When Allah Contradicts Himself: The Quranic Principle of Abrogation

koran-questionPublished on Friday, 23 May 2014 at Liberty GB

Written by IQ al Rassooli:

Before we address this subject, it is imperative to point out to readers one of the most important pieces of information that not a single scholar of Islam brings to the fore. This is the fact that all that humanity knows about Muhammad’s Quran and the miracles that allegedly happened to him are the assertions by Muhammad and only Muhammad that he had encountered them.

There are no other eyewitnesses to all of these events. None of Muhammad’s wives or intimate companions ever heard Muhammad talk to the Angel Gabriel. There is not a single witness to 23 years of alleged revelations to Muhammad.

In a nutshell all that humanity knows about Muhammad are Muhammad’s unsubstantiated, unwitnessed and uncorroborated words that leave a huge question mark regarding their veracity.

Abrogation means to overrule, to make null and void or to overturn earlier revelations and or commandments by the later ones.

The Quran is unique among all the holy scriptures of other peoples since it is the only one that allows the God of Muhammad, Allah, to keep changing his mind regarding his alleged revelations to Muhammad. This means that Allah revealed something to Muhammad at an earlier time but later on changed the revelation.

Any intelligent human being would ask the following logical question: How is it conceivable for any God, any omniscient God, not to know beforehand everything?

As shocking a realisation as this is, the fact remains, none the less, that Muhammad’s Quran contains abrogated and abrogating verses in 71 suras (chapters) out of 114 – comprising 62% of all the suras of the Quran that have had verses changed, overruled or deleted.

This shows Muhammad’s Allah as a God bereft of foresight, with a fickle mind and incapable of assessing the weaknesses and strengths of Muhammad or his followers; this is of course a blasphemous characterisation of any omniscient divinity.

Neither in the Hebrew Bible nor in the New Testament are there such verses. The God of Israel is not shown to give one command one instance and then change it either immediately, shortly afterwards or much later because He did not realise that it was too onerous to be fulfilled by mere humans.

The verse that allows Allah to abrogate was revealed in

Al Baqara 2:106 “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?”

Why would any omniscient God not know beforehand the weaknesses or strengths of His creation? Surely it is blasphemy to impugn to the Almighty human weaknesses and vulnerabilities?

Why would any almighty God change His mind and replace earlier ordinances with others?

Why would such a God especially replace earlier ones with similar ones? Why similar? Why not reveal the better ones from the very beginning?

The reader is entitled to ask such questions that require intelligent and logical answers. Can any Muhammadan Muslim provide any logical answers?

Al Nisa 4:82 “Do they not ponder over the Qur’an? Had it been the word of any other but Allah they would surely have found a good deal of variation in it, much discrepancy and incongruity … those who check and scrutinize will know it.”

The Quran is here challenging the reader to find variations, discrepancies and/or abnormalities in its narrative. The answers to the challenge are actually – and incredibly – provided by the Quran and Hadiths themselves. An enormous deal of variation is exactly what is found in the Quranic verses.

There is also of course the issue of the Satanic Verses which were repeated by Muhamnmad who did not recognise them as coming from Satan.

It is as if by divine justice that the Quranic challenge has been met and our case against the veracity and alleged divine origin of the Quran is rested.

Al Ra’d 13:38 “It was not for any Apostle to come up with a miracle or sign unless it was granted by Our permission. For every age there is a Book revealed. Ar-Rahman abrogates, blots out, or confirms [whatever He wants].”

Al Nahl 16:101 “And when We exchange a verse in place of another verse and Allah knows very well what He is sending down they say, ‘Thou art a mere forger!’ Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge.”

The reader should be aware of the very unusual transition in the verse above from “We exchange … another verse” to “and Allah knows … down”. Why and how could Allah speak in the first person [We] at the beginning of the verse and then move immediately and without any logical or grammatical reason to the impersonal [and Allah] in the second part of the same verse? It is precisely because Allah “knows very well what He is sending down” that he has absolutely no reason to change his mind and abrogate or make forgotten an earlier ‘revelation’.

Even the illiterate and unlearned Arabs of Mecca found it intellectually and theologically fraudulent to believe in such a fickle, indecisive and fallible Allah.

Let me now give you one glaring example of what and how abrogation is achieved:

Al Anfal (Spoils of War) 8:65 “O apostle! Rouse the believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you patient and persevering they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.”

