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

 

David Wood returns from Africa with a powerful message

David Wood:

 I’m speaking on behalf of people whose basic human right to speak in their own defense has been stolen from them…

I’m coming after your prophet. And I’m going to keep coming after your prophet until there is nothing left of him or there is nothing left of me. And I don’t say this because I hate you. I believe that Muslims are victims of Muhammad’s teachings just as non-Muslim’s are victims of Muhammad’s teachings. So one of the most loving things I can do for you and for the rest of the world is to tell the truth about your prophet. And there’s a lot to tell. Stay tuned.

Delegitimizing Judeo-Christian Civilization

download (42)The Koran and the Hadith both testify to the supposed deceit of the Jewish leaders, who allegedly hid the truth about Islam from their followers. According to the claim, if it were not for the ambition and disingenuous nature of these leaders, Islam would have been accepted by the mass of the Christian and Jewish faithful.

by Lawrence A. Franklin:

To many Muslims, we are lesser beings. To many Muslims, we have fewer rights; we are benighted, ignorant of the truth; we live willfully in the dark and therefore the light must be forced upon us. If we object, we will be moved aside, supplanted, replaced. Whether we resist or submit, many say that the inevitable will happen: the planet will be Islamicized.

Many Muslims seem to be certain this will be so; they say this is Allah’s will. A lack of resolve and fear of death are not among their weaknesses. They are true believers.

It is from this perspective that we, who are not Muslims, must educate our fellow citizens about what appears to be a serious challenge to our civilization.

The motive in the theology of our would-be successors resides in the very first Sura [chapter] of the Koran. This brief chapter is called Fatihah [The Opening]. Many non-Muslims interested in religious harmony only quote certain lines of the Sura, while unwittingly or disingenuously ignoring others.

(You are) the Only Owner (Judge) of the Day of Resurrection (Recompense)
You (alone) we worship and
You (alone) we ask for help
Guide us on the Straight Path[1]

Some non-Muslim commentators on the Koran suggest that these verses are indicative of Islam’s support for religious pluralism; that they underscore the monotheistic commonality of Islam with Christianity and Judaism. These apologists of a supposedly well-intentioned Koran often speak of the three-fold blossoming of the Abrahamic tree. From this common root, they insist, a framework for peaceful coexistence can be built.

The intent of Fatihah, however, appears quite the opposite. Many casual readers of the Koran are seduced by the initial approach to the Divinity in Fatihah. Nevertheless, the final few lines — “You [Allah] alone” — are exclusionary, presumptive of God’s displeasure with both Christians and Jews.

Unfortunately, the truth sometimes demands more intellectual rigor than many theologians seem willing to apply; they often fail to grasp the relentless commitment of those who would supplant us.

The very next verse demonstrates the superficial nature of the assumption that Islam is a religion of peace:

The way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace
(not the way) of those who have earned Your Anger
Nor of those who went astray.[2]

Al-Bukhari, the most respected of all gatherers of the “Hadith” [the words and acts of Muhammad] asserts that in one verse, when Adi bin Hatim, one of the Siddiqun,[3] asked a question of the Messenger [Muhammad] — To whom was Allah referring “by those who earned Your Anger”? — Muhammad replied, “They are the Jews.” Bin Hatim then asked, “[What] of those who went astray”? Muhammad replied, “The Christians are the ones who went astray.”[4]

Jihadists and their extremist ideological allies are challenging the legitimacy of Western civilization in a multi-vectored assault. The theological basis of this attack, on Jew and Christian alike, is that both rejected the revelations of Allah. The Koran, and revered Muslim collectors of Hadith, contend that turning away from the seal of prophecy, the final revelation from Allah, is a grave offense. But because both Jews and Christians are “People of the Book,” they are permitted to exist in an Islamic world — but doomed to second-class citizenship, a tolerated dhimmi status.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

David Wood On The Nairobi Mall Massacre

download (20)by David Wood at Answering Muslims:

Western leaders and the media assure us that the recent terrorist attack at a Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya has nothing to do with Islam, and that the terrorist group al-Shabaab is violating the commands of Allah and Muhammad. But what happens when we open the Qur’an to see what it teaches? We find that Islamic history has been repeating itself for fourteen centuries.

