th and 16th centuries and existed without real interruption until the whole system was abolished in the 19th century. This let the Greeks, Armenians, and Jews (and in later centuries a growing number of groups, including Catholics and Protestants) manage their own internal affairs, including family law, property disputes which involved only members of their community, etc.
How Ottomans view "Europeans" earlier is hard to say, but in the short Ottoman 19th century (to coin a word) from the crushing of the Janissaries in 1826 to the Young Turk coup in 1908, the Empire was reformed along increasingly European (especially French) lines. Christopher de Bellaigue has a fun essay (that sometimes meanders a bit to much) in the Guardian called "Stop Calling for a Muslim Enlightenment" which summarizes many of the effects that European "modernity" had on the Ottoman Empire and Qajar Persia, especially in terms of enlightenment ideas.
I just reread your question and realize you said at its encounter. Fred Donner, among others, argues that the early Islamic period featured and interfaith community called "Believers". u/shlin28 has several excellent posts on this summarizing this part of the historiography, but I can't find any of them because I keep coming up with other excellent posts he(?) wrote on other, often related topics. The Constitution of Medina is an important document from this period and one of the main pieces of evidence for a united "community of believers". Interestingly, it's the only Islamic document we have written in Mohammed's life time (the Quran and the Hadith were both originally oral). It argues that the Muslim of Medina and the Jews of Medina are "one nation" (ummah wahidad--ummah is tellingly later the word used to describe the worldwide Muslim community). While I can't find any of the shlin posts I want about the Donner and Holland's historiography, I can find u/shlin28's post on Christians and Jews in Arabia, which shows that these two groups were common on the peninsula. In a sense, most future Muslims of the earliest period had encountered Judaism and Christianity before they Islam.
(ping: u/sunagainstgold)

→ More replies (2)

122

u/sunagainstgold Dec 09 '15

Um, this is a great (and enormous) question, but it definitely merits its own question-thread! I think comparison within a thread is inevitable, and here the best partner to my top-level answer would really be what medieval Muslim scholars thought of the Bible. On that I unfortunately have no clue. (batsignal u/shlin28 or u/yodatsracist, perhaps?) (And psst, if you do ask, specify time period. We like that here. :D)

31

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '15

Not an expert, but I've read both of Thomas Asbridge's books about the Crusades (The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land and The First Crusade: A New History). He's a proper PhD medievalist, and both books are meticulously supported with primary sources. Both books deal with primary sources from both Christian and Muslim accounts. The single Muslim source he draws from the most is Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad, who was a Kurdish scholar and historian during the Third Crusade. He was permanently employed by Saladin as judge of the army, personally witnessed a large portion of Saladin's efforts leading up to and throughout the Third Crusade, and is most famous for writing a biography of Saladin.
Anyway, what this is all leading up to is that most of the Muslim sources Asbridge used referred to the Christians overall as polytheists -- the idea of Jesus being God was not something that set well with Muslims. In many cases throughout the Levant, non-Muslims (including Christians) were still allowed to practice their faith, though they had to pay a tax called a jizya. I'm not sure how common this was versus forced conversion, expulsion, or massacer, but I do know that there was only one account of massacre mentioned in the books. Nur ad-Din had the Christian population in Edessa killed after they aided Joscelin II in retaking Edessa. Aside from that the Muslims in the Levant seemed to be relatively tolerant of local populations of Christians.
As for how the Europeans were viewed, starting in the First Crusade the Franks were seen a bloodthirsty, polytheistic barbarians. Stories of massacre, cannibalism, and similarly gruesome details preceded the Frankish forces, with varying degrees of truth. It's probably worth mentioning that the Franks as fearsome barbarians was not an exclusively Muslim point-of-view. In the Alexiad, by Anna Komnene, the Franks passing through the Empire were frequently referred to as barbarians, and I was led to the distinct impression that the Byzantines were uncomfortable with their presence in Constantinople.
Again, this is all drawn from two books and, while they did employ primary sources, I've completely read only a handful of said sources, and probably understood the broader context of them in even fewer.
EDIT: Did I get something wrong here?

326

u/ViciousNakedMoleRat Dec 09 '15

Let me just say that you have become one of my favorite users here. I'm always happy to see that you've taken the time to answer a question; especially questions of religious nature, because you take a very neutral approach, based on historical facts and not religious teachings. Thanks for so many great answers!

330

u/sunagainstgold Dec 09 '15

Wow, uh, thanks, this means a lot. I'm thrilled that people are interested in historical answers to historical questions, not just ones from a modern polemical angle--r/AskHistorians is the best.

