The Two Faces of Islam

 

American Thinker, By Richard Butrick, August 31, 2014:

One face is for Islam’s useful idiots the other is for Islam’s faithful.

The Koran is not arranged in chronological order. When it is arranged in chronological order it is clear that the Koran undergoes a serious transition after Muhammad’s first real triumph on the battlefield at Badr in 624. The period following that battle is called the Medina period of the prophet’s life. Conceptually this transition can be seen as a transition from the Old Koran to the New Koran. Unlike the transition from the Old to the New Testament, the transition from the “Old” Koran (pre-Medina) to the “New” Koran (Medina) is a transition to a more vengeful, demanding, supremacist God.

He who at Mecca is the admonisher and persuader, at Medina is the legislator and the warrior, who dictates obedience, and uses other weapons than the pen of the Poet and the Scribe. [link]

In practice, Quranic abrogation results in a known doctrinal footprint that subordinates the milder, more moderate verses of the Quran from the Meccan period of revelation, to the later and violent verses of the Medina period. Islamic law is substantially derived from the Medinan period. Where a conflict exists, anything said during the Medinan period overrules anything on the same subject in the Meccan. And anything said in the later part of the Medinan period either overrules or controls anything said in the earlier part. [link]

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. [The Quran's Doctrine of Abrogation -- Abdullah Al Araby]

A clear-cut example of this principle of abrogation is the oft quoted passage from the Old Koran, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” (Q 5:99) which is abrogated by  chronologically later passages such as these:

Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

Quran (9:29) – “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, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.”

And on it goes. Apologists for Islam insist these passages refer to retaliatory measures to be taken when attacked.

Regarding these passages, it is to be noted that the Koran is the word of God and not a testament as are the Old and New Testaments and is thereby much less subject to “interpretation.” Moreover, it is axiomatic in Islam that Muhammad is the perfect male to be emulated as much as possible by all male Muslims. The post-Meccan Muhammad is a warrior, raider, conqueror, and subjugator of the non-Islamic world. The mission of all good Muslims is, correspondingly, the spread of Islam any means possible.

The great divide between the Old Koran, which is relatively tolerant and accepting of Jews and Christians, and the New Koran which views Jews and Christians as vermin worthy only extermination or servile groveling before their Muslim masters, enables the supremacist mandate in Islam to present one face to the West’s useful idiots and another to the faithful.

It has worked.

The Old Koran is used to piously claim that terrorism, suicide bombing, and persecution of religious minorities and disempowerment of women are “un-Islamic.”

What is the useful-idiot version of Islam? Here it is a culled version based on quotes from President Bush’s comments on Islam:

Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate. Mohammad’s word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements.

And here is President Obama solemnly declaring that Islam is based on the principles “of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

But here are the real five pillars of Islam for the faithful:

I. Islam is to dominate over all other religions Q9:33, 61:9, 8:39

2. Muslims are to purify all of Arabia of its Pagans who can convert or be killed Q9:5 3. 3. Muslims are to fight and subjugate other non-Muslims and subdue and make them inferior second-class citizens (Dhimmis) to pay jizya (humiliation tax) to save their lives. Q9:29

4. Muslims are to have hatred and enmity forever for non-Muslims until they worship Allah alone Q60:4, they should fight those unbelievers close to them and let them find harshness in the Muslims Q9:123

5. Muslims must engage in this jihad (struggle) as this fighting is ordained for them even if they dislike it 2:216 and they are told they can overcome much greater enemies to a multiple of 10 times or more Q8:65

From George W. Bush to Hillary Clinton the “hijacked Islam” or “un-Islamic” meme has infected U.S. foreign policy and enabled creeping Sharia at home. It seems to have gotten to the point that exonerating Islam is the primary concern of U.S. foreign and defense policy with regard to terrorist activity from ISIS to Fort Hood to Boko Haram. The first order of business is to insure that “us folks” understand that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Just after the terrible treatment of Yazidis and the beheading of Foley, practically the first words out of President Obama’s mouth were that “ISIL speaks for no religion.”