 

Islam and Unbelievers

download (42)By David Wood:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com

The Qur’an commands Muslims to violently subjugate unbelievers. Muhammad commands Muslims to violently subjugate unbelievers. Yet politicians and the media continue to assure us that Islam is peaceful, tolerant, and harmless.

 

Russian Muslim clerics warn of unrest over ban on translation of Quran

President Putin: Champions Russian Orthodox Church as moral compass, but has also called for a multicultural Russian identity. — Reuters file pic - See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/world/article/russian-muslim-clerics-warn-of-unrest-over-ban-on-translation-of-quran#sthash.jIdH1kKe.dpuf

President Putin: Champions Russian Orthodox Church as moral compass, but has also called for a multicultural Russian identity. — Reuters file pic – See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/world/article/russian-muslim-clerics-warn-of-unrest-over-ban-on-translation-of-quran#sthash.jIdH1kKe.dpuf

MOSCOW, Sept 21 — Russia’s senior Islamic clerics warned the country’s leaders yesterday unrest could erupt in Muslim communities in Russia and beyond if a court decision ordering the destruction of an interpretive translation of Quran is not overturned.

The ruling on Tuesday by a court in Novorossiysk, a city in southern Russia, ordered the widely read text outlawed under a Russian anti-extremism law that rights activists say has been abused by local officials out of prejudice or to persecute groups frowned upon by the dominant Russian Orthodox Church.

Rights campaigners said that the decision, which will apply nationwide unless it is overturned on appeal, comes dangerously close to banning the Quran itself.

Russia’s Council of Muftis sounded the alarm in an open letter yesterday to President Vladimir Putin, who has frequently called for unity among the leading faiths and warned that ethnic tension could tear Russia apart.

“Russian Muslims are very strongly indignant over such an outrageous decision,” Rushan Abbyasov, the deputy head of the council, which has close ties with the Kremlin, told Reuters.

If the ruling is acted on, the cleric warned: “There will be unrest … not only in Russia but all over the world, we are talking about the destruction of the Quran.”

In the letter to Putin, the council drew a parallel with violence in the Middle East and Afghanistan over the actions of an American pastor, Terry Jones, who threatened to burn the Quran on Sept. 11, 2010.

“Is it necessary to discuss how the destruction of books, especially sacred religious books, has been received in Russia in the past?” it said.

“We recall how the burning of just a few copies of the Holy Quran by a crazy American pastor elicited a firm protest not just from Russian Muslims but from our entire society, in solidarity with the stormy and longlasting anger of the global Muslim community and all people of goodwill,” it said.

A lawyer representing the text’s author, Azeri theologian Elmir Kuliyev, said he will appeal the ruling, which calls for the text to be banned and copies of it “destroyed”.

“This is pure idiocy. Some local prosecutor sent this material to a local court and they together decided to ban a holy book,” lawyer Murat Musayev, who has one month to appeal the ruling, told Reuters.

“On the one hand there is freedom of religion in Russia, on the other they are banning fundamental religious texts.”

Experts say the more than decade-old translation by Kuliyev is a respected scholarly work, one of four translations of the Quran into Russian.

“This is one step away from banning the Quran,” said Akhmed Yarlikapov, an expert on Islam with the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“This is a very high quality translation,” he said. “The banning of Kuliyev’s translation is utterly unprofessional, you could ban the Bible just as easily because it also has passages that talk about the spilling of blood.”

Read more at The Malay Mail Online

Does the Qur’an Teach Hate?

terrkorBy :

On September 11, 2013, a public information officer for Palm Beach County, Florida named John Jamason posted a message on his personal Facebook page: “Never forget. There is no such thing as radical Islam. All Islam is radical. There may be Muslims who don’t practice their religion, much like others. The Quran is a book that preaches hate.”

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) immediately complained, and demanded that the county turn over to them everything that Jamason had written from a county computer over the previous month. County Administrator Bob Weisman assured CAIR that Jamason had not written the offending Facebook message from a county computer, and stated that county officials were determining whether or not to discipline him.