In this verse, Allah is putting very onerous odds for the Muhammadans to achieve in reality. No matter how brave and capable people may be, ten to one odds in a fight are almost impossible to realise.

When Muhammad’s followers heard this verse they were appalled and correctly pointed out to Muhammad how onerous and impossible such odds are. This of course necessitated the ‘revelation’ of another verse – immediately after this one – for much reduced odds of two to one instead; as in the following abrogating verse.

This sura also clearly exposes Islam to be a belief system that not only encourages violence but actually makes it a sacred duty for Muhammadans to kill anyone who does not believe in Muhammad’s version of Islam.

Not only is the “All Forgiving Allah” exhorting his followers to kill anyone who is not a Muslim, but he is also saying that all non-Muslims are so stupid that they will be unable to defend themselves and therefore deserve death.

Al Anfal 8.66 “For the present Allah hath lightened your [task] for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: but [even so] if there are a hundred of you patient and persevering they will vanquish two hundred and if a thousand they will vanquish two thousand with the leave of Allah: for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.”

Verses 65 and 66 represent a major trend in the Quran whereby Muhammad, finding it difficult for his followers to achieve or implement a Quranic condition, creates a follow-up verse of made-to-order ‘revelations’ reducing and/or lightening the burden upon them, hence abrogating the earlier one.

If the Quran was given by God, these verses make a mockery of His prescience. It should be obvious that the Almighty should already know what the followers of Muhammad are or are not capable of and should not need to abrogate, change, modify or lighten any of them. Each should have been a perfect fit for the occasion (see Bukhari Hadith 6:175).

The most important abrogating verse in Muhammad’s Quran is 9.05, which is called the Fighting Verse:

Al Tauba 9.05 “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

According to Al Suyuti’s Al Itqan fi Ulum al Quran, this single verse abrogated, overruled, made null and void 124 earlier, conciliatory verses.

Since the Quran and its interpreters repeatedly mention the inviolability and eternal character of Allah’s rules and regulations, how can they at the same time explain away the most controversial cases of the abrogated and abrogating suras which number 71, that is 62% of the Quran?

In addition to the above anomaly, the reader should also be aware of the missing and forgotten verses that are mentioned in the Hadiths (traditions about Muhammad).

• Why and what for would Allah, the Omniscient, the All Knowing, change his mind at what he had already announced and ‘replace’ it with one ‘equal’ or ‘better’ than the first?

• What would the purpose be of changing one verse for an equal?

• Why change it if it is only for an equal?

• Does Allah break his own promises and instructions?

• Does Allah hence have more than one preserved tablet in Heaven?

• If so, which one of them is the correct one?

It all sounds more than just blasphemy and mumbo jumbo. It is an insult to the Almighty and to the intelligence of all human beings who accept such profanity and idiocy of a concept or dogma.

All the abnormalities, ambiguities, stupidities and contradictions in the Quran are instantly and summarily resolved when the listener/reader absorbs and accepts these simple and unchallengeable conclusions:

• There is not a single letter, let alone a word, a verse or a chapter in the Quran that could have been revealed by any omniscient divinity because in reality, every letter, word, verse and chapter in the Quran is the product of Muhammad’s imagination, his alter ego, his biography, but very cleverly projected into the unsuspecting mouths of Allah and Gabriel to give them the aura of sanctity and divinity.

• Allah, Gabriel and Muhammad are one and the same: Muhammad.

• Muhammad used Allah and Gabriel as props to give his alleged revelations a cloak of sanctity and divinity but in reality it is all otherwise totally Muhammad’s.

• The Quran was recited and authored by Muhammad over an incredibly long period of 23 years and since Allah is not God and most certainly not the God of Jesus, Moses and Abraham, then Muhammadan Islam is not a religion but a cult belief system, the Cult of Muhammad.

Those who doubt what is being revealed here can read much more on my website www.alrassooli.com and in the following written by the followers of Muhammad: Jamal al Din al Juzi in his Nawasikh al Quran; Abu Ja’afar al Nakhass, al Nasikh wal Mansukh.

——

Renowned scholar IQ al Rassooli is Liberty GB’s expert advisor on Islam. He is an Iraqi-born native Arabic-speaker who has dedicated much of his life to the study and critical analysis of Muhammad, the Qur’an, Hadiths, Shariah, Arabic and Islamic history.