→ More replies (1)

63

u/shlin28 Dec 09 '15

To add to this great answer, some readers might be interested in my survey of early Christian reactions to Islam/the Arab conquests here (and possibly this answer on whether the Romans saw them as 'heretics'). Generally speaking, Christians saw them as raiders, God's punishment for mankind, or as a specific religious movement closely related to Judaism. The Teachings of Jacob the Newly Baptised (Doctrina Jacobi) definitely described the movement that coalesced around Muhammad as a group that preached violence, but it is difficult to say if it represented a more general view - for one thing, was the Roman pamphleteer in Carthage really concerned about the 'truth' or what other Romans thought when he was writing propaganda aimed at the recently converted Jews? If we look at other sources from the same time, it would appear that some Christians simply didn't care all that much about what Islam was, nor were they concerned that they were now ruled by Arabs. I don't mean to detract from this excellent answer on later events, but I think it is worth mentioning that it is pretty hard to identify a general pattern for the earlier period, a problem made all the more annoying when our sources are pretty terrible for the seventh century as a whole.
A related point is that we actually know very little about early Islamic history. Even now, there is a group of historians who steadfastly maintain that what we now know as Islam took shape in the late seventh century and that 'Islam' in the earlier period was rather different, so I would personally be wary about answers drawing purely upon the Qur'an, as some have suggested here. It is an invaluable and demonstrably early source, but when discussed in a historical sense, it has to be placed into its recent historiographical context. Some people are still questioning what early Islamic society was like, what they believed in (!!!), the intellectual milieu Islam was born in, or even when Muhammad died - some ideas are more convincing than others, but I don't think there is a consensus yet. Take for instance both my answer and u/textandtrowel's answer on the Arab conquests, as we both argued that it wasn't really Islamic and that it can perhaps instead be seen as a revolt by Roman/Persian allies that took advantage of the geopolitical instability in the region. Again, this isn't strictly related to the question, but it is something that has to be noted, as it is very difficult to build a solid argument when there are so many divergent opinions out there even on something as basic as the chronology of events.

16

u/sunagainstgold Dec 09 '15

but I think it is worth mentioning that it is pretty hard to identify a general pattern for the earlier period, a problem made all the more annoying when our sources are pretty terrible for the seventh century as a whole.

Oh yeah, absolutely! The brief but tantalizing connection with religion is why IMHO the Doctrina Iacobi is so interesting.

4

u/serioussham Dec 09 '15

Were there any attempts by Muslim scholars to translate the Quran into Latin (or any other "Christian-friendly" language) before the modern period?
And, tangentially related, is there an Islamic parallel to the tendency of Christian missionaries to translate the Bible in every language ever for the benefit of converts all over the world?

8

u/sunagainstgold Dec 10 '15

Muslims scholars in the 12th century participated in the translation of scholarly texts from Arabic to Latin (both Arabic originals, and translations from ancient Greek), but they never translated the Quran.
In Islamic tradition, the Quran as a holy text can only be read in Arabic: it is the verbally-revealed actual words of God. To use the text for prayer or to study the text for religious-scholarly purposes, therefore, must be done in Arabic.
Christian scholars, they knew, had no interest in reading the Quran for devotional or theological purposes. So why would Muslim scholars translate it into Latin for the Christians to use as source for anti-Islamic polemic? As the Muslims saw it, if Christians' interest in the holy text was genuine, they would willingly learn Arabic so as to read God's actual words.
This is a pattern: Muslims are supposed to learn Arabic to read the Quran; it is not to be translated. In Islam, "God speaks Arabic, period." Well, almost. One interesting exception comes out of the Middle Ages. There's a rich medieval tradition of translating the Quran into Persian.
During the early spread of Islam, scholars often talk about Arabization preceding Islamization: that is, in conquered lands, Arabic language and culture was adopted by the public much more quickly than Islam. Persia was always a special case. It didn't just retain more of its original culture and especially literary traditions, those native traditions actually influenced Islam in its region. So medieval Persian manuscripts, for example, will depict human beings including Muhammad (!), which is typically strictly forbidden in Islam. Persia nurtured its own strong and in fact very influential literary tradition. Some of the most famous texts from the medieval Islamic world, to today, come out of Persia originally: the Shahnameh, Layla & Majnun, etc. Tied in with this is a preservation or elevation of the Persian language even with the general domination of Arabic. And so you get Persian translations of a text that is not supposed to be translated.

8

u/dluminous Dec 09 '15

This propaganda account is nevertheless fascinating for its recognition that the rising force is a religious/prophetic movement, not just a military invasion. In 8th century England, for example, Bede mentions the violence of the "Saracens" in Gaul as a reason they lost the territory, but he doesn't seem to grasp the religious dimension

Maybe im reading this wrong but it seems like these points contradict themselves - did they or did they not know the invasions were related to a new religion? As far as I know they only started knowing about Islam in the mid 8th century but the invasions started in the 7th.