Left unexamined in the controversy was whether or not what Jamason said was true. In light of the Qur’an’s teachings about jihad and the subjugation of non-Muslims, he certainly had a case that “there is no such thing as radical Islam” and “all Islam is radical,” for there is no mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach that the Muslim community must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under its rule.

Jamason was also correct that “there may be Muslims who don’t practice their religion, much like others.” Indeed, there are many people who identify themselves as Muslims who have no interest in waging jihad against unbelievers, but would prefer to hold down their jobs and take care of their families in peace in the same way as there are millions of people who identify themselves as believers in other religions who are not particularly concerned with living out every teaching of the religion with which they identify.

But what CAIR was most outraged about was not that, of course, but Jamason’s contention that the Qur’an teaches hate. They did not, however, provide any evidence showing that it doesn’t.

So does it?

The Qur’an teaches that Muslims must fight and kill unbelievers “wherever you overtake them” until “religion is Allah’s,” i.e. Islamic law rules all societies (2:190-193). They must fight unbelievers “until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (8:39). Muslims are to fight unbelievers and “prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows” (8:60).

Allah tells Muhammad to “fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination” (9:73). The followers of Muhammad should imitate him in this: “O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness” (9:123). For “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves” (48:29).

Read more at Front Page

Is Reading the Koran a Waste of Time?

take-the-pledge-read-the-koranBy Citizen Warrior:

We received the following question and thought it was worth sharing:

I know you advise all readers to commit to reading the Koran and earlier I agreed with you on this issue. But lately I have realized that no matter what I think the Koran says, the Muslim man or woman is going to interpret it in his/her own way. Even if I think it is terribly violent or it is super peaceful, what difference will that make to the thinking of the Muslim multitudes? They will still commit murders in the name of their religion.

If we — the Islamo-aware people — want to convince other non-Muslims of the horror of Islamic doctrine, then isn’t it better to do it by pointing out the violent acts committed by Muslims in the name of their religious doctrines rather than waste time reading a Koran ourselves? I would welcome your viewpoint on this issue.

I replied with this:

What a great question. I have no intention of changing the way Muslims think. It would be great, but I don’t see it happening. That’s really a job for ex-Muslims. My goal is to get non-Muslims to know what they’re dealing with. Once that happens, we will be able to do whatever needs to happen to curb the spread of orthodox Islam. Most of the people I know who are not already Islamo-aware believe that the bloodshed in the name of Islam is being done by a fringe group, similar to the KKK (who consider themselves Christian), and are not a significant threat. Most people are unaware of the scope and universality of Islamic violence and bigotry. So telling them about it might help. For some people it would be enough. But I’ve found most non-Muslims explain it away. But when I tell them what’s in the Koran because I have read it, and when I try to convince them toprove it to themselves by reading it, I gain an authority in their minds and I reach them better.

What I believe people need to understand is that the violence andintolerance is embedded in Islam’s fundamental doctrines. It is a sobering realization, but it changes the way people respond to actions motivated by Islamic doctrine. That solid information changes people. It gives them a resolve I don’t think anything else does.

That’s exactly what happened to Thomas Jefferson when he read the Koran.

 

Re-Interpreting the Koran

koran1-450x321By :

As I’ve written on several previous occasions, there exists a sect of reformist Muslims who believe that the Koran has been grievously misread by cavilers and doubters who are convinced that Islam is not a religion of peace, but a violent and imperialistic faith intent on world conquest. The passages in the Koran—and the environing literature as well—that give rise to the animosity of nit-pickers and quibblers, the enlightened Muslims claim, require to be re-interpreted so that their temperate and merciful essence can be made plain to all. Embarking on the process of re-interpretation can be a salutary and liberating task, one that we spurn at the peril of darkest ignorance and counter-productive rancor. Eventually the detractors of Islam may realize that they have failed to grasp the beauty, elegance and rhetoric of conciliation that animate the holy texts and be moved to make amends for their anti-Islamic vitriol and stubborn recidivism.

To consider only a few salient instances of controversial passages that have been consistently misapprehended.