The Obama crew has been suckered, bamboozled, and taqiyyaed into believing the Islam of the Old Koran is the real Islam. But as the menacing face of the Islam of the New Koran turns fully into view it is becoming increasingly clear that it is the Obama team of useful idiots who have been hijacked. Even CNN has published a report showing that al Qaeda affiliated groups are gaining strength:

Last year’s most lethal incidents were carried out by the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, Nigeria’s Boko Haram, al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and ISIL

That was in April, before ISIL showed its real power. And wait till we pull out of Afghanistan. It will be brutally clear that it is not ISIL but Obama and his crew of Islam’s useful idiots that “speak for no religion.”

Also see:

Clare Lopez: The Islamic State is Following the Example of Muhammad

844173151Center for Security Policy:

The Center’s Clare Lopez debates Mike Ghouse on Sean Hannity’s radio show on the Islamic State (IS), Islam, doctrinal basis for IS atrocities.

An Historical Critique of Islam’s Beginnings – Jay Smith

Published on Sep 12, 2013 by RealLifeJackHibbs (h/t Bill Warner)

Powerpoint slides for this presentation

Jay Smith is a noted evangelist and apologist to radical Muslims at Speakers’ Corner in London. “Jay has a Masters degree in Islamic studies from Fuller Theological Seminary and is currently working on a Ph.D at London School of Theology. Jay is an expert in Christian-Muslim Apologetics, having worked with Muslims for [over] 23 years. He is famous for his unique evangelistic ministry. Every weekend he leads dozens of Christians to the Speakers Corner in Hyde Park in London, where they meet with hundreds of Muslims face to face, to make friends, answer tough questions, debate the latest research and ideas, and share their faith.”^[1]^ Smith heads up Hyde Park Christian Fellowship, and emphasizes the use of Polemics with Muslims, over Apologetics.

Three Quran Verses Every Christian Should Know

By David Wood at Answering Muslims:

Most Christians (myself included) don’t have Sam Shamoun’s computer-like brain to recall thousands of verses on command. Nevertheless, with a little effort, we can all learn some basic facts about Islam. In this short video, I present three Qur’an verses that every Christian should learn.

 

In case you’d like to copy them down, here are the verses:

Qur’an 4:157—They said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.

Qur’an 5:47—Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Qur’an 9:29—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.

 

Sharia and the U.S. Constitution

082411_koran-constitution-lg“(Mohammed) declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny that (Mohammed) is the prophet of God.”
President John Quincy Adams
Son of President John Adams

By John Guandolo at his blog, Understanding the Threat, 6/20/14:
It is a historical fact that America’s first war following the Revolution was a war with the Muslim (Barbary) states. In 1786, two of America’s greatest founders, John Adams (Ambassador to England) and Thomas Jefferson (Ambassador to France) met with the emissary of Tripoli to Britain – Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja to discuss the Barbary Pirates demands for tribute from U.S. ships. After this meeting, Adams and Jefferson submitted a report to Congress detailing Adja’s answer to why the Muslims were attacking the U.S. ships without any provocation. The report reads, in part:
“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that is was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

As we close this weeks series on Sharia and its importance in today’s world events, it must be again reiterated that everything the United States is dealing with in the current war is all about Sharia. Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic states around the world, and the doctrine of Islam itself all mandate Sharia be imposed on the entire world until there is “Peace.”

It seems fitting, then, to conclude our series on the most basic of questions: Is Sharia comparable with our Constitutional Republic in any way? The unequivocal answer is NO.

Article VI of the Constitution mandates that “…all Executive and Judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

By an Act of the U.S. Congress under Title 5 Section 3331 of the U.S. Code, all elected or appointed officials shall take an oath as prescribed in that law to defend the Constitution against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Former Inspector General of the United States Department of Defense and Constitutional professor Joseph Schmitz has specifically highlighted three key areas where Sharia is in direct contradiction with our Constitution: Popular Sovereignty, Supremacy of the Constitution, and Freedom of Religion.

Specifically, the U.S. Constitution, in its Preamble, identifies the People as sovereign under our system. Sharia specifically states all of mankind must submit to Islam: “Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Allah Almighty alone.” (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Mohammed Hashim Kalamali)

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states “This Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land.” As was noted in an earlier UTT Blog this week, the most popular Junior High School text in American Islamic schools – What Islam is All About – states, “The law of the land is the Shari’ah of Allah.”

