Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The