The Most Misleading Passage Ever Quoted From the Koran

you just went full retardCitizen Warrior, Oct. 29, 2015:

“…if anyone killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…”

Have you heard this quote? It is from the Koran (5:32). It seems like a straightforward quote, and Muslim apologists use it all the time to illustrate that the Muslims beheading people or blowing up non-Muslims are going against the teachings of Islam. This is misleading. And anyone who knows the Koran and Islam knows it is misleading.

Given that Muslims often respond to violent quotes from the Koran by saying they are quoted out of context, it is ironic that one of their mainstay “positive” Koranic quotes is itself taken out of context.

When Muslims (and news organizations) use this quote, they’re trying to convey the idea that in Islam, murder is wrong and saving lives is good. But that’s not the meaning of the passage. In fact, it’s really the oppositeof what the verse conveys.

This is the whole verse (5:32): “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person — unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land — it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

In other words, this was a commandment to the “Children of Israel” (Jews). This is not a commandment to all people. It is definitely not a commandment to Muslims, so using it as a quote from the Koran showing how peaceful Islam is definitely qualifies as misleading.

And even if this were a commandment to Muslims, it has the qualification, “unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land.” So according to this verse, someone “spreading mischief” can be killed.

That’s bad enough. But the very next verse of the Koran (5:33) goes even further. It says: “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”

This explains that the correct punishment for mischief is execution, crucifixion, etc. This is a command given to Muslims from the Almighty Himself.

As you can see, this adds up to a much different message than the one so often misleadingly quoted.

I believe that simply sharing the information above wherever that quote is used — this, all by itself — would go a long way to opening peoples’ eyes to not only the true nature of Islam, but to the effort being made to deceive us about Islam.

For more information about this passage, check out the excellent site, Answering Muslims.

The article above is also posted on Inquiry Into Islam here.

The Fantasy Islam of Reza Aslan


Frontpage, by Dr. Stephen M. Kirby, Oct. 27, 2015:

Fantasy Islam: A game in which an audience of non-Muslims wish with all their hearts that Islam was a “Religion of Peace,” and a Muslim strives to fulfill that wish by presenting a personal version of Islam that has little foundation in Islamic Doctrine.

As I have mentioned before, “Fantasy Islam” is a popular game among many non-Muslims and so-called “moderate” or “reformist” Muslims.  Reza Aslan appears to be such a Muslim.

Reza Aslan was born in Iran.  In 1979, at the age of seven, he and his family fled the Iranian Revolution and came to the United States.  At the age of 15 he converted to evangelical Christianity, but later returned to Islam.  His website states that he is “an internationally acclaimed writer and scholar of religions.”  He is currently a Professor of Creative Writing at the University of California, Riverside.

In 2005 Aslan wrote a book titled No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. The updated edition came out in 2011.  This article addresses that updated edition.

It should be noted that in his book Aslan listed The Life of Muhammad and the multi-volume work The History of al-Tabari, as among the books he “consulted.”  These are classical works by Muslim scholars and major sources for information about Muhammad and Islam.  Aslan even specifically mentions them as among those that have “catalogued” the story of Islam (p. xxiv).  Unfortunately, although Aslan claims that he “consulted” them, we will see that he apparently overlooked conflicting information in these works in favor of playing Fantasy Islam.

Death Penalty for Apostasy is “Un-Quranic”

On p. 121 Aslan stated that the death penalty for apostasy was “un-Quranic,” and he stated that nowhere in the Koran “is any earthly punishment prescribed for apostasy.”

The only problem for Aslan is that in 4:89 of the Koran Allah commands Muslims to take hold of those apostates who have left Islam and “kill them wherever you find them.”  So the death penalty for apostasy from Islam is in the Koran.

In addition, Muhammad said that death was the penalty for a Muslim who left Islam (e.g. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Nos. 6878 and 6923; and Sahih Muslim, No. 1676).  And Muhammad even specified the nature of that death:

If someone changes his religion – then strike off his head!

Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas, 36.18.15, in a section titled “Judgement on Abandonment of Islam.”

No Foundation in the Koran for Stoning

On p. 71 Aslan wrote about the “misogynistic tendencies” of Umar, the second Caliph, and how Umar

instituted a series of severe penal ordinances aimed primarily at women.  Chief among these was the stoning to death of adulterers, a punishment which has absolutely no foundation whatsoever in the Quran but which Umar justified by claiming it had originally been part of the Revelation and had somehow been left out of the authorized text.  Of course, Umar never explained how it was possible for a verse such as this “accidentally” to have been left out of the Divine Revelation of God[.]

It is a common play in Fantasy Islam to claim that stoning is not a part of Islam because it is not in the Koran, so let’s take a look at this claim.

In the first place, it is correct to state that the Koran says nothing about stoning.  The original punishment for adultery in the Koran (4:15) focused on women and confining them to their houses until they died; but there was a key provision at the end of this verse: “or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.”

Muhammad later received a “revelation” from Allah explaining that “other way”:

‘Ubada b. As-Samit reported: Allah’s Messenger (SAW) saying: Receive (teaching) from me, receive (teaching) from me.  Allah has ordained a way for those (women).  When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female (they should receive) one hundred lashes and banishment for one year.  And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.

Sahih Muslim, No. 1690

So now, instead of confinement, the punishment for adultery would be lashing and stoning.  The punishment of lashing was codified in 24:2 of the Koran.  Muhammad considered stoning as the appropriate penalty for adultery up to his death.  He ordered many an adulterer to be stoned, as did his successors.

Umar did make the claim that the Verse of Stoning had been left out when the Koran was compiled (e.g.Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 6830).  But when the Koran was being compiled Umar had tried to get it included.  However, the standard for including a “revelation” as a verse was that it had to be certified by two witnesses, and there appeared to be only one witness: Umar.

But in reality there was a second witness, Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha:

It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow.  When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”

Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 1944

Even though on p. 70 Aslan had written that “nearly one sixth of all ‘reliable’ hadith can be traced back to Muhammad’s wife Aisha,” the idea of using her as a witness apparently came up against 2:282 of the Koran.  This verse requires the testimony of two women in order to equal that of one man in property matters.  So even though both Umar and Aisha claimed there had been a stoning verse “revealed,” we would still only have at best one and one-half witnesses, therefore falling short of the two witnesses required to include a verse in the Koran.  It would appear that this is why there is no Verse of Stoning in the Koran.  Nevertheless, it is still a part of Islam:

Now the punishment of adultery has been fixed, which is stoning to death.  That punishment also remained in force during the times of the Rightly-Guided caliphs (successors of the Messenger of Allah) and that remained the unanimous opinion of all the jurists and scholars afterwards…The law that prescribes stoning the adultery [sic] to death is supported by authentic hadeeths, and their narrators are numerous, and hence, scholars grade those hadeeths as mutawatir [frequently reported].  A Muslim has, therefore, no choice except to acknowledge and accept it.

Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 3, p. 665

Read more

The Broadest Interpretation of Islam

shutterstock_image-of-KoranPolitical Islam, by Bill Warner, Oct. 13, 2015:

The liberal media is beginning to admit that Islam has a formal doctrine of jihad. They have been forced into this admission due to the constant propaganda of jihad doctrine by ISIS. Now the media says that Islamic State, ISIS, has a narrow interpretation of Islam. But, it is just opposite, ISIS has the broadest interpretation of Islam.

Islamic doctrine is slowly revealed, just like the Koran. It has an early form in Mecca and a fully developed later form in Medina. Now these may contradict each other, but both are true. The law of abrogation says that the later doctrine is better or stronger than the earlier doctrine.

ISIS uses all of the doctrine, including Medina. The so-called peaceful Muslims do not use all of the doctrine, just the early Meccan form. So the peaceful Muslims have the narrow, exclusive interpretation. ISIS and all of the jihadis have the broadest interpretation, which is inclusive.

Whitewashing Islam: Egypt’s Grand Mufti and Muhammad’s Transformation in Medina



Breitbart, by ADMIRAL JAMES A. “ACE” LYONS, July 13, 2015:

On July 2, the Wall Street Journal carried an article by Shawki Allam, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, who claimed that “violent extremists” are distorting the true purpose of fatwas and thereby, the true meaning of Islam. He goes on to extoll the virtues of Muhammad’s many roles – calling him a divine inspiration, social reformer, military leader, statesman, and also a Mufti.

Shawki Allam claims that among the many fatwas issued by Muhammad were included those that “banned burying baby girls alive; asserted a woman’s right to choose her husband and to seek divorce; and emphasized women’s rights of inheritance.” He goes on to state that Muhammad “established a safe environment for religious minorities and laid out principles for equality and citizenship.” Allam claims these fatwas were offered as guidelines for later Muslim clerics to follow on the path of mercy, justice and compassion. Breathtaking!

Aside from what might charitably be called the Mufti’s rather loose treatment of actual Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture, what he also fails to mention is that most of these so-called fatwas (or pronouncements of Muhammad recorded in the hadiths) were issued before the hijra, when Muhammad moved from Mecca to Medina, where he expanded his forces until they were strong enough to annihilate all opposition to his new teaching, including three entire Jewish tribes of the Peninsula. Here, as all too often, slyly deceitful Islamic explanations for Westerners are strictly limited to an incomplete understanding Islam in its early, pre-violent Mecca phase, when, for lack of capability, the early Muslims were limited to preaching. Clearly, the Mufti’s intent is to support the wishful claim of many Western leaders that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Therefore, the atrocities and barbarism we are subjected to by the Islamic State (IS) as reported by the mainstream and other social media are a perversion of Islam. If it were only true.

The actual biography of Muhammad aside (which is a veritable litany of rape, pillage, and plunder), there are at least 109 verses in the Koran that sanction violent acts against the “unbelievers” or “infidels.” For example, Koran 2:191 compels Muslims to “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” IS and its affiliates demonstrate this on a daily basis in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Koran 5:33 lays out the penalties for those who “wage war against God and His Apostle” [i.e.,fail to submit to Islam] or commit “mischief through the land”: “execution, or crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.” The Istanbul Process, a campaign to impose Islamic blasphemy law on all non-Muslim societies, is led by the 57 Muslim members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has sponsored (with U.S. support) a UN resolution insisting that all countries “criminalize” what it calls “defamation of religions” (code for Islam).  The OIC rejects our First Amendment rights of free speech and religion.

While calling for UN resolutions to limit speech, the Muslim OIC nations withdrew from the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1990, replacing it with the Cairo Declaration, which states that the only human rights they would recognize are those granted under Islam’s shariah (Islamic law).

Koran 9:12 condemns Muslim apostates: according to both hadiths and the shariah, one who leaves Islam, whether to convert to another religion or not, must be killed. Regrettably, shariah is as actively enforced today in places under Muslim rule as it was 1,300 years ago. It is this penalty of death more than anything else that prevents more Muslims from leaving Islam. It should be noted that in Sura 2 verse 106 (on abrogation), the Koran makes it clear that all the later violent verses take precedence over the early, less violent ones. Actually, it is nearly impossible to understand the full import of Islam without mastering the doctrine of abrogation and its associated doctrine of progressive revelation.

Islam is generally acknowledged to be a “complete way of life” and at the core of this code is Islamic law or shariah. Of course, shariah is incompatible in the most fundamental ways with the United States Constitution.

Mufti Allam goes on to claim that ill treatment of women is forbidden. He states that Islam in its true form is also adamant about finding balance with religious minorities. He states that people of differing faiths are not to be treated as second-class citizens, and that their right of religious freedom and worship is to be respected. Of course, this conflicts completely with the so-named “Sura of the Sword (the 9th Chapter).” The doctrine is clear for Christians and Jews (aka ‘People of the Book’): they must either convert or die, or accept the third choice and pay the jizya (blood tax), then willingly submit to live under Islamic law as dhimmis (9:29). So much for tolerance.

Finally, Koran 3:85 states that “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him…” It should be clear to any thinking person that Islam is a totalitarian political movement bent on world domination (same as communism), but masquerading as a religion.

In view of the above, how can the Mufti of Egypt stand by his claims that Islam is being distorted and perverted? In my opinion, clearly the propaganda the Mufti is promulgating falls under the well-known Islamic principles of “Taqiyya” and “Kitman” – “lying” to advance the cause of Islam. The Mufti, if he wants to advance the cause of Islam and bring it into the twenty-first century, should embrace President al-Sisi of Egypt’s call on January 1, 2015, before the leading Sunni clerics at al-Azhar, for the reformation of Islam, which has not occurred in over 1,300 years. “That corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world,” Sisi said then, asserting that a “religious revolution” is needed.