Finally, the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans the freedom to practice their faith and religion without government interference. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” Sharia, which comes from the Quran and the example/teachings of the prophet Mohammed, states “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them and lie and wait for them in every stratagem of war” (Quran 9:5); and “But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn away from Islam, seize them and slay them wherever you find them, and take no friends or helpers from among their ranks.” (Quran 4:89) In Sharia, there is no disagreement among the scholars and 100% of authoritative Islamic Law legally puts Muslims at a higher status in the community with greater rights than those of non-Muslims, and 100% of all Islamic Law mandates that all apostates from Islam be killed.

What the Global Islamic Movement intends to do, and says it intends to do, and is killing tens of thousands of people across the globe and overthrowing countries in furtherance of, is the imposition of Sharia on the world. This is not about religious freedom for Muslims in any way. It is about a violent and organized effort to impose foreign law (Sharia) on American citizens in direct conflict of the U.S Constitution and U.S. Federal Code.

Those who have sworn an Oath to protect and defend America and our Constitution must do so against any incursion into our system by Sharia. Sharia should be viewed as a cancer inside our system – a viewpoint which was crystal clear to our Founders.

The Koran and Child Marriage

Afghan Muslim Child BrideBy Mark Durie:

Today a report appeared in The Australian, a national daily newspaper, which discussed forced marriages in our nation.  There were many good points made in this article, which was entitled It is the young flesh they want.

However the article reported, as if it were true, a completely false and easily disprovable statement about the Koran.

The offending paragraph was:

“It is critical that the whole community is educated,” says Jennifer Burn of Anti-Slavery Australia. “The Koran does not support child marriage and the Grand Mufti of Australia says that consent is vital. But there are over 60 different traditions within the Muslim community, with different interpretations of the religious scriptures. We need the religious leaders to take the message into the communities, because they will listen to their leaders rather than us.”

[Since The Australian appeared, I contacted Associate Professor Burn, and she reported to me that she had been misquoted.  She has successfully requested the Australian to correct the quotation to:  “It is critical that initiatives to address child marriage and forced marriage are developed in consultation with communities and with community leaders,”   This is the version which is published on the Australian's website — as of  21 June 2014.]


It is true that the Koran does not refer specifically to child marriage.  However in discussing divorce it does refer to conditions applying for a female who has not yet menstruated, i.e. for a pre-pubescent girl. The reference is found in Sura 65:4 in a list of regulations concerning the waiting period (the Iddah orIddat) for divorced women before they can remarry.   The verse deals systematically with different cases of women who for some reason are not having regular periods. It reads:

“And of those of your women who have given up hope of menstruating, if you doubt, their (waiting) period is three months, as well as those who do not menstruate. And those who are pregnant, their period is until they deliver their burdens.” (Sura 65:4)

It might be thought that this verse is ambiguous in relation to young girls. However it is quite clear.  It systematically covers the three main cases where a female is not menstruating: the old, the young, and those who are pregnant.

Ibn Kathir’s highly respected commentary on the Koran has this to say about this passage (see here).

Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her ‘Iddah [waiting period before marriage] is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their‘Iddah is three months like those in menopause.

The reference to ‘Surat Al-Baqarah’ is to Chapter 2 verse 228 of the Koran, which states that divorced women must wait through three mentrual periods before remarrying. Ibn Kathir also refers to two hadiths or traditions of Muhammad that Sura 65:4 was revealed when someone asked Muhammad about the young, the old and the pregnant, because their waiting period could not be determined from the principle of three menstrual periods, given in Sura 2: 228.

Furthermore, Islam is not just based upon the Koran. It is also based upon the example and teaching of Muhammad, and here there is very clear support for what today we would call ‘underage’ marriages, because Muhammad married Aisha when she was six and consumated this marriage when she was reported to have been nine years old (that is nine lunar years, which means she was aged somewhere between 8 years, nine months and 9 years, nine months).  The revered Sahih al-Bukhari, a collection of sayings of Muhammad, includes a chapter with this heading:

Giving one’s young children in marriage (is permissible) by virtue of the Statement of Allah ‘… and for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature) (65:4). And the ‘Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).