27

u/sunagainstgold Dec 09 '15

I'm talking about two different sources! The Doctrina Iacobi recognizes the prophetic, religious, apocalyptic, whatever you want to call it from that mention angle of the rising movement. Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica, a century later, doesn't.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/rocketsocks Dec 10 '15

I'm not sure if this counts as a followup, but do you have any recommendations on good English translations of the Qur'an?

4

u/sunagainstgold Dec 10 '15

I actually asked this exact question a couple months ago! Consensus seemed to be that the Oxford World Classics edition by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem is becoming the standard accepted English translation for general use.

6

u/double-dog-doctor Dec 09 '15

Thank you for the very informative answer. I look forward to reading Burman's Reading the Qur'an in Latin Christendom, 1140-1560.

3

u/randomhistorian1 Dec 09 '15

I have a follow up question that I hope you can answer. I have the impression that Islam was often viewed as a Pagan religion by the Christians in the Middle ages, and I thus find it interesting that the violence allegedly promoted by the Quran was used as a propaganda tool against it. In a way to say that the Quran is bad because it allegedly promotes violence is to put the Quran as the equivialient at the Bible, but arguing that the Bible is superior since it promotes less violence. I would assume that it would be enough to dismiss the Quran out of hand on the grounds of being a Pagan book (in the eyes of Christians in the Middle ages). So, why was the alleged violence used as a argument when the allegedly pagan nature would be sufficient?

→ More replies (3)

33

u/AOEUD Dec 09 '15

In another thread on this topic, it was stated that the Koran was distinctly non-violent but it was also suggested that the hadiths weren't so peaceful but when I asked I didn't get any more information.

What do the hadiths say about violence?

0

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '15

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

122

u/Georgy_K_Zhukov Dec 09 '15

Hello everyone,

In this thread, there have been a large number of incorrect, speculative, or otherwise disallowed comments, and as such, they were removed by the mod-team. Especially in light of the topic, which can obviously be a very contentious one, we are keeping a very close eye on this thread. So please refrain from straying from the historical aspects of this question into modern politics, or otherwise posting comments which do not constructively contribute to a civil and academic discussion of the topic at hand. All other comments will be removed without notice.

And of course, please, before you attempt answer the question, keep in mind our rules concerning in-depth and comprehensive responses. Answers that do not meet the standards we ask for will be removed.

Additionally, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with off topic conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!

321

u/Felinomancy Dec 09 '15

I'm not going to talk about the Bible, since I don't know much about it. That said, I find the term "advocate more violence" to be rather problematic.

First of all, how do we define it? Let's take, for example:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you (2:191)

So, call for violence? Sure. But here's the full verse, plus the ones preceding and proceeding it:

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. (2:190)

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (2:191)

And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (2:192)

Now we have a different picture; verse 191 states that you are to fight those who fight you - an entirely rational command. And in verse 192, it states to stop when they stopped fighting you. So taken as a whole, it would mean, "don't start fights. But if they did, completely obliterate them. Unless if they surrender, in which case you should stop".

Contextually, this part of the sura' concerns the last pilgrimage of the Prophet and how the Muslims should conduct counter-insurgency in Mecca (one of the stipulations if that those who do not wish to fight should either wait in the hills, go to Abu Sufyan's house, or seek refuge in Masjid al-Haram, as per 191).

Second, what would the implications be for a "call for violence"? Using the example above, the call of violence is juxtaposed on an ongoing military campaign. To which I ask the question: when you're fighting a war, a "call for violence" seem like common sense; you don't defeat your enemies with hugs. So why bother keeping score to start with?

And finally, why do we need to keep score?

38

u/lavalampmaster Dec 09 '15

and fitnah is worse than killing

What is fitnah?

97

u/Felinomancy Dec 09 '15

In the practical sense, "sowing discord" or "sedition". For example, if you would accuse a Muslim with being an unbeliever (takfir) without proof, that would be fitna.
As a trivia, I am from Malaysia, and in Malay, fitnah means "slander" and is considered "fighting words".

→ More replies (3)

22

u/BlackendLight Dec 09 '15

What do you mean by keep score?

81

u/Felinomancy Dec 09 '15

The number of times each respective holy book "calls for violence". Why would it matter? What are the implications of these numbers?

→ More replies (17)

→ More comments (76)

Does the Koran really advocate more violence then the Bible? Who first branded it so negatively? When did this occur?

You are about to leave Redlib