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior
U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Pentagon: Bible and U.S. Founding Documents Promote ‘Sexism’

By Raymond Ibrahim, April 14, 2015:

Here again we see why Western “elites,” including the highest echelons of the U.S. military, are clueless and incapable of acknowledging — much less responding to — Islam:

Modern sexism is rooted in the Bible, U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, according to a Pentagon-approved seminar.

In a presentation prepared by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), a Department of Defense joint services school based in Florida, the Bible, U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, along with Great Man theory, are to blame for “historical influences that allow sexism to continue,” The Daily Caller reported.

“Quotes from the Bible can be misinterpreted as having a sexist influence when brought out of context and not fully understood,” the course says. “In 1776, ‘We the people…’ only included white men: Slaves and women were not included until later in history.”

The course also cites the Declaration of Independence as a historical cause of sexism for referring to only “all men” being created equal.


“While there is no DoD Policy that requires persons to take these online courses,” the spokesman told The Daily Caller, 2,075 Department of Defense personnel have taken the “Sexism” course since 2011.

Meanwhile, to even hint that Islam’s core texts promote sexism — if not downright misogny — can get one fired.  Yet the Koran declares that women are inferior to men, that men have authority over them and are permitted to beat them, that polygamy is permissible — each man can have four wives — that females only inherit half of males’ inheritance, that female testimony in an Islamic court of law is equivalent to half a man’s.

And every day, in every Muslim country, every woman experiences these very real, “non-abstract” distinctions.

Islamic prophet Muhammad himself likened females to dogs and other animals — “for all are ridden” —  and said that women are deficient in intelligence and make up the majority of hell’s denizens.

Yet, it’s the Bible, U.S. Constitution, and Declaration of Independence that women need fear, says the Pentagon.

Can’t Sell Your New Quran? Just Call it a “Bible”

Faith Freedom, by Louis Palme, March 3, 2015:

Bible-QuranAn enterprising translator in the U.S., A.L. Bilal Muhammad, decided to boost the sales of his new Quran translation by calling it a “Bible.”

Why not? The best-selling book in the world is the Bible. The Guinness World Records website estimates that some 5 billion copies have been distributed – about one for every reading-age person on the globe today. The whole Bible has been translated into 349 languages, as compared with only 47 languages for the Quran. The “Bible-branding” of this Quran has to be pinnacle of Islamic deception. The pages of this Quran are in the two-column format used in most Bibles instead of the one-column format found in most Qurans. But Bilal can’t make up his mind if the source of this “Bible” is God or Allah. Here is his description of the book from the listing:

Bible with the name of Allah.

“God excludes and keeps what He pleases. With Him is the Mother of the Book.” 13:39 Imagine God released a Bible app around the time of Adam or Abraham and occasionally released updates. Then around the time of Christ Jesus, God released a major update to the app. Then again around the time of Muhammed the Prophet, God released another major update. I hear someone asking, “Why would God not simply create a perfect Bible that does not need updates?” Perhaps for the same reason God did not simply create a perfect world with perfect people. Or maybe God did create the Bible(s) perfect, and just like humanity and the world, humans and/or Satan messed it up. Either way, God allows us to decline the Bible updates if we wish. And God has left the previous Bible apps in the app store for a reason. One reason might be to remind humanity that God based the message revealed to Muhammed the Prophet on the Bible(s). And to remind humanity that our Bible(s) was updated.

Nowhere in this new translation is the word “Allah” used. Sometimes, as in Surah 2:17, the Jewish rendering “G-d” is used. Bilal still uses the expression “People of the Book,” meaning Jews and Christians – which draws a contrast between their Bible and his Bible/Quran. So was the Quran ever passed [based?]on their Book, as Bilal asserts?

Why are all these new Qurans coming out?

David Wood recently made the point that Allah must be the worst communicator ever. He wrote:

In the Quran, Allah claims to be perfectly clear in his commands (see 11:1; 16:89; 24:1, 57:9; 65:11; etc.). Yet when critics of Islam quote the Quran, many Muslims insist that Allah means something very different from what he says. This should cause us to wonder: Is Allah’s speech clear, or is it horribly unclear? Since Allah regularly says one thing but means nearly the opposite (according to his Westernized followers), should we regard him as the worst communicator ever?


Coupled with this confusion over its meanng is the fact that there are now 23 “generally accepted” English translations of the Quran and an additional 18 English translations that are considered ‘non-Muslim, new, controversial, depreciated, or undetermined.” See the complete text of the Quran in all of these versions at

One reason for all the different new versions of the Quran is that Muslims and non-Muslims alike have been shocked after reading older, literal translations. Did Allah really order Muslims to slit the throats of non-Muslims, chop off the hands of petty thieves, whip adulterers, and beat wives? Not only have these literal translations made it difficult to win new converts to Islam, but it is now estimated that 6 million Muslims leave Islam and convert to Christianity every year despite the risk of being killed for apostasy.



So the surge of new Qurans are attempts to render the original 7th Century Arabic text into an English version that is not so shocking to 21st Century readers.

So what does this new Quran Bible Say?

Whenever a new translation of the Quran is published I buy it in hopes that, finally, someone has discovered that Islam’s sacred text was misinterpreted, that it is really about equality, justice, and peace. Of course, the true test of the word of God is not whether it called “Quran” or “Bible,” but rather whether it is worthy of the all-knowing Creator of the world and humanity. There is a simple test I have developed for assessing the humanitarian content of any translation of the Quran. It consists of ten topics which are now crimes under national and international laws. I have listed the 1955 “interpretations” of these verses by A. J. Arberry on the left, along with Bilal Mohammed’s new translation on the right. (Arberry’s Quran was the first English translation by a bona fide scholar of Arabic and Islam. The translation is without prejudice and is probably the best around. It has earned the admiration of intellectuals worldwide, and having been reprinted several times, remains the reference of choice for most academics, according to a 2005 Middle East Quarterly review of English Quran translations.)