This chapter consists of the following hadith:

64. Narrated ‘Ā’isha that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Collections of hadiths are arranged for legal purposes. The heading of each chapter indicates the relevance of the hadiths it contains for jurisprudence.  In this case, referencing Sura 65:4, a hadith about the marriage of Aisha is taken as evidence that it is permissible for a father to marry off his young daughters, specifically if she has not yet reached puberty.

I have written in Quadrant (here) about the rule in Islamic law that a father or a grandfather is considered to be a wali mujbir, or ‘forcing guardian’, who has the right to marry a virgin daughter without her permission.

What Jennifer Burn seems to be trying to do is entirely laudable. She seems to be attempting to persuade Muslim communities to reject forced marriages of female children.  However to do so she claims that this practice is not supported by the Koran, which is quite false.

Is it praiseworthy to make a false statement about a religion’s teachings in order to incite its followers to behave well?  Whatever the answer to this question may be, this strategy is bound to fail, because anyone who is better informed about the religion will simply reject advice based upon ignorance.

A strategy which acknowledges the authorities in Islam for a practice, and then mounts a case against the practice, is far more likely to have enduring success than one based upon wishful thinking or misleading information.

=========

Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist, pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum, and director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.

The Terrorist Groups’ Interpretation Of The Koranic Verses Regarding Jihad

19401By: Tufail Ahmad:

Table of Contents

I) Introduction
II) Jaish-e-Muhammad’s Teaching Of Jihadist Verses In Pakistani Towns
III) Pakistani Militant Maulana Masood Azhar’s Interpretation Of Verses On Jihad
IV) The Interpretation Of The Koranic Verses Regarding Battle
V) The References To Koranic Verses On Suicide Bombings
VI) The Justifications For Bombings Of Churches, Synagogues, And Mosques
VII) The Verses Regarding Moderation/Compulsion In Religion
VIII)  The Targeted Killings Of Shi’ite Muslims In The Name Of Islam
IX) The Interpretation Of Verses On Media Jihad
X) The Interpretation Of Verses Regarding Financial Jihad

I) Introduction

This paper examines how jihadi organizations are using verses from the Koran to advance the cause of jihad and influence Muslim youth. In doing so, it sheds light on how liberal arguments regarding Islam, jihad, and Prophet Muhammad’s historical role are being countered by the jihadi organizations, which cite verses from the Koran and early Islamic traditions in their support.

In an editorial published in July 2013, Daily Outlook Afghanistan, a Kabul-based newspaper, warned that the Taliban are using Koranic verses to influence and prepare child suicide bombers. It observed: “Over the last decade, children, who are as innocent as angels, have increasingly been used for executing terror attacks in Afghanistan, mainly for suicide attacks. The trend, which was actually initiated by Al-Qaeda, has gained greater focus of the Taliban in the recent years. The Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan are bribing starving children as young as eight-years-old to plant deadly roadside booby traps, be decoys in ambushes, and even act as suicide bombers…

“There are 224 children in prisons in just Helmand and Ghazni who were arrested by government forces for planning or carrying out attacks. Here is another example of how the Taliban brainwash the children to use them in launching suicide attacks: they are given amulets containing verses from the Koran by Taliban commanders, who tell them they will be protected from the explosion.”[1]

In April 2013, the Al-Saadiqeen Production Center of the Toora Bora Front, a constituent of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban umbrella organization led by Mullah Mohammad Omar), released a video of jihadi commander Ustad Khwaja Maqsood Mukhlis, who urged Muslims to take part in “jihad against Jews and Christians.”[2] He stated: “Allah Almighty has ordered us [in the Koran], as for prayers, fasting, and Hajj, to be ready to fight against enemies of Islam, and get knowledge of every technique [in fighting] more than the infidels, because the war between Islam and kufr [unbelief] will continue until doomsday…”[3]

