ince none of the monotheistic religions (neither Judaism nor Christianity nor Islam) formally recommend hatred of the non-believer, it is striking that religion has been used as such a basis for hatred and violence.  To be sure, the non-believer is always painted as flawed in deep ways; and it is often counseled that the believer should not mingle with the non-believer, lest the believer should also become like non-believer.  This, however, is a far cry from recommending hatred. 

Not only that, all the religious texts seem to make the very same claim, namely that in the end God or Allah will take care of the non-believer.  Indeed, in the translation of Holy Qur’an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, we find the following passage:

Surah 2: 113.  The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (To stand) upon." Yet they (Profess to) study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment. 

The passage doesn’t read like a recommendation for Muslims to set Jews and Christians straight.  Indeed, the text is very clear that Allah will set them both straight. 

Christianity has some striking things to say about Jews being rather benighted.  Yet, it never recommends beating Jews up.

Of course, the early Christians often had a zeal about converting Jews that readily transmuted into a vicious form of hatred—a hatred that gave rise to the Inquisition and which, centuries later, anchored Nazism’s conception of the Jew as wicked. 

By the time we get to the latter half of the 20th Century, the hatred of Jews is flatly rejected by Christianity.  With the exception of fringe groups, it is now relatively unthinkable to suppose that Christianity justifies unvarnished against the unbeliever.

The interesting question, then, is this: How has it turned out that Islam has been made to justify abject violence against the unbeliever? 

On any casual reading of the Holy Qur’an, it is clear that Allah is very angry with Jews.  Consider the following passage:

Surah 2: 62. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

This passage sounds nothing like all the talk about infidels that one commonly hears in reference to the non-Muslim, especially Jews.  Indeed, things are tad more interesting than that; for the word “infidel” in its common pejorative use against non-Muslims nowadays does not occur in the Yusuf Ali translation of the Qur’an. 

Then there is this exceedingly provocative passage in the Qur’an:

Surah 2: 107.  And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars.

Not surprisingly, I have asked myself over and over and over again who besides a Muslim would even think to set up a mosque?  Was it ever the case that non-Muslims set up mosques as some form of decoy?  Indeed, was it ever the case the members of one religion tried to pass themselves off as members of another to the extent of setting up buildings which resembled those in which the others worshipped? 

Now, there are several passages in the Qur’an which are relied upon for the suicide bomber.  Here are two of them:

Surah 3: 169.  Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord;

Surhah 9: 111.Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah. then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

I have drawn attention to these two passages because on a straightforward reading of them, they could easily be embraced by any form of religious martyrdom that sanctifies an afterlife. 

What we still have to do is get from the view that religious martyrdom is a good thing to the view that hatred, too, is a good thing.  Any reasonable person could accept the first without thinking for a moment that she or he is committed to the second. 

In particular, neither of the passages cited seem to warrant targeting innocent people.  Not even the following:

Surah 3: 157.  And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass.

These three passages do not even come close to suggesting that the faithful should find a bus load of school children and then bring about their deaths by exploding the bus by killing oneself; or that the faithful should find a crowded market of people shopping for their children and families and then use his own body to set off an explosion calculated to kill as many people as possible. 

Had I not made it clear that the above passages came from the Qur’an, no one upon reading them would have thought they constituted a justification for suicide-bombers. 

It is one thing to counsel that people be strong and courageous in battle.  Who has not counseled that?  It is quite another to counsel that one use killing oneself to kill innocent people. 

I have already been chastened as being ignorant because I do not read Arabic.  However, I am encouraged by the fact that in his account of Islamic martyrdom, in Les Nouveaux martyrs d’Allah, Farhad Khosrokhavar cites the Qur’an in French; and each of the above texts in French convey exactly the same idea that the above texts in English convey.

So here is what needs to be explained how is that so much hatred has been justified in the name of Islam, when the text itself does not support this?  And how is that the straightforward killing of manifestly innocent people has been justified in the name of Islam, when the text itself does not support this? 

I understand that with Islam, as with Judaism, and as with Christianity in the form of Catholicism, there are authoritative renderings that are independent of the actual sacred text.  But typically, these renderings must be in keeping with the text itself and traditional basic moral precepts. 

All religions have traditionally acknowledged that there are innocent non-believers, first among these being children.  So how is that sufficiently many have allowed the Qur’an to be construed as allowing that it is all right to kill even innocent children in the name of Allah?

Another way of putting the point is as follows: At this point in time, namely since the middle of the 20th Century, why aren’t there two clear conceptions of Islam: the suicide-bomber variety, and the traditional variety?  And why isn’t the suicide-bomber variety seen by all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, as a fringe group, just as Christian groups who bomb abortion clinics or spit upon the tomb of Matthew Shepard are considered fringe groups?  We know that activities of this sort are opposed even by those who vehemently oppose abortion and homosexuality. 

So why isn’t this line clear with Islam?  My own view is that it is the absence of this clarity among Muslims themselves that is a major factor in giving Islam a bad name.  Everybody knows that Jews for Jesus constitute a fringe group vis à vis Jews generally and that the people of the Marlboro Baptist Church constitute a fringe group of Christians.  Clarity here is crucial to the general integrity that Judaism and Christianity has.  Islam, too, needs clarity in this regard.  It is not the non-Muslim who is to blame for not providing it.  Only Muslims can do this for Islam.