Inequality of women: God charges you, concerning your children: to the male the like of the portion of two females. (Surah 4: 11)

And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of, that if one of the two women errs the other will remind her. (Surah 2:282)

Physical abuse of women: And those [women] you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. (Surah 4:34)

Protection of children: O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached their period . . . As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, their period shall be three months, and those who have not menstruated as yet. (Emphasis added.) (Surah 65:1 – 4)

Inequality of non-Muslims: Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute [jizya] out of hand and have been humbled. (Surah 9:29)

Cruel and abusive punishment: And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from God. (Surah 5:38)

Beheading captives: When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds (Surah 47:3)

God directs you regarding your children’s inheritance. To the male, a portion equal to that of two females. (Surah 4:11)

And get two witnesses from your men. If not two men, then a man and two women, of whom you agree to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, then one of the two can remind the other.. (Surah 2:282)

As for those [women] who you suspect disloyalty, advise them, refrain from sleeping with them, and separate from them. (Surah 4:34)

O Prophet, if you divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count accurately their prescribed periods. . . . . As for those who have no period, it is the same. (Surah 65:1 – 4)

Fight those who do not believe in God, nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the way of truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizyah with willingness, even though they are of modest means. (Surah 9:29)

As well as the male and female thief. So cut off their hands. A punishment by way of example from God, for what they acquired, and God is exalted in power. (Surah 5:38)

Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers in war, strike at their necks, then when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly.(Surah 47:3)

Taking of hostages and booty: It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter in the land . . . Eat of what you have taken as booty, such as is lawful and good, and fear your God. (Surah 8:67-70)

Freedom of thought, including religion: [Hypocrites] wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them. (Surah 4: 89)

Intolerance of other religions: O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness; and know that God is with the godfearing. (Surah 9:125)

Separation of religion and politics: That which you serve, apart from Him, is nothing but names yourselves have named, you and your fathers; God has sent down no authority touching them. Judgment belongs only to God. (Surah 12:40)

It is not fitting for a prophet to have prisoners of war until he has fought in the land. . . But enjoy what you took in war, permissible and good, but be conscious of God. . . (Surah 8:67-70)

[Hypocrites] only wish that you would not believe, like they do, so that you would be on the same level as them. But do not take friends from their ranks until they go the way of God. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them…. (Surah 4:89)

O you who believe, fight the unbelievers who are close to you, and let them find resolve in you, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him. (Surah 9:125)

If not Him, you worship nothing but names which you have named, you and your parents, for which God has sent down no authority. The command is for none but God. (Surah 12:40)

So this new translation brings no relief from the crimes and atrocities in earlier translations. One must conclude that it is really true, as stated in Surah 18:27, “None can change His words.” Regardless whether the book is called a Quran or a Bible, when one sees how hostile the text is to 21st Century concepts of equality, justice, and peace, this is truly unfortunate.

Video: Nonie Darwish on Obama and the Koran

Published on Jan 22, 2015 by The Glazov Gang

The Heart of Darkness


jihad-m-36771By Justin O. Smith:

Islam is violent and repressive, and it is the “heart of darkness” at the center of the Islamic State’s inspiration and motivation, despite Barack Obama’s assertions in September 10th’s address to the nation that the Islamic State “is not Islamic” and that “no religion condones the killing of innocents.” Violence is an integral part of Islamic doctrine, following the example set by its prophet Mohammed, and in the name of Islam and Allah, Muslims have been murdering innocents, since 656 AD.

Six hundred years after Mohammed, one of Islam’s most respected scholars, Ibn Khuldan wrote ‘Muqaddimah’ (Introduction to History), which explained: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or force.”

Like most good Muslims, Khaldun’s inspiration came from ‘The Verse of the Sword’, Sura 9:5, “revealed” towards the end of Mohammed’s life, as well as similar themes previous to Sura 9:

Sura 9:5__ “…kill the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them … But if they repent and perform As-Salat/ Iqamat-as-Salat [the Islamic ritual prayers], then leave their way free…” Also Sura 9:33__ “It is He [Allah] Who has sent His Messenger [Mohammed] with guidance and the religion of truth [Islam], to make it superior over all religions…”

The Hindu Kush, seventy-five thousand square miles between Afghanistan and Pakistan, was populated by Hindus until approximately 1000 AD and the Muslim invasions. An estimated 60 million Hindus were murdered by Muslims over a thousand year reign, and Hindu Kush is the Muslim name for the region. It means “Hindu Killer”.

Now today, the majority of the Muslim community worldwide, including the U.S., does not completely frown on their “holy warriors” in the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Jaamat e-Islami and any other terror group one cares to mention, for fear of being called heretics or apostates themselves. The murderous “holy warriors” are following a literal interpretation of Koranic scripture, without omissions, innovation or revision. By contrast, heretical views deviate from doctrine.

The 2013 PEW Poll of the Muslim World shows that the majority of Muslims, in several countries, support the death penalty for Muslims who leave Islam, including Malaysia (58%), Egypt (88%), Jordan (83%), Afghanistan (79%), Gaza and the West Bank (62%) and Pakistan (75%); in 2006, a poll for ‘The Sunday Telegraph’ found 40% of British Muslims wanted Sharia Law in the UK and 20% supported the 7/7 bombers. And alarmingly, in 2011 nineteen percent of American Muslims stated they viewed Al Qaeda favorably, while a new poll shows 16% of the French population view the Islamic State favorably.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Logical minded Americans were not fooled by the big lie Obama delivered before the United Nations on September 24th, when he spoke of Islam’s “great tradition that stands for … the dignity of life, not murder”. Americans see a significant number of Muslims still support Sharia Law, slavery, rape and Islamic inspired violence and murder in this 21st century, and rather than “a religion of peace”, Islam always has been and always will be an ideology of violence and conquest.

Don’t get me wrong. I am thankful for the many Muslims who simply adhere to the first early peaceful verses of the Koran, but let’s not allow that to dissuade us from seeing and revealing the fact that Islam was propagated through violence, staying with Mohammed’s teachings, and it is still utilizing violence today. This can clearly be seen by examining the teachings of Islam, the daily news reports and practically any good, scholarly history book.

One problem in Islamic tradition, affirmed by many scholars, is the doctrine of abrogation, which states that later revelation to Mohammed supersedes prior revelation. And the Koranic verses ordering Muslims to fight and slay infidels, Christians and Jews came after those admonishing Muslims to live with non-believers in peace and without religious compulsion.

As Obama spoke before the UN, he called on the Islamic nations and their leaders to address the spread of “extremism”, full well knowing that he was speaking to the very advocates of Wahabbist fundamentalism, other Islamic orthodoxies and proponents of inflexible, intolerant Islamic scholars, the likes of Sayyid Qutb. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for example, have supported terrorism and financed the spread of Wahabbism and Qutb’s Islamic philosophy globally, including in America, for decades.

And now Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, the United Emirates and several others, who helped create, train and fund the Islamic State, are screaming for the U.S. and the West to end the vicious advance of the Islamic State. They look to destroy the Islamic State, only because they can no longer control its self-appointed “caliph”, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has announced his intentions to take Mecca and Medina; so, it is fear of losing their power and their regimes that motivates them, not any disagreement with the Islamic State’s implementation of jihad and the violent doctrines of Islam.