Mukhlis added: “There are many Muslims who have not seen weapons and have not fired a shot… It is such a shame, especially when all the infidels, particularly the Jews and Christians, are united and have come against us. They know the use of all kinds of weapons to wipe out Muslims. But mercy on the condition of a Muslim who is afraid to even see a weapon,” Mukhlis said, adding: “[A Muslim] will ask us about the Koranic verse on jihad. My message is particularly for those clerics who deliver Friday sermons and prayers at funerals and recite these [jihadi] verses of the Koran, but are afraid to take up arms.”[4]

The Afghanistan Islami Tehreek Fidayee Mahaz (the Martyrdom Front of Afghanistan’s Islamic Movement) is a splinter group of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban umbrella organization. The Islamic Emirate doesn’t recognize the Mahaz but the latter does exhort its fighters to follow Mullah Omar. In April 2014, Haji Omar Khattab, the emir of the Mahaz, urged his followers to wage jihad in the light of the Koran and Hadiths (sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad). In a Pashtu-language statement, he cited the Koran’s Chapter Al-Tawbah, Verse 111: “Surely, Allah has bought from the believers their souls and wealth in return for Paradise for them.”[5] He explained the meaning of the verse: “The aforementioned verse shows that those waging jihad for the supremacy of Kalmat-ul-Allah [the word of Allah] will be given paradise. Entering paradise is a big success which can only be achieved through jihad. A Muslim who wages jihad is bestowed with two titles – hero or martyr. Both positions are esteemed.”[6]

The militant commander noted that Allah orders in the Koran: “And continue your fight until there does not remain any disruption, and Deen (Islam) is devoted to Allah alone (Chapter Al-Anfal: Verse No. 39).”[7] He added: “Jihad is as mandatory on the Muslims against the hypocrites as it is mandatory against the infidels, because both the infidels and hypocrites have the same aim of enforcing the satanic system, paganism, cruelty, and vulgarity on the earth. Jihad is obligatory against both these groups so that Allah’s system can be enforced on the face of the Earth… Some stupid people say that jihad is legitimate only against foreigners [in Afghanistan], but that the killing of internal Afghans who are working for the government is wrong. We say that the Koran and Hadiths must be consulted [in this regard]. The Afghans who are supporting the slave administration, call the foreigners as friends, or use the word ‘terrorist,’ are hypocrites, and jihad is obligatory against them…”[8]

In the context of this paper, the term “jihad” is used to mean armed fighting, not striving for reforming one’s character and soul. The Koranic verses have been interpreted by different Islamic scholars, and there are some variations in their interpretations depending on the circumstances in which the verses were revealed. This paper is not an attempt at an interpretation of the verses on jihad. Relying mainly on South Asian jihadi media sources, it examines how terrorist groups interpret some of the verses regarding jihad to influence Muslim youth. The meaning of verses cited in this paper, therefore, is the meaning attached to those verses by the Islamic terrorist groups.

In doing so, this paper brings to light how the militants are using verses and prophetic traditions to answer some key questions such as: Is it justified to bomb mosques? Did Prophet Muhammad’s companions opt for suicide attacks? Are Shi’ites infidels? Does Islam teach armed fighting? Does Islam stand for the elimination of all other systems of living and governance from the Earth? Does the Koran advocate ‘no compulsion in religion’? In what manner should journalists be killed for not conforming to Islamic teachings? Did Prophet Muhammad grant amnesty to everyone, as it is generally claimed, on the day of victory of Mecca?

Read more at MEMRI

Butchers: Syria’s ISIS Crucifying Opponents, Justifying Horror with Quran Passages

One of three executed by ISIS in Maskanah, Aleppo province, as part of punishment for apostasy.

One of three executed by ISIS in Maskanah, Aleppo province, as part of punishment for apostasy.

By Jonathan Spyer and Aymenn Jawad al Tamimi:

Evidence is mounting that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is systematically committing atrocities in eastern and northern Syria, its areas of control.

While individual incidents of brutality have been well-documented, the near-impossibility of on-the-spot reporting in the area controlled by the organization has made it difficult to build a general description of the situation there. However, as more and more witnesses come forward, the picture is gradually becoming clearer.

Public executions are a regular weekly occurrence in Raqqa city, the provincial capital controlled by ISIS. In a number of verified cases, the bodies of executed people have been “crucified” — placed on crosses in public areas after execution by other means, supposedly to act as a deterrent to others. (Note: at least one crucifixion of a living victim by an Islamist group has occurred recently, in Yemen. Video here [1].)

