The 'Out of Context' Canard
Does 'Context' Get the Qur'an Off the Hook?
Claiming that critics quote the Qur’an “out of context” is probably the most common way in which defenders of Islam try to get it off the hook as far as the violence in its pages is concerned.
Just make sure that you understand the context, or so the thinking seems to go, and the Qur’an with its invective, hatred and insults towards unbelievers will suddenly become the epitome of peace, light and tolerance. You probably do not need me to tell you that this is wishful thinking at its very best (or worst).
Here are some reasons why this is the case:
The Qur’an: Eternal or Time-Dependent? It is worth pointing out the inherent problem with taking refuge in context when one deals with a supposedly eternal book. Most orthodox Muslims believe that the Qur’an was uncreated and that the earthly Qur’an is simply an exact copy of Allah’s eternal word. To excuse or explain parts of the Qur’an by referring to historical context is, therefore, highly problematic. If the Qur’an is, indeed, Allah’s eternal guidance to mankind, human beings should be able to follow its instructions, at all times, and under all circumstances. If this is not the case, then Muslims will have to concede that Allah’s supposed eternal guidance to humanity is time limited.
The challenges associated with determining context in the Qur’an. The Qur’an is a remarkably de-contextualized book. The Qur’an consists of 114 chapters, roughly arranged from long to short. Any sense of literary or chronological progression is lost through this arrangement. To complicate matters further, the Qur’an contains precious little historical or biographical information. This means that, while determining the literary context can be straightforward, the same cannot be said of historical context. Muslim scholars attempt to get around this problem by referring to the so-called “Occasions of Revelation” literature. These are writings (written mostly two hundred years after the fact) that purport to give the origin of all the chapters of the Qur’an. These writings offer very little joy for those who would like to defend the Qur’an since they often simply confirm the violent readings.
It will not do to attempt to take refuge in Arabic. When a non-Arab critic of Islam deals with the Qur’an, Muslim apologists will often respond by saying that no criticism of Islam can be made unless it is done based on the Arabic text of the Qur’an. This book will, therefore, make constant reference to the Arabic. It might be worth it, however, to briefly discuss the merits of the “You need Perfect Arabic” defense. It is worth noting that Muslim apologists have no issue with quoting the Qur’an in other languages when they are proclaiming the merits of Islam. They only cite the need for perfect Arabic when the Qur’an is questioned. Are we to understand that the Qur’an is perfectly understandable in other languages when Islam is preached and totally obscure when Islam is criticized? While it is true that it is very difficult to translate the aesthetic and emotional appeal from the original language of any document, the same cannot be said for its meaning at the most basic level. To read the Qur’an, you need to know about 2000 Arabic root words and be able to conjugate them (i.e., to change them according to tense, gender, number, and other language facets). To insist that the meaning of these 2000 words cannot be adequately translated into English, a language with a documented vocabulary of 250,000 words, is patently absurd. (Note: Readers of my articles who read Arabic are welcome to investigate my accurate use of the Arabic. Readers who do not speak Arabic are welcome to check every reference in my articles at quran.com, an on-line repository of English translations of the Qur’an, all of them by respected Muslim scholars.)
Taking context into account often makes things worse. It can be claimed that those who push the “Islam is peace” line are often the ones that are guilty of ignoring context in making their arguments. Some of their favorite proof texts are decidedly less “peaceful” when considered within their proper context. We are, for example, often told that the Qur’an states that there is “no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256) . What we are not being told is that Muslim scholars believe that this verse was abrogated (replaced) by more belligerent ones “revealed” while Muhammad was waging war against the Meccans. How about Qur’an 5:32 (often inaccurately quoted as “To kill an innocent person is to kill all of mankind”)? Strangely, those who quote this heart-warming sentiment never quote the very next verse, as it makes exceptions for those who “make mischief in the land” (defined as rejecting Muhammad and his message). Their punishment? Their limbs are to be amputated and they should be crucified. So much for “quoting out of context”.
Violent readings of the Qur’an are confirmed by the hadiths, the classical commentaries and by the rulings of the legal schools. The violent teachings inherent to Islamic orthodoxy are not confined to the pages of the Qur’an itself. They are powerfully reinforced by the traditions and by classical and modern commentaries on the text of the Qur’an. For example, “The Reliance of the Traveler” (the pre-eminent Sunni manual of Islamic law) defines “jihad” as follows: “Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion”. It then goes on to provide the scriptural basis for jihad by quoting the following verses and hadiths: 1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Qur’an 2:216); 2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Qur’an 4:89); 3) “Fight the idolaters utterly” (Qur’an 9:36); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that “the prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad as the Messenger of Allah’”. So, here we are faced with the remarkable fact that probably the most widely respected manual of Islamic jurisprudence (available in all Islamic bookshops) explicitly justifies violent jihad on the basis of the very same texts that critics are supposedly quoting out of context. Those who claim that violent readings are indeed out of context will, therefore, have to explain what insights and resources they have access to that somehow escaped centuries of Muslim scholarship on the Qur’an.
For much more about the links between Islamic teaching and violence, please see my book ‘Nothing to do with Islam - Investigating the West’s Most Dangerous Blind Spot’.
Kind regards,
Peter
If you received this post via email, please forward it to your friends who might be interested. Otherwise, use the button below to share it on social media.
Please use the button below to subscribe, or to support my work by upgrading to a paid subscription.