What about the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah, which means “the party of Allah”, and Hamas, which means “Islamic Resistance Movement”? Does Obama deem these Islamic entities “not Islamic” too?

As Obama appealed to young Muslims to follow their “great tradition [Islam] that stands for education … innovation, not destruction”, he must have intentionally forgotten some of the other traditions of Islam. The recent spate of beheadings of Westerners by the Islamic State is only the old made new again, and although horrible beyond belief, they actually pale in comparison to the heinous atrocities committed in the name of Allah across the centuries. Three thousand Catholic nuns were raped at the Church of St Sophia during the sacking of Constantinople in 1453, and many other women and children were simply torn to pieces.

Hadith 107:13_ It was shown the Prophet said, “Allah wrote everything we need to know about Ihsan [kindness] so if you kill, perfect your killing and if you slaughter, perfect your slaughter, perfect your slaughter and sharpen your blade and comfort your sacrifice.”

Koran 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.”

Millions of devout fundamentalist orthodox Muslims, devout in the manner of Osama bin Laden_ Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are making preparations and have already been waging a divinely endorsed war against Europe, America and Israel. And, rather than continue against all reason and, in the light of Islam’s sacred texts, to propagate the lie that “Islam is peace”, which is placing America within a quagmire of reoccurring expansionist jihad, this administration and future administrations must cut all funding to all Islamic nations and acknowledge that “extremism” and violence are the basis of Islam, if America is to win the future war against Islam.

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:

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 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:




Reminder: Jihad Makes Islam’s Borders, and Innards, Bloody

20130924_islamicjihadby ANDREW G. BOSTOM:

As of Sunday December 8, 2013, there were at least 22,023 documented fatal terror attacks committed by Muslims since the cataclysmic acts of jihad terrorism on 9/11/2001. This is by nature a gross underestimate given the horrific level of jihad violence across the globe, which has gone underreported. [ref 1]

Dr. Tina Magaard-a Sorbonne-trained linguist specializing in textual anal­ysis-published detailed research findings in 2005 [ref 1a] (summarized in 2007) [ref 2] com­paring the foundational texts of ten major religions. Magaard con­cluded from her hard data-driven analyses:

The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree [emphasis added]. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with. [ref 3]

For example, in her 2007 essay “Fjendebilleder og voldsforestillinger i islamiske grundtekster” [“Images of enemies and conceptions of violence in Islamic core scriptures”], Magaard observed,

There are 36 references in the Koran to expressions derived from the root qa-ta-la, which indicates fighting, killing or being killed. The expressions derived from the root ja-ha-da, which the word jihad stems from, are more ambiguous since they mean “to struggle” or “to make an effort” rather than killing. Yet almost all of the references derived from this root are found in stories that leave no room for doubt regarding the violent nature of this struggle. Only a single ja-ha-da reference (29:6) explicitly presents the struggle as an inner, spiritual phenomenon, not as an outwardly (usually military) phenomenon. But this sole reference does not carry much weight against the more than 50 references to actual armed struggle in the Koran, and even more in the Hadith. [ref 4]

My own copiously documented The Legacy of Jihad describes the doctrinal rationale for Islam’s sacralized jihad violence, and its historical manifestations, across an uninterrupted continuum from the seventh-century advent of the Muslim creed through the present. Consistent with Magaard’s textual analysis, I cite the independent study of Australian linguist and renowned Arabic to English translator Paul Stenhouse, who maintained the root of the word jihad appears forty times in the Koran. With four exceptions, all the other thirty-six usages in the Koran and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries-the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam-and to ordinary people meant and means, as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer E. W. Lane: “He fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like.” [ref 5]

Muhammad himself waged a series of bloody, proto-jihad campaigns to subdue the Jews, Christians, and pagans of Arabia. Numerous modern-day pro­nouncements by leading Muslim theologians confirm (see for example, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s “The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model” [ref 6]) that Muhammad has been the major inspiration for jihadism, past and present. Jihad was pursued century after century because it embodied an ideology and a jurisdiction. Both were formally conceived by Muslim jurisconsults and theologians from the eighth to ninth centuries onward, based on their interpretation of Koranic verses and long chapters in the canonical hadith, or acts and sayings of Muhammad. My own research also confirmed Magaard’s observation that the canonical hadith, whose significance to both Islam’s foundational jurists, and individual Muslims, as a permanent guide to pious behavior remains equivalent to the Koran, [ref 7] contains extensive, detailed discussions rationalizing jihad war, with a particular emphasis on jihad martyrdom. [ref 8]

Read more: Family Security Matters

An Interview with Ibn Warraq on his book “Why the West is Best”

With all that has been written recently on the progressive/Islamist assault on Western Civilization I thought it would be good to re-post this.

ibn_warraq (1)By Jamie Glazov On December 16, 2011:

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ibn Warraq, an Islamic scholar and a leading figure in Qur’anic criticism. He is a Senior Research Fellow at the Westminster Institute, VA. He has addressed distinguished governing bodies all over the world, including the United Nations in Geneva, and Members of the Dutch Parliament, at The Hague.

In 2007, Mr. Warraq completed a critical study of the thought of Edward Said, Defending the West. Paul Berman, author of Terror and Liberalism, described the book as “a glorious work of scholarship, and it is going to contribute mightily to modernizing the way we think about Western civilization and the rest of the world”.

Mr. Warraq was goaded into writing his first book, Why I am Not a Muslim (1995), when he felt personally threatened by the infamous fatwa pronounced on Salman Rushdie for his book that satirized Islam, its founder Muhammad, and his family. He felt that only a ferocious polemic against Islam as a totalitarian system would wake up Western intellectuals to the dangers that the Iranian theocratic regime posed to our own freedoms in the West. Since this passionate attack on Islam, Mr. Warraq has edited, with long introductions, a series of more scholarly works on the origins of the Koran, and the rise of Islam, works such as The Origins of the Koran, 1998,  The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, 2000, What the Koran Really Says, 2002, and the recent Which Koran?,2011.

images-39Ibn Warraq’s new book, Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate’s Defense of Liberal Democracy (Encounter Books, December 2011) carries on the defense of the West started in Defending the West. He defines, describes, and defends Western values, strengths and freedoms far too often taken for granted. This book also tackles the taboo subjects of racism in Asian culture, Arab slavery, and Islamic Imperialism. It begins with a homage to New York City, as a metaphor for all we hold dear in Western culture — pluralism, individualism, freedom of expression and thought, the complete freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness unhampered by totalitarian regimes, and theocratic doctrines.