ISIS invoked Qur’an 5:33 [2] in a case of two people being crucified in Raqqa for supposedly carrying out an IED attack against ISIS. The Quran passage stipulates that, among a number of punishments, those who “wage war on God and His Messenger” may be crucified.

An earlier case [3] in Raqqa in late March was also justified as the appropriate penalty for alleged stealing and murder, though it was not officially advertised by ISIS. The case seems to fall under the same framework of Quran 5:33, which also mentions “striving to cause corruption on Earth” as an offense that can warrant crucifixion.

Crucifixions are by no means the exclusive realm of ISIS: they can also be carried out in Saudi Arabia [4] for crimes such as terrorism and highway robbery. The issue is that ISIS is defining itself as the one and only true Islamic state; in their view, waging war on ISIS thus constitutes waging war on “God and His Messenger.”

For ISIS, Raqqa — often described in ISIS circles as the “capital” of ISIS — is very much the prototype model Islamic city, where aspects of Islamic law are first introduced and are then spread to other areas of ISIS-held territory. (Their territory currently encompasses all major urban areas in Raqqa province, eastern Aleppo province, and most of southern and central Hasakah province). The crucifixions are a case-in-point: once implemented officially in Raqqa, the practice then spread to other ISIS strongholds, most notably the Aleppo provincial towns of Maskanah and Manbij [5].

As in Raqqa, those subjected to crucifixion are suspected of having had ties to rival underground rebel groups trying to undermine ISIS with clandestine attacks. In Maskanah, the crucifixion was presented as the “punishment for apostasy [6]” for one of three alleged “shabiha” members.

By invoking apostasy, ISIS likely is referencing this hadith [7], where it is stipulated that one of the cases in which a Muslim’s blood may be lawfully shed is for fighting against God and His Messenger (similar to Qur’an 5:33). In this case, the punishment is crucifixion or exile. The crime in question has been interpreted to be apostasy.

Also in Raqqa, Christians have had the first dhimmi pact [8] from ISIS imposed upon them.

Read more at PJ Media

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:

Video: Dr. Mordechai Kedar on the “Good Koran” vs. the “Radical Koran”

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. Mordechai Kedar, the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation) at Bar-Ilan University, Israel.

He joined the show to discuss The “Good Koran” vs. the “Radical Koran,” analyzing the phenomenon of Jihad-Denial and the reluctance to recognize the true threat we face.

The Ultimate Source of Islamic Hate for Infidels

stop christian genocideBy Raymond  Ibrahim:

Who is ultimately responsible for the ongoing attacks on Christians and their churches throughout the Islamic world?

Focusing on one of the most obvious nations where Christians are regularly targeted—Egypt’s Coptic Christians—one finds that the “mob” is the most visible and obvious culprit.  One Copt accused of some transgression against Muslim sensibilities—from having relations with a Muslim woman, to ruining a Muslim man’s shirt—is often enough to prompt Muslim mobs to destroy entire Christian villages and their churches.

Recently, for example, after her cross identified Mary Sameh George as a Christian, a pro-Muslim Brotherhood mob attacked, beat, and slaughtered her.

However, a recent Arabic op-ed titled “Find the True Killer of Mary” looks beyond the mob to identify the true persecutor of Christians in Egypt. According to it:

Those who killed the young and vulnerable Mary Sameh George, for hanging a cross in her car, are not criminals, but rather wretches who follow those who legalized for them murder, lynching, dismemberment, and the stripping bare of young Christian girls—without every saying “kill.”  [Islamic cleric] Yassir Burhami and his colleagues who announce their hate for Christians throughout satellite channels and in mosques—claiming that hatred of Christians is synonymous with love for God—they are the true killers who need to be tried and prosecuted…  The slayers of Mary Sameh are simply a wretched mob, with the body of a bull but the brain of a worm.  It’s not the puppets on the string who need punishing, but rather the mastermind who moves the puppets with his bloody fingers behind closed curtains that needs punishing.