Koran 2:191, speaking of infidels who do not accept the word of the Prophet, commands us to “kill them wherever you may find them.” Here we must be particularly alert, subtle and astute, for killing the unbelievers does not mean to slay them bodily, but to kill them with kindness, in other words, to shower the candy of life upon them, to reward them with prestigious appointments and lavish emoluments, to bow before them in the streets and welcome them into the homes of the devout, to address them with profound respect, to decorate them with titles and ply them with accolades—until, bedazzled by the nobility and magnanimity of Islam, they are ready to convert.

Similarly, in Koran 2:216, where we read that “fighting is prescribed”  for the faithful, we are to understand that the battle is enjoined to vanquish the evil impulse in Muslim and non-Muslim alike, until universal harmony and jubilation dominate the world. This is the true meaning and purpose of the Caliphate.

When Allah warns in Koran 3:56, with regard to those who reject the faith, “I will punish them with terrible agony,” the supreme Lord does not propose insupportable physical torment but, rather, the moral suffering that comes from the recognition of apostasy or denial, which can only strengthen the fibre of a mortified conscience.

Koran 5:33 informs us that “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.” Admittedly, this is hard verse to fathom; however, as is often the Prophet’s wont, he is not targeting body parts but engaging in graphic allegory to impress upon both believers and unbelievers the self-torture they will feel, smitten by their higher selves, should they curse the Almighty.

In the same way, Koran 8:12, which reads: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them,” is not meant to be taken literally. The true meaning is: browbeat them tactfully and lightly slap their wrists if they persist in their folly and continue to rebuff your acts of philanthropic munificence. This is the Islamic version of tough love.

Read more at Front Page

AWESOME: London Imam unable to refute Robert Spencer’s claims about Koran

downloadThe Right Scoop:

Robert Spencer was on the BBC Asian Public Radio this past Friday and at one point the host asked him to quote verses from the Koran or the Hadiths that he finds reprehensible. Robert quickly responded with several verses from the Koran and one from the Hadith. But what is hilarious about this is that when the host went to Imam to provide the proper ‘context’ for these verses, since he objected to them being out of context, he was unable to do so and when put on the spot he claimed that this is Robert Spencer’s field. What? The host quickly responded to the Imam telling him that Islam was his field, but the Imam was unable to provide any context.

Listen below to at least the first 6 minutes to hear the unprepared Imam. I let it run for a few more minutes so you could hear Robert smack down the Imam one more time after the Imam said there was nothing in the Koran that sanctioned wife beating.

If you want to listen to the full 44 minutes of Robert countering different callers with different accusations, you can do so here.

Violence and Context in Islamic Texts

art-Sheehan-620x349By Mark Durie:

Recently, the journalist Paul Sheehan, reflecting on the Woolwich beheading of Drummer Lee Rigby, invited consideration of the view of Muslim violence in authoritative Islamic texts. In the Sydney Morning Herald of May 27, 2013, Sheehan observed that the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad seem to be a factor behind Muslim violence, and offered these critical observations:

  • Many violent attacks on civilians are done in the name of Islam.
  • The existence of violent Islamic sectarian conflict and the repression of religious dissent in Muslim nations give the lie to the “absurd claim” that Islam is “the religion of peace.”
  • Many verses in the Koran call for violence against unbelievers, and these are invoked by Muslims who murder others: “So many Muslims have been encouraged to murder civilians by such exhortations that the rate of violent incidents perpetrated in the name of Islam is staggering, a toll that shows no sign of subsiding.”

A rejoinder was published the next day by Associate Professor Mohamad Abdalla, founding director of the Islamic Research Unit at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia. Abdalla rejected the proposition that Islam supports killing innocent people: “A contextual reading of the Koran or Hadith leads to one conclusion only: there is no justification for killing of innocent people…”

Sheehan, while affirming that “Most Muslims are peaceful,” did not say that Islam is the only factor behind Muslim violence, and he did not claim that the killers’ interpretations of religious texts were the only valid interpretation. He also nowhere used the label “innocent” to characterize victims of Muslim violence; and he did not claim that Islam supports killing “innocent” people. His point was simply that, according to some Muslims, violent verses in the Koran contribute to Muslims behaving violently.