IQ’s book trilogy entitled, Lifting the Veil: The True Faces of Muhammad and Islam, is available from Amazon. His Idiot’s Guide to Islam can be accessed via the ‘Resources’ menu at the top of this page.

Some other articles by IQ al Rassooli:

The BBC’s Misrepresentation of Islam

The Islamisation of Europe

I Accuse

IQ al-Rassooli on the Islamic Murder in Woolwich

************

Also see:

David Wood: The Three Stages of Jihad and the Qur’an in Context

Re-posting these classics for my new followers:

Click here for a printable PDF pamphlet on the Three Stages of Jihad.

Click here for the passages discussed in “Qur’an in Context 1.”

I. PEACE, VIOLENCE, AND ABROGATION

Muslims in the West are quick to point to passages such as Qur’an 109:6 (“You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) and 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) as evidence that Islam is a religion of peace. When confronted with harsher passages such as 9:5 (“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”) and 9:29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah”), Westernized Muslims interpret these verses in light of the more peaceful teachings of the Qur’an, typically saying something like: “Well, the Qur’an can’t be commanding us to kill unbelievers, since it says that there’s no compulsion in religion.”

Hence, Westernized Muslims pick the verses of the Qur’an they find most attractive, and they use these verses to sanitize the rest of the Qur’an. But is this the correct way to interpret the Qur’an? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The Qur’an presents its own method of interpretation—the Doctrine of Abrogation.

Qur’an 2:106—Whatever verse we shall abrogate, or cause [thee] to forget, we will bring a better than it, or one like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is almighty?

Qur’an 16:101—When We substitute one revelation for another—and God knows best what He reveals (in stages)—they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.


According to the Qur’an, then, when Muslims are faced with conflicting commands, they aren’t supposed to pick the one they like best. Rather, they are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last. Whichever verse came last is said to abrogate (or cancel) earlier revelations. 

What happens when we apply this methodology to Qur’anic verses on peace and violence?

II. THE CALL TO JIHAD: THREE STAGES

When we turn to Islam’s theological sources and historical writings (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir), we find that there are three stages in the call to Jihad, depending on the status of Muslims in a society.

STAGE ONE—When Muslims are completely outnumbered and can’t possibly win a physical confrontation with unbelievers, they are to live in peace with non-Muslims and preach a message of tolerance. We see an example of this stage when Muhammad and his followers were a persecuted minority in Mecca. Since the Muslims were entirely outnumbered, the revelations Muhammad received during this stage (e.g. “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) called for religious tolerance and proclaimed a future punishment (rather than a worldly punishment) for unbelievers. 

STAGE TWO—When there are enough Muslims and resources to defend the Islamic community, Muslims are called to engage in defensive Jihad. Thus, when Muhammad had formed alliances with various groups outside Mecca and the Muslim community had become large enough to begin fighting, Muhammad received Qur’an 22:39-40:

Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: our Lord is Allah. . . .


Although Muslims in the West often pretend that Islam only allows defensive fighting, later revelations show otherwise. 

STAGE THREE—When Muslims establish a majority and achieve political power in an area, they are commanded to engage in offensive Jihad. Hence, once Mecca and Arabia were under Muhammad’s control, he received the call the fight all unbelievers. In Surah 9:29, we read:

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.


Notice that this verse doesn’t order Muslims to fight oppressors, but to fight those who don’t believe in Islam (including the “People of the Book”—Jews and Christians).

Not surprisingly, we find similar commands in Islam’s most trusted collections of ahadith (traditions containing Muhammad’s teachings).

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 30—Muhammad said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”


Here again, the criterion for fighting people is that the people believe something other than Islam.

It’s clear, then, that when Muslims rose to power, peaceful verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by verses commanding Muslims to fight people based on their beliefs. Islam’s greatest scholars acknowledge this. For instance, Ibn Kathir (Islam’s greatest commentator on the Qur’an) sums up Stage Three as follows: “Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizyah, they should be fought till they are killed.” 

III. WHEN MUSLIMS REACH STAGE THREE

Abrogation also accounts for shifting attitudes regarding Jews and Christians in the Qur’an. While Muslims are to be friendly to Jews and Christians when the former are outnumbered, the Islamic position changes when Muslims reach Stage Three, at which point Christians and Jews are to recognize their inferior status and pay the Jizyah (a payment made to Muslims in exchange for not being killed by them). Consider some of Muhammad’s later teachings about Christians and Jews:

Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Qur’an 9:30—And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Qur’an 98:6—Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures.