One fact certainly validates this Arabic op-ed’s assertions: the overwhelming majority of attacks on Christians in Egypt and other Muslim nations—including the slaughter of Mary Sameh George—occur on Friday, the one day of the week that Muslims congregate in mosques for communal prayers and to hear sermons.

The significance of this fact can easily be understood by analogy: what if Christians were especially and consistently violent to non-Christian minorities on Sunday—right after they got out of church?  What would that say about what goes on in Christian churches?

What does it say about what goes on in Muslim mosques?

The Arabic op-ed also does well to name Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami as one of those who “announce their hate for Christians throughout the satellite channels and in mosques, claiming that hatred of Christians is synonymous with love for God.”

For example, Dr. Burhami—the face of Egypt’s Salafi movement—once issued a fatwa, or Islamic edict, forbidding Muslim taxi- and bus-drivers from transporting Coptic Christian priests to their churches, which he depicted as “more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar.”

As for hating non-Muslim “infidels,” many Islamic clerics, especially Salafis, believe that the doctrine of “Loyalty and Enmity” (or wala’ wa bara’) commands Muslims never to befriend or be loyal to non-Muslims.

Burhami himself appears on video asserting that if a Muslim man marries a Christian or Jewish woman (known in Islamic parlance as “People of the Book”)—even he must still hate his wife, because she is an infidel.

Burhami

When asked at a conference how Islam can allow a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman and yet expect him to hate her, Burhami expounded as follows:

Burhami even said that the Muslim husband cannot initiate greetings to his non-Muslim wife when he comes home—according to the teachings of Islam’s prophet as recorded in the hadith.Where’s the objection? Do all men love their wives?  How many married couples live together despite disagreements and problems? Huh? That being the case, he [Muslim husband] may love the way she [non-Muslim wife] looks, or love the way she raises the children, or love that she has money. This is why he’s discouraged from marrying among the People of the Book—because she has no [real] religion. He is ordered to make her hate her religion while continuing marriage/sexual relations with her. This is a very standard matter….  Of course he should tell her that he hates her religion. He must show her that he hates her because of her religion, and because she is an infidel. But if possible, treat her well—perhaps that will cause her to convert to Islam. He should invite her to Islam and call her to Allah….  In fact, let me tell you: whoever rapes a woman, does he necessarily love her? Or is he just sleeping with her? He’s sleeping with her for her body’s sake only, and he does not love her in reality, because if he loved her, he wouldn’t have hurt her. Therefore it is possible to have sexual relations [between a Muslim man and a Christian or Jewish woman] without love. This is possible, but as we said, he is commanded to hate her (emphasis added).

Like all other Islamic clerics, Burhami justified “infidel-wife-hating” by quoting some of the Koran verses that form the cornerstone of the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity:

Otherwise what do you do with the undisputed texts [of the Koran], such as “Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist [or reject submission to] Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred… “O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors…”  [Koran 58:22 and 5:51, Yusuf Ali translation].  What do you do with such a verse? What do you do will all these verses?

Indeed, what does a Muslim do with all these Koran verses and sayings attributed to Islam’s prophet Muhammad?

Such is the dilemma.

From here it becomes clear that the aforementioned Arabic op-ed discussing the slaughter of Mary Sameh George is only partially correct.  It is true that behind the mindless mob stand Islamic clerics like Burhami, inciting hatred for Christians and other infidels.  But that is not the complete picture; for behind all these clerics stand Islam’s scriptures—the Koran and hadith—commanding enmity for the infidel.

In short, it’s not just a few “radical clerics”—a few “rotten apples”—that incite mobs to attack Christians, but rather the core texts of Islam itself.

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

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:

 

 

 

Sunni Muslim Pope Sanctions Islamic Jew-Hatred Based Upon Koran 5:82

al azhur ImamBy Andrew G. Bostom:

Since its founding in 973 C.E., Al Azhar University (and its mosque) have represented a pinnacle of Islamic religious education, which evolved into the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. Unfortunately, during that same millennium, through the present era, Al Azhar and its leading clerics have represented and espoused the unreformed, unrepentant jihad bellicosity and infidel hatred at the core of mainstream, institutional Islam.