FP: Ibn Warraq, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Let’s start with this question:

What does this book do that is unprecedented?

Warraq: First, thank you for inviting me to Front Page; it has been a while since we talked.

I do not think there are many books on the market that are unashamedly pro-Western, defending, without apologies, Western values, and talk without reserve of the superiority of Western Civilization, and which take on such taboo subjects as Asian racism, Arab anti-Semitism, Islamic Imperialism, the role of Islam and the Arabs in the Slave Trade, the complicity of Black Africans in the enslavement, and later selling of fellow Africans to Arabs, Persians, Indians and Europeans. There also cannot be any books on the market that defend Western Civilization that begin with a walk down Tin Pan Alley in New York City.

FP: What qualities of Western societies make them superior to those societies that have not adopted Western values?

Warraq: The self-evident superiority of the West stems from certain principles inherited, and further developed and refined over two millennia, from Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. We can, perhaps, subsume these principles under the abstract terms rationalism, universalism, and self-criticism, and then unfurl them in the following more substantial manner. Under rationalism, one would include the notions of truth, objective knowledge, and intellectual curiosity. Under universalism, I would include the idea of the unity of mankind, openness to “the Other” (an unfortunate phrase borrowed from recent anti-Western polemics), other ideas, other customs, other people; and finally under self-criticism the willingness to submit all of the West’s traditions to rational scrutiny. Under curiosity, I include all those examples of disinterested study. Other great ideas of the West which further help define its character and explain its success are: the separation of church and state, the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience and expression, human rights — in short, liberty and individual dignity which must never be sacrificed for some spurious collective, totalitarian goal.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: this triptych succinctly defines the attractiveness and superiority of Western civilization. In the West we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live as we choose. Liberty is codified in human rights, a magnificent Western creation but also, I believe, a universal good. Human rights transcend local or ethnocentric values, conferring equal dignity and value on all humanity regardless of sex, ethnicity, sexual preference, or religion. At the same time, it is in the West that human rights are most respected. It is the West that has liberated women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and gays and lesbians, recognizing and defending their rights. The notions of freedom and human rights were present at the dawn of Western civilization, as ideals at least, but have gradually come to fruition through supreme acts of self-criticism. Because of its exceptional capacity for self-criticism, the West took the initiative in abolishing slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in black Africa, where rival African tribes took black prisoners to be sold as slaves in the West.

Today, many non-Western cultures follow customs and practices that are clear violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). In many countries, especially Islamic ones, you are not free to read what you want. Under Sharia, or Islamic law, women are not free to marry whom they wish, and their rights of inheritance are circumscribed. Sharia, derived from the Koran and the practice and sayings of Muhammad, prescribes barbaric punishments such as stoning to death for adultery. It calls for homosexuals and apostates to be executed. In Saudi Arabia, among other countries, Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity, and Christians are not free to practice their faith. The Koran is not a rights-respecting document.

FP: What in your mind are the greatest achievements of the West?

Warraq: Not only is the West so successful economically, but it leads the world scientifically, and culturally (one only has to look at the list of Nobel Prize winners in science, and literature to gauge the overwhelming triumph of the West in these domains; or at the influence of the Western arts on the rest of the world- both High Culture and Popular entertainment, from Classical music to cinema).

The great ideas of the West—rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience, thought, and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy- quite an achievement, surely, for any civilization-—remain the best, and perhaps the only, means for all people, no matter of what race or creed, to reach their full potential and live in freedom.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: defines succinctly the attractiveness and superiority of Western civilization. We are free, in the West, to choose; we have real choice to pursue our own desires; we are free to set the goals and contents of our own lives; the West is made up of individuals who are free to decide what meaning to give to their lives-in short the glory of the West is that life is an open book,[1] while under Islam, life is a closed book, everything has been decided for you: God and the Holy Law set limits on the possible agenda of your life. In many non-Western countries especially Islamic ones, we are not free to read what we want; in Saudi Arabia, Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity, and Christians are not free to practice their faith — all clear violations of article 18 of the Universal Declaration.

This desire for knowledge, no matter where it leads, inherited from the Greeks, has led to another institution that is unequalled-or very rarely equaled- outside the West: the University. Here the outside world recognizes this superiority; it comes to the West to learn not only about the sciences developed in the West in the last five hundred years — in all departments of Physics, Biology and Chemistry — but also of their own culture. They come to the West to learn of the Eastern civilizations and languages. Easterners come to Oxford, Cambridge, or Harvard and Yale, the Sorbonne or Heidelberg to receive their doctorates, because they confer prestige unrivalled by similar doctorates from Third World countries.

A culture that gave the world the spiritual creations of the Classical Music of Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner and Schubert, the paintings of Michelangelo, and Raphael, Da Vinci and Rembrandt, does not need lessons from societies whose idea of spirituality is a heaven peopled with female virgins for the use of men, whose idea of heaven resembles a cosmic brothel. The West has given the world the symphony, and the novel.

To paraphrase Alan Kors[2], instead of the rigid, inhuman caste system of India, we have unparalleled social mobility in the West. Western society is a society of ever richer, more varied, more productive, more self-defined, and more satisfying lives; it is a society of boundless private charity; it is a society that broke, on behalf of merit, the seemingly eternal chains of station by birth. The West has given us the liberal miracle of individual rights, individual responsibility, merit, and human satisfaction.

FP: How do you define the West in your book?

Warraq: I define the West through its values of liberty, and rationalism, and then look at their historical origins. The origins of the modern West are often seen in the Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, but the roots of the Enlightenment can be found in habits of mind cultivated in Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem, and the institutions that grew from them. The Greeks gave us the city and the notion of citizenship, the ideals of democracy and liberty, rationalism and science, philosophy and history. The Romans systematized the law, defined private property, and emphasized individual responsibility. Judeo-Christianity added a sense of conscience and charity, tempering justice with forgiveness, and the concept of linear rather than cyclical time, which allowed the possibility of progress. The Middle Ages brought a deeper synthesis of Athens and Rome with Jerusalem, laying the foundations for the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, the Enlightenment, and pluralistic liberal democracy.

FP: How is New York City a metaphor for the greatness of the West?