Sahih Muslim 4366—Muhammad said: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”

Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad 1103—Muhammad said: “Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road.”


Needless to say, these teachings can hardly be considered peaceful or tolerant.

IV. MUSLIMS IN THE WEST

Since Muhammad obviously commanded his followers to fight unbelievers (simply for being unbelievers), why do Muslims in the West deny this? Here we must turn to Surah 3:28, which reads: 

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.


According to this verse (which uses a variation of the word Taqiyya, meaning “concealment”), Muslims are not allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. However, if Muslims feel threatened by a stronger adversary, they are allowed to pretend to be friendly. Ibn Kathir comments: “In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly but never inwardly.” Abu Darda, one of Muhammad’s companions, put it this way: “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”

Is Islam a religion of peace? No. Islam is a religion that pretends to be peaceful when Muslims are too weak to win a war. Of course, there are many Muslims who aren’t violent. Many Muslims in the West love peace and tolerance. But they didn’t get these values from Islam. They got them from the West, and now they’re reinterpreting Islam based on their Western values. For dedicated Muslims, however, there are only two possible situations to be in: (1) fighting unbelievers, and (2) pretending to be peaceful while preparing to fight unbelievers. Either way, fighting non-Muslims and conquering the world in the name of Allah is always the goal.

Go to Answering Muslims for more

Here are some useful links:

Islamic Jihad and the Doctrine of Abrogation

By Raymond Ibrahim:

While other scriptures contain contradictions, the Qur’an is the only holy book whose commentators have evolved a doctrine to account for the very visible shifts which occur from one injunction to another. No careful reader will remain unaware of the many contradictory verses in the Qur’an, most specifically the way in which peaceful and tolerant verses lie almost side by side with violent and intolerant ones. The ulema were initially baffled as to which verses to codify into the Shari’a worldview—the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims till they either convert, or at least submit, to Islam (8:39, 9:5, 9:29). To get out of this quandary, the commentators developed the doctrine of abrogation, which essentially maintains that verses revealed later in Muhammad’s career take precedence over earlier ones whenever there is a discrepancy. In order to document which verses abrogated which, a religious science devoted to the chronology of the Qur’an’s verses evolved (known as an-Nasikh wa’l Mansukh, the abrogater and the abrogated).

Koran and Sword: Hand in Hand

Koran and Sword: Hand in Hand

But why the contradiction in the first place? The standard view is that in the early years of Islam, since Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by their infidel competitors while living next to them in Mecca, a message of peace and coexistence was in order. However, after the Muslims migrated to Medina in 622 and grew in military strength, verses inciting them to go on the offensive were slowly “revealed”—in principle, sent down from God—always commensurate with Islam’s growing capabilities. In juridical texts, these are categorized in stages: passivity vis-á-vis aggression; permission to fight back against aggressors; commands to fight aggressors; commands to fight all non-Muslims, whether the latter begin aggressions or not.[1] Growing Muslim might is the only variable that explains this progressive change in policy.

Other scholars put a gloss on this by arguing that over a twenty-two year period, the Qur’an was revealed piecemeal, from passive and spiritual verses to legal prescriptions and injunctions to spread the faith through jihad and conquest, simply to acclimate early Muslim converts to the duties of Islam, lest they be discouraged at the outset by the dramatic obligations that would appear in later verses.[2] Verses revealed towards the end of Muhammad’s career—such as, “Warfare is prescribed for you though you hate it”[3]—would have been out of place when warfare was actually out of the question.

However interpreted, the standard view on Qur’anic abrogation concerning war and peace verses is that when Muslims are weak and in a minority position, they should preach and behave according to the ethos of the Meccan verses (peace and tolerance); when strong, however, they should go on the offensive on the basis of what is commanded in the Medinan verses (war and conquest). The vicissitudes of Islamic history are a testimony to this dichotomy, best captured by the popular Muslim notion, based on a hadith, that, if possible, jihad should be performed by the hand (force), if not, then by the tongue (through preaching); and, if that is not possible, then with the heart or one’s intentions.[4]

Read more

Necessity and Obligation

Political Islam, by Bill Warner:

The answer to the demands of the Sharia is a full application of Sharia. In particular, we need to understand how necessity can abrogate obligation.

