"Peaceful" and "not expressly violent" are not the same thing.
This is a cultural distinction and why I say that westerners have to check their concept of morality at the door when it comes to comprehending the Middle East and people who have been raised in the Middle East.
Islam is, primarily, as you state, a set of laws and consequences for violating those laws. This is especially the case with the Qu'ran. There are laws, consequences, and directives.
This is not the standard of scripture throughout the rest of the world and other religions.
Part of the reason for Islam's abysmal scholarly state is the fact that Islam started from a merchant (Muhammad) whose wife convinced him he was a prophet (albeit, illiterate - he couldn't read or write - not that there was much of a standard for written Arabic at the time to begin with). After she died, most of his supporters came not from the educated classes, but from the various destitute people of society. Very few could read or write, and very little of what Muhammad said was ever written down, and very little of what he did was described in a scholarly narrative.
The Hadith, collections of the deeds of Muhammad, are written as such: "So-and-So has it on Whats-his-name's authority that Muhammad said this: ... " They are not written from a structured narrative.
The attempt was made to make the Qu'ran a more coherent narrative - but the reality is that the whole damned thing is a disjointed read because of the fact that it is literally a composite of Muhammad's surviving companions who learned to recite the same things Muhammad was saying... most of them died in war attempting to conquer the Arabian Peninsula which was Muhammad's objective.
This is all in accordance with traditional Muslim history.
Discrepancies occur after this. Traditional history is that all of this was compiled into a codex that was then ordered into one Qu'ran under Uthman. After this single written account was resolved from the codex, all other written accounts were burned (record destruction is always a good sign). From this Uthmanic Qu'ran, four qu'rans were made and sent out to four locations and all Qu'rans can supposedly trace their lineage back to one of these four books - two of which are claimed to still exist.
Except the books that are held as examples are not Uthmanic qu'rans. They are written in script that didn't exist in the time of Uthman (and not for a hundred years afterward) and contain multiple irregularities between the two of them (what little is available for review). Worse, they are incomplete compared to modern Qu'rans - which suggests that, if these were considered complete at the time (unlikely), that there were substantial revisions being made the the content of the Qu'ran hundreds of years after Muhammad's life.
Factor in that Muhammad's name doesn't even appear in Arabia until Abd Al-Malik foisted it upon the Arab peninsula in the form of currency and inscriptions, everywhere.... One gets the indication that a lot of shenanigans went on and that the true history can, perhaps, never be known.
Regardless, this is not how scripture works in other environments.
Scriptural records are often attributed to one author or a lineage of master-disciple relationships. They are single narratives that approximate to a historical account of a figure's teachings, noteworthy events/accomplishments, and their general impact on society.
The whole of the scripture is viewed through this lens. While there are specific places where commands are being issued, this is always present in its historical context. Further, because the narrative will even span generations, it becomes clear that the commands placed upon one generation are not necessarily intended for a subsequent generation.
This is compounded even further when other religions collect the scriptures - such is the case with the Bible and Torah. Multiple narratives spanning many generations and focused on telling a story of a people's relationship with and understanding of the divine. The Jews that were ordered to fight the Philistines were later instructed by Jesus to not fight the Romans and to not hold others as being beneath helping (since the Jews did like to hold themselves superior to non-Jews; there are a few places where he is recorded as deviating from this - but it's not common).
There are very few places where God or Jesus are speaking directly to 'the reader.' They are speaking to each other within the historical context. There are very few "o you who believe" type statements that attempt to define what the believer should believe or do. That is largely left to be read out of the situation/conflict presented in the narrative.
There are not very many "enduring" commands in the Bible - commands that reach beyond their historical or narrative context.
This is not the case in Islam, where most of the commands are enduring and only loosely contingent on the narrative context (where there is any).
Ibn Kathir puts it this way:
Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4—Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.
You can see some other interesting commentary here:
You must be registered for see links
(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush), do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,
(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,
(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''
This is Ibn Kathir,
You must be registered for see links
- one of the most revered Muslim scholars who references the works and interpretations of scholars before him.
He could be thought of as the Muslim version of the Apostle Paul (well, at least for the Sunnis...)
My interpretation of the Qu'ran and its verses are very much in agreement with classic Muslim theology.
It just doesn't fit the narrative of "multiculturalism" that is illogically seen as being something every single human being and teaching ever strives for.