Warraq: In New York, I show the principles of the United States Constitution being applied in a real, vibrant place. I give the term “Western civilization” a physical context in the very concrete of the city. The details of New York’s streets and structures create a believable, breathing image of Western civilization, just as Dickens created believable, breathing characters. See this building, I say—it’s an example of beautiful architecture, one of the glories of New York, and as integral to Western civilization as the works of Shakespeare. See that building—it’s the New York Public Library. Inside the Beaux Arts masterpiece is an institution that embodies key aspects of Western civilization: philanthropy, education, the love of knowledge, the preservation of all the best that has been written and published. Each time you admire the façade of the New York Public Library, you are paying homage to Western civilization. Each time you consult a book in the magnificent Main Reading Room, you are participating in the maintenance of Western civilization. By working and living in New York, you are breathing Western civilization, continuously reminded of its benefits and its values.

Describing a New York street that became known as Tin Pan Alley and the area known as Broadway led me into the Great American Songbook, created by composers and lyricists who were born and lived and worked in that great city. Discussions of Western civilization are too often confined to works of high art that reflect a relatively narrow element of public taste and experience. I maintain that Western popular culture at its best is worthy of respect and should be cherished as much as the operas of Wagner. The work of composers like George Gershwin, born and bred in New York, embodies Western ideals over and above the aesthetic principles of the music itself. I could have written at length about various artists associated with the metropolis—Fred Astaire, P. G. Wodehouse, George Kaufman, the Marx Brothers (born in the Yorkville section of the Upper East Side)—and their contributions to Western popular culture, with creations that are witty, graceful, inspired, and at times touched with genius.

New York, like life, is its own excuse. Nonetheless, no other city in the West—or indeed, in the world—so well exemplifies the inexhaustible possibilities of a modern metropolis, where the inven­tive and enterprising put into practice the many freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The implausible, well-nigh-miraculous functioning anarchy that we know as New York is adorned with every excellence of Western art. It is a city of manifold suggestions, which ministers to every ambition, engenders a thousand talents, nurtures ingenuity and experimentation.

FP: What changed within Western societies that allowed them to so dramatically outperform other societies over the past 500 years, when that wasn’t the case beforehand?

Warraq: What has made the West successful economically while so many countries in other parts of the world fail to provide adequate food and shelter for their citizens?  The short answer is the Scientific Revolution of the Seventeenth Century, and the Industrial Revolution of the Eighteenth Century, both depended on European Culture, Economic and Political Freedom, that is the institutions and habits of mind developed over two millennia.

Thus we can no longer defend the notion that Western prosperity is founded on the exploitation of poor people in the Third World. The rich countries are rich because of their practices at home, and because of their readiness to adopt and adapt new things, such as Chinese inventions or New World crops. Jared Diamond concluded that the “proximate factors” in Europe’s ascendance were “its development of a merchant class, capitalism, and patent protec­tion for inventions, its failure to develop absolute despots and crushing taxation, and its Greco-Judeo-Christian tradition of empirical inquiry.” Ironically, given Diamond’s otherwise anti-Western animus, some readers disparaged this view as ethnocentric, or as “utterly conventional Eurocentric history,” in James M. Blaut’s words. But Diamond, in fact, was pointing to some key ingredients of Western success; and behind those proximate factors were culture, ideas, and attitudes.


Sharia is totally incompatible with Western liberal democracy and with human rights in general, because it is a totalitarian con­struct designed to control every aspect of the life of Muslims and even non-Muslims. It discriminates against women in many ways: their testimony in court is worth half of a man’s testimony (Surah II.282); they inherit half what men do (IV.11); they may be beaten by men (IV.34); they may not marry non-Muslims (II.221). Sharia pre­scribes amputation of hands for theft (V.38), crucifixion for spreading disorder (V.33), stoning to death for adultery (Reliance of the Traveler, p. 610), execution of homosexuals and apostates (XXVI.165–66; Reliance, pp. 109 and 665). In other words, Muslims want to rein­troduce practices that we in the West long ago deemed barbaric.

Moreover, Islamic law is considered infallible and immutable. In contrast to the fixed edicts of Sharia, Western law is bound up with the realities of human life and conflict. It allows the flexibility of making new law to accommodate changing circumstances, within a framework of fundamental principles. The Western constitutions and systems of law are magnificent creations; are we really prepared to jettison them in the name of multiculturalism and globalization?

Most troubling are the efforts to enforce Islamic laws against “blasphemy” throughout the world. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is taking steps toward outlawing “defamation of reli­gion” (i.e. Islam) worldwide, and these efforts have, in effect, been abetted by Western governments under the guise of suppressing “hate speech.” As Islamic countries consolidate their hold on the UN Human Rights Council and demand national laws to suppress criticism of Islam, how long will it be before Western legislation for­bids research into the origins of the Koran or early Islamic history?

FP: Why does the Left in the West not stand up against Sharia? And why do you think the West has lost all self-confidence in its own values and is unable and unwilling to defend its own civilization?

Warraq: I think these two questions, and their answers, are related. One of the reasons why Westerners feel so shy about defending Western civilization was well-described by James Burnham, “When the Western liberal’s feeing of guilt and his associated feeling of moral vulnerability before the sorrows and demands of the wretched become obsessive, he often develops a generalized hatred of Western civilization and his own country as a part of the West….The guilt of the liberal is insatiable. He deserves, by his own judgment, to be kicked, slapped and spat on for his infinite crimes”

First there has been the influence of intellectuals and academics who have undermined the confidence of the West in its own values and strengths. For more than sixty years schools and universities in the West have inculcated three generations of the young with moral relativism leaving them incapable of passing moral or cross-cultural judgments, and unwilling to defend those values. Post-modernism and multiculturalism have completed the destruction of the West’s self-assurance.

Another reason was the intellectual terrorism of left-wing ideologues such as Edward Said, and his highly influential book, Orientalism, that bludgeoned Western intellectuals into silence. Post–World War II Western intellectuals and leftists were consumed by guilt for the West’s colonial past and continuing colonialist present, and they wholeheartedly embraced any theory or ideology that voiced or at least seemed to voice the putatively thwarted aspirations of the peoples of the third world. Orientalism came at the precise time when anti-Western rhetoric was at its most shrill and was already being taught at Western universities, and when third-worldism was at its most popular. Jean-Paul Sartre preached that all white men were complicit in the exploitation of the third world, and that violence against Westerners was a legitimate means for colonized men to re-acquire their manhood. Said went further: “It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric” (p. 204). Not only, for Said, is every European a racist, but he must necessarily be so.