Al Azhar’s contemporary espousal of sacralized Islamic animosity has been directed, unsurprisingly, against Jews and Israel,dating back to the 20th century origins, and ultimate creation, of the modern Jewish State. Despite nearly universal willful blindness by media, academic, and policymaking elites, this critical issue of sacralized incitement of Muslim Jew-hatred by Islam’s Sunni Muslim Vatican, remains center stage.

4

Ahmad Al-Tayeb, as current Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, is the Sunni Muslim Papal equivalent. During an interview with Al-Tayeb, which recently aired on Channel 1, Egyptian TV, October 25, 2013, the Al-Azhar Grand Imam gave a brief explanation of the ongoing relevance of the Koranic verse 5:82 (sura, or chapter 5, verse 82) has been invoked—“successfully”—to inspire Muslim hatred of Jews since the advent of Islam:

A verse in the Koran explains the Muslims’ relations with the Jews and the polytheists. The second part of the verse describes the Muslims’ relations with the Christians, and the third part of the verse explains why the Christians are the closest and most friendly to the Muslims. This is an historical perspective, which has not changed to this day. See how we suffer today from global Zionism and Judaism, whereas our peaceful coexistence with the Christians has withstood the test of history. Since the inception of Islam 1,400 years ago, we have been suffering from Jewish and Zionist interference in Muslim affairs. This is a cause of great distress for the Muslims. The Koran said it and history has proven it: “You shall find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers to be the Jews and the polytheists.” This is the first part. The second part is: “You shall find the closest in love to the believers to be those who say: ‘We are Christians’.” The third part explains why the Christians are “the closest in love to the believers,” while the Jews and the polytheists are the exact opposite.

Grand Imam Al-Tayaeb’s assessment is upheld by a continuum of authoritative Koranic exegeses that span over a thousand years, till now. The classical Koranic commentaries on Koran 5:82 by al-Tabari (d. 923), Zamakashari (d. 1143), Baydawi (d. 1316), and Ibn Kathir demonstrate a uniformity of opinion regarding the animus of the Jews toward the Muslims, which is repeatedly linked to the curse of Koran 2:61 (i.e., for killing prophets, and transgressing against the will of Allah, repeated at verses including 2:90-91, 3:112, 3:181, and 4:155):

[Tabari]: In my (Tabari’s) opinion, (the Christians) are not like the Jews who always scheme in order to murder the emissaries and the prophets, and who oppose Allah in his positive and negative commandments, and who corrupt His scripture which He revealed in His books.

[Zamakshari]: Here Allah portrays the Jews as being unyielding and as acknowledging the truth only grudgingly. . . . On account of their vehement enmity against the believers, Allah places the Jews together with the idolaters; indeed, going even further, he shows them to be at the head, since they are mentioned before the idolaters. Allah does the same in his words: “And thou shalt find them (the Jews) the eagerest of men for life—even more so than the idolaters. Each of them wishes he could be given a life of a thousand years; but the grant of life would not save him from chastisement—for God sees well all that they do!” (sura 2:96/90). The Jews are surely like this, and even worse! From the Prophet (the following is related): “If a Muslim is alone with two Jews, they will try to kill him.”. . . The Jews focused their hostility to the Muslims in the most overt and intense manner . . .

[Baydawi]: [B]ecause of [the Jews’] intense obstinacy, multifaceted disbelief, and their addiction to following their whims, their adherence to the blind following of their tradition, their distancing themselves from the truth, and their unrelenting denial of, and hostility toward, the prophets . . . [the Christians] . . . easiness to deal with, the softness of their hearts, their dismissal of gain in this world, and their serious concern with learning and good deeds . . .their acceptance of the truth as soon as they understand it; or, because of their humility as opposed to the arrogance of the Jews.

[Ibn Kathir]: Allah said, “Verily you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers the Jews and those who commit Shirk [i.e., the polytheists, or idolaters].” This describes the Jews, since their disbelief is that of rebellion, defiance, opposing the truth, belittling other people, and degrading the scholars. This is why the Jews—may Allah’s continued curses descend on them until the Day of Resurrection—killed many of their Prophets and tried to kill the Messenger of Allah several times, as well as performing magic spells against him and poisoning him. They also incited their likes among the polytheists against the Prophet.

Read more at PJ Media