Why did Abdalla introduce the word “innocent,” and do his arguments have credibility?

Abdalla’s key point is that seemingly violent texts from Islam’s canon have to be read “in context.” He explains that to put the Koran “in context,” one must at least consider the following five factors:

  • the context in which verses were “revealed” to Muhammad;
  • the principle of “abrogation”;
  • other passages which address the same subject;
  • the life of Muhammad, and
  • the way the verse has been applied [by Muslim scholars].

Abdalla claims that Sheehan is not competent to pass judgement on the Koran because he lacks such knowledge. He also states, but offers no evidence to support the allegation, that taking “context” into account will result in a more moderate interpretation of these sacred scriptures.

Taking context into account, however, can actually make a “peaceful” verse quite nasty, and a violent verse even worse. There is nothing about “context” that makes it a magic wand to render peaceful and harmless every text over which it is waved. Context is neither a silver bullet against violent texts, nor is it a disinfectant for theological unpleasantness.

It also needs to be understood that radical jihadis themselves use a contextual model to interpret the Koran: they do not simply rely on context-free interpretations or on proof-texts — quotes taken out of context to support an argument. The Bin Ladins of the world — and theologians such as Sayyid Qutb who paved the way for them — have been more than familiar with interpretive tools such as the “context” of revelation, “abrogation,” or the life of Muhammad. Such subjects are on the curriculum in the jihad factories.

What is disappointing about Abdalla’s article is that the very texts he refers to only get worse when their context is taken into account. For example, he criticizes Sheehan for citing a passage from the second chapter of the Koran: “And slay them wherever ye find them …” Abdalla writes:

Take, for example, this partial quote he cited, “And slay them wherever ye find them … ” Sheehan fails to state that this is part of five-long verses (2:190-195), which must be read together. When read in context the legal implication derived stipulates that fighting is permitted only under certain strict circumstances. Additionally, the same verses prohibit transgression of limits, and it (sic) does not promote killing of innocent people but allows self-defence. It further goes on to state “if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.” Clearly, when the whole context is examined the verses do not promote killing of innocent people.

Let us take a closer look at these six verses, with the help of a great Muslim scholar, Ibn Kathir, whose commentary on the Koran has been translated into English, and is widely respected and read today by Muslims around the world. (The reader can examine the relevant part of the commentary here.)

First, here are the verses from the second chapter of the Koran:

190. And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.

191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

192. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimin (the polytheists and wrongdoers).

194. The sacred month is for the sacred month, and for the prohibited things, there is the Law of equality (Qisas). Then whoever transgresses against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqin.

195. And spend in the cause of Allah and do not throw yourselves into destruction, and do good. Truly, Allah loves Al-Muhsinin (those who do good).[Parentheses in the text.]

What is the context of this passage? It dates from the early Medinan period, when Allah had given permission to Muslims to fight against those who fought them: “fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits.” (2:190) Abdalla is correct when he says that the phrase “slay them wherever you find them” (2:191) refers to fighting against those who fight Muslims: it is not a universal command to kill noncombatants or innocent people. Yet there is more to be said.

Ironically, verse 190 was one of the passages invoked by Michael Adebolajo, the killer of Drummer Lee Rigby, when he said: “we are forced by the Quran … through many, many ayah [verses] throughout the Koran that we must fight them as they fight us.” [Emphasis added.]

Adebolajo’s testimony was that he killed a British soldier because British soldiers have been fighting Muslims. He would most likely agree wholeheartedly with Abdalla’s interpretation of this passage, and assert with him that Islam prohibits killing “innocent people.” To Adbolajo, however, Rigby was not “innocent.”

Read more

Also see Mark Durie’s Letter to the Sydney Morning Herald on “Twisting Islam to Justify Cruelty” by Paul Sheehan

 

TrentoVision: Jay Smith exposes UK jihad attack!

984121_10201112502717700_131817648_n

 

The United West:

Jay Smith, Christian Apologist and Islamic expert provides a detailed expose’ and explanation fom the Quran as to why the two Muslim jihadis savagely killed British soldier, Lee Rigby. Do not miss Jay’s powerful insight which he gained from many years of confrontational debates with Muslim supremacists.