As I have argued, Western civilization has been more willing to criticize itself than any other major culture. These self-administered admonishments are a far cry from Said’s savage strictures, and yet they found a new generation ready to take them to heart. Berating and blaming the West, a fashionable game in the 1960s and 1970s that impressionable youth took seriously, had the results we now see when the same generation appears unwilling to defend the West against the greatest threat that it has faced since the Nazis.

When shown that Said is indeed a fraud, his friends and supporters in academia sidestep the criticisms and evidence, and pretend, as did several reviewers of Robert Irwin’s book on Said, that Said may indeed have got the “footling details” wrong but he was, nonetheless, onto a higher truth. Said’s influence, thus, was a result of a conjunction of several intellectual and political trends: post-French Algeria and post-Vietnam tiers mondisme (third-worldism); the politicization of increasingly postmodernist English departments that had argued away the very idea of truth, objective truth; and the influence of Foucault. In effect Said played on each of these confidence tricks to create a master fraud that bound American academics and Middle East tyrants in unstated bonds of anti- American complicity.

FP: This is a toxic combination with Islam’s supreme confidence and agenda to exploit the West’s moral weakness and cultural confusion. Your comment?

Warraq: The West must wake up to the nature of the enemy. Islam is supremely confident in its values, and, of course, convinced that these values are blessed by God, and it is the God-given duty of every Muslim to spread Islam, until it covers the entire world. This is not right-wing paranoia of Western extremists but self-confessed principles everywhere openly proclaimed by the Muslims themselves. Only the Left refuses to recognize it, and is scandalously complicit in helping Islam take over the Western world. It is no less than civilizational suicide. It is perhaps already too late as, on December 13, 2011, the White House invited the OIC within its doors to plan how best to destroy the West from within.

Read more at Front Page


Defending Islam: The Height of Leftist Hypocrisy

By: Amber Pawlik

Ever since 9-11, Islam has been a topic of debate in many circles.  President George Bush announced that Islam is a “religion of peace.”  Leftists, though, in particular have convinced us that to criticize Islam is to be “intolerant.”  This has created a culture unwilling to call Islam for what it is.  Here is a list of common debate arguments in defense of Islam, usually given by leftists, and quick rebuttals to them, proving otherwise.


You are a racist if you condemn Islam.  

As soon as you go to criticize Islam, the first response you always get hit with is “you are a racist.”  This is not true.  Islam is an ideology not a race.  You can criticize Islam in the same way that you can criticize communism, liberalism, feminism, etc.   

In fact, the biggest victims of Islam are Muslims themselves.  Every Muslim I have ever met is bright and hard working.  It is unfortunate that Muslims are under the spell of Islam, which prevents them from making the kind of scientific and technological progress they clearly could otherwise make.


Christianity can be just as violent as Islam.  

When you point out the verses in the Koran which call for the murder of Christians and Jews, etc., or point out that Muslims are killing people in the name of Allah, the instant response you get is, “Christianity has violent passages too, and people have killed other people in the name of Christianity too.”  

All I have to say is:  and?  If people are using Christianity as a reason to kill innocent people, guess what:  they are wrong too.  You can’t excuse one evil by pointing to another evil.   

Besides that, there are no Christian nations right now that are responsible for killing 3000 Americans or 200 Spaniards.  It is the Islamic nations and organizations that are.   


It’s the wrong interpretation of Islam that is the problem.  

Leftists insist that the Koran isn’t bad; it is the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran.  I’m not sure how anyone can fail to correctly interpret statements like, 

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, Surah4:89, Nobel Koran) but I guess that’s just me.

When leftists say it is the “wrong interpretation” of Islam that is wrong, really what they mean is “why can’t Muslims just ignore the bad parts of the Koran?”  Leftists don’t understand the psyche of the person who takes things literally.  To them, things are just suggestions not commandments – even the law, as evidenced by the San Francisco mess.  

It’s not the wrong interpretation of the Koran that produces terrorists; it is an exact interpretation of the Koran that produces terrorists.


Most Muslims are nice people.  

The more emotional appeal is that most Muslims are nice, hard working people and criticizing Islam is to criticize these nice people.  Of course most Muslims are nice people.  The problem is in the leadership, i.e. people who are responsible for taking the Koran seriously and literally, not the naïve followers.   

It is not limited to leadership in the Middle East either. Representative Peter T. King said publicly while promoting his book Vale of Tears that he estimates 80-85% of the Muslim leadership in America supports “Islamic fundamentalism.”   

Islam is not benign.  To ignore this, being politically-correct, is to ignore a very large, deadly pink elephant in the room. 


Islam has produced scientific achievements.  

Lots of people insist that Muslim culture has produced various scientific achievements. The biggest “Muslim” achievement that they point to is that they supposedly discovered Algebra.  This isn’t true.  It wasn’t Muslims or even Arabs that invented Algebra:  it was the Iranians. The Iranians have had a very enlightened culture – one that radical Muslims have waged a war against, in an effort to Islamicize them (which you will never hear leftists condemn).   The Iranians also had their own religion, Zoroastrian, which was as opposite as you can get from Islam.    

Something else Islam defenders might point to as proof that Islam can produce scientific progress is a man named Razi, who they say was Muslim.  Razi made several findings in medicine.  But Razi, again, was not Arab or Muslim but Iranian.  In fact, he was so hostile to Islam that he wrote several books denouncing faith and upholding reason, and became a heretic.  Razi, an enlightened Iranian, was to the Muslim world what Galileo or Copernicus was to ours.  After treating these men of scientific achievement as heretics forced to live like gypsies, claiming them as proof that Islam can produce scientific achievement is a bit much.   

There is my short list of common arguments regarding Islam.  This brings me to what I believe is the biggest issue of our time and one of the largest hypocrisies. 

Leftists try to claim they are enlightened, sophisticated people, supporting the mind not faith – therefore denounce religion, especially Christianity.  Yet it is these very leftists that are most sympathetic to Islam: one of the most faith-based and anti-enlightened religions that has ever existed.   

Despite their theatrics, announcing they are intellectual, leftists are not enlightened or intellectual.  Genuine enlightenment came when men discovered reason and reality.  It started with one man:  Aristotle.  Accepting that reality was firm and external to man and that men can use reason to understand and explore it allowed for an explosion of scientific progress, technology, and civilization, as we know it.   

Read more at Faith Freedom