The Doctrine of Abrogation

1-1-quranarabic1by :

In the comments on Geert Wilders’ open letter to Pope Francis, a reader named MH indicated that he was unfamiliar with — or was pretending to be unfamiliar with — the Islamic doctrine of abrogation as it applies to contradictory verses within the Koran.

In a nutshell, any earlier verse of the Koran is considered “abrogated” if a later verse contradicts it. The chronology of the suras of the Koran has been well-established by a consensus of Islamic scholars, so an observant Muslim can be in no doubt as to whether any particular verse of the Koran is binding upon him under Islamic law.

Retired U.S. Army Major Stephen Coughlin is one of the foremost experts on Islamic law in the Western world. Several years ago I had the privilege of helping with the editing of material that Steve was putting together, including the following section on the Koranic basis for the doctrine of abrogation. The text below is reproduced with his permission.

The Doctrine of Abrogation
By Maj. Stephen Coughlin

At the very pinnacle of Islamic law is the Koran, which is the uncreated word of God as revealed through his Prophet.

So what is abrogation?

This is what Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee has to say about abrogation in Islamic Jurisprudence:[1]

The law was laid down in the period of the Prophet (peace be unto him) gradually and in stages. The aim was to bring a society steeped in immorality to observe the highest standards of morality. This could not be done abruptly. It was done in stages, and doing so necessitated repeal and abrogation of certain laws.

As you can see, Nyazee acknowledges that the Koran contradicts itself. Upon discovering this fact, someone who knows little about Islam might say, “The Koran contradicts itself. Doesn’t this mean it’s broken?” But anyone who takes the time to look into the scholarship will learn that is well understood in Islam that the Koran contradicts itself. This fact is explained, and taken into account. There are methods for dealing with it.

This becomes significant when non-Muslims approach a Muslim cultural expert or “moderate” to ask about certain verses of the Koran that are cited by radicals to justify their violent jihad. The cultural expert or “moderate” will respond with something like this: “You (infidel) must read from the entire body of the Koran to understand the true meaning. Those radicals cherry-pick from the back of the Koran.”

With this reply the cultural expert gives the impression that he does not agree with the radicals, but he never actually says that what they cherry-pick is wrong.

So what is the Koranic basis for the doctrine of abrogation?

It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages. (Qur’an 17:106)

Concerning this verse, the Qur’an commentator Yusuf Ali says:[2]

The marvel is that these parts, revealed at different times and in different circumstances, should fit together so closely and consistently as they do. All revelation is progressive. The previous revelations were also progressive. Each of them marked a stage in the world’s spiritual history. Man’s mind does not take in more than his spiritual state will have prepared him for. Allah’s revelation comes as a light to illuminate our difficulties and show us the way in actual situations that arise.

I sometimes run into very committed Christians who say, “We have progressive revelation in Christianity, too.” And my answer is: “There’s a pillar, go run your head into it!” When talking about Islamic concepts of progressive revelation, it is totally unprofessional to refer to Christian notions of progressive revelation.

Read more at Gates of Vienna

 

See also:

 

 

 

Are There Many Islams? Or Just One?

one-or-two-islamsBy Citizen Warrior:

The following was written by Traeh Lledew, creator of the two excellent resources, A Chronological Qur’an and Quoting Islam:

Many media discussions nowadays seem to hinge on the answer to the above question.
To support the idea that there is no single Islam, some point to the varied behavior of Muslims and the contradictory aspects of the Qur’an (tolerant verses as against totalitarian verses). Other analysts claim such contradictions are resolved by the Qur’an itself, and point to the Qur’an’s own doctrine of abrogation (Qur’an 2:106 and 16:101). Thus many Muslim scholars of Islam teach that the militant and totalitarian verses produced later in Muhammad’s career abrogate (cancel) the tolerant verses produced earlier in his career. From that point of view, there are no real contradictions and in the end only one Islam, the totalitarian, final, perfected Islam.
However, Bill Warner, who runs the Center for the Study of Political Islam, balances against the doctrine of abrogation a contrary perspective: many Muslims take everything in the Qur’an as eternally true. Warner concludes that Islam is dualistic, not logically consistent. A Muslim can believe two contradictory things at once, so long as the contradiction is present in the Qur’an. From that point of view, while the doctrine of abrogation does to some extent resolve contradictions, it is simultaneously true that it doesn’t — that the whole Qur’an, including both sides of any contradictions in it, is considered by Muslims eternally true. Allah is so dictatorially all powerful that he is not bound by anything, not even logic.
But having found the Qur’an at least somewhat contradictory and dualistic, does Warner stop there? Does he claim there is no single Islam? No. That would be too imprecise an answer. Warner comes out of a scientific background, and tries to drill down into the details. He takes a statistical approach, and looks at the trilogy of core Islamic texts — Qur’an, Hadith, Sira — quantitatively, asking how much of the trilogy is tolerant and peaceful, versus how much is totalitarian and violent. He finds that the percentage of tolerant statements is quite small, of totalitarian statements quite large. So although he doesn’t say there is one Islam, he does find an overwhelmingly predominant form of Islam. For example, in the most canonical hadith collection, Sahih al-Bukhari, Warner finds that over 98% of jihad hadiths refer to violent jihad. This confirms historian Bernard Lewis’ similar contention that in the core Islamic texts, “jihad” almost always means military jihad to defend or expand Muslim power.
So Warner’s view, by getting into specifics, really goes beyond the imprecise alternatives: Islam is One/Islam is Many.
Another perspective that influences the debate about this question is what might be called the “decontructionist” view. Even if you don’t know what the philosophy of “deconstruction” is, there’s a good chance its claims have seeped to some extent into your consciousness by a sort of cultural osmosis. The deconstructionist viewpoint is that a text can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and can mean just about anything.
The more one thinks about that claim, however, the more it seems a gross exaggeration. While texts have elasticity of meaning to varying degrees, such elasticity is hardly infinite, and that is even more true with texts that are not largely poetic or mythical in content. The Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira are full of quite literal statements and commands. Because of that, Islam’s texts and past history have virtually always steered most interpretation into fairly similar and fairly definite grooves. Islam is not whatever one wants it to be. It is a rather definite historical reality. Many years ago, the eminent historian Bernard Lewis wrote of Islam’s inherent totalitarianism.
So we should not go to the deconstructionist extreme of suggesting that anything can mean anything. While Lewis Carroll or some other fantasist might be able to treat Islam’s core texts as almost a blank slate on which one could write just about any meaning whatever, the people who most seriously and religiously approach Islam’s texts generally go by what the texts actually say. Minor ambiguities of meaning dispersed throughout those texts do not erase their clear overall thrust.
So is there one Islam? Are there many Islams? The answer is much closer to the first alternative, though the second has some validity. The bottom line is that, despite real diversity among Muslims globally, there are also overwhelming commonalities of interpretation worldwide, as numerous international polls of Muslim opinion have shown. While there are many liberal Muslims, totalitarianism, to one degree or another, is and always has been the majority interpretation. It is no accident that the core Islamic region of the world has the worst human rights record of any region on the globe: Islam’s core texts, despite some vagaries, at bottom teach an expansionist theocratic totalitarian program.

 

Mercy to the Guilty Is Cruelty to the Innocent

imagesCA63IVAZBy Bill Warner:

Someone wrote in reply to the “Un-Merry Christmas to the Christians from Islam” newsletter:

Oh My God. How wrong can you be? Please have more knowledge before you say anything.

Most of what you wrote about Islam is wrong. Islam has several verses which contribute to peace on earth and tolerance to all. Some people do not adhere to this and happen to be Muslim so you regard that as consensus. It’s interesting to justify your sense of Islam you bring in Boko Haram and the kidnapping of the Christian girl for blasphemy. (Your average Muslims??). I hold a degree in Islamic studies and am now studying a post grad; so I know what I am talking about. As a Christian myself I know we too have our faults in society but on no account does that represent the mass.

So you hold yourself to be an expert? Well, there are only two experts–Allah and Mohammed. Islam is found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. Everything else is comment, including your post grad courses.

The “several verses which contribute to peace on earth and tolerance for all” in the Koran are all abrogated by later jihadic verses. The man who does not understand the use of abrogation should not comment about the Koran.

Seek critical study of source texts, not university propaganda. After you have read the Koran in the correct time order (to see the abrogation) and read the Sira by Ishaq or al Tabari and Bukhari, come back and comment. (21% of Bukhari’s hadiths are about murderous jihad.) Master the Sunna of Mohammed and then talk to us.

Look at Mohammed’s life. He preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and got 150 Meccans to become Muslims. He moved to Medina and attacked every single neighbor he had, without exception. In his rise to absolute power he was responsible for an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Peace on earth, what a joke!

Boko Haram jihadists follow pure Medinan Islam. You confuse Muslim-ology with the study of Islam. Start with Islam to understand Muslims. Do not start with Muslims to understand Islamic doctrine.

Another thing about those peaceful believers who make up the mass of Muslims, do you notice that they don’t condemn the murder of Christians? They are silent. Do they teach you in your post grad Islam classes that “silence is consent”?

Have you ever condemned the jihadic murder of Christians? Buddhists? Hindus? Jews? Over 270 million non-Muslims were murdered by jihad over the last 1400 years. And you speak of peace.

Christians who are silent in the face of Islamic jihad against Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindu and atheists are giving consent to this brutality. There have been over 20,000 jihad attacks since 9/11. What noise are you making about that? Silence is consent.

Your apologist education has made you a deluded dhimmi. What is truly tragic is that you represent the pious pacifism of today’s Christians. You are so nice, but you are ruled by fear. It is odd how many Christians live in fear, yet Jesus told his followers, again and again, not to fear. Put down the gospel of nice and take up the Gospel of Christ and take on spiritual warfare.

Oh, and you Jews, take up the mantle of Aaron, Gideon, Deborah and David. Let the Hindus remember the Bhagavad Gita. Let the Buddhists take a lesson from Rinzai Zen.

We either stand together in this civilizational war or we will all be annihilated. See Turkey, Egypt, North Africa, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the other graveyards of Kafir civilization.

A Rational Study of Radical Islam, by Dr. Bill Warner

Dr. Bill Warner talks about Islam, Muslims, Hadith, Sira and the Koran to (Islamic Doctrine), give a better understanding of such things as dualism, the law of Islamic saturation and how it effects us, the Kafirs.

 

Islam: What the West needs to know (full documentary)

Through an examination of the Koran, other Islamic texts and the example of the prophet Muhammad, this documentary argues, through a sober and methodical presentation, that violence against non-Muslims is and has always been an integral aspect of Islam.
Features interviews with noted experts on Islam including Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, Bar Ye’or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat.

The Quran’s Doctrine of Abrogation

By Abdullah Al Araby at Islam Review:

In an attempt to polish Islam’s image, Muslim activists usually quote verses from the Quran that were written in the early days of the Islamic movement while Mohammed lived in Mecca. Those passages make Islam appear loving and harmless because they call for love, peace and patience. Such is a deception. The activists fail to tell gullible people that such verses, though still in the Quran, were nullified, abrogated, rendered void by later passages that incite killing, decapitations, maiming, terrorism and religious intolerance. The latter verses were penned while Mohammed’s headquarters was based in Medina.

When speaking with people of Christianized/Western societies, Muslim activists deliberately hide a major Islamic doctrine called “al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh” (the Abrogator and the Abrogated). This simply means that in situations wherein verses contradict one another, the early verses are overridden by the latter verses. The chronological timing in which a verse was written determines its authority to establish policies within Islam. Non-Muslims cannot afford to be ignorant about the full implications of the Abrogator and the Abrogated Doctrine (al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh). When Islamic spokesmen say that Islam is a religion of peace and that the Quran does not support such things as human rights infractions, gender bias and terrorism, they are lying. This means that the Western politicians and liberal journalists, who continually spout that Islam is a noble religion of peace, are in reality propagating a deception that they have been deceived into parroting.

This presents problems for naïve people who are not familiar with Islam and the Quran. They don’t know that the surahs/chapters of the Quran are not arranged in chorological order in regard to the timing in which they were written. Therefore an activist who is out to deceive them can turn to various places throughout the Quran and read verses that sound peaceful, tolerant, reasonable and loving. The impression is that the entire Quran promotes peace, love, equality and tolerance for all. That is far from the truth. Most Muslims fully understand that the few Quranic verses that seemingly promote equality, peace and justice are more often than not overridden/ nullified by later verses that validate such things as terrorism and legalistic restrictions on routine human and women’s rights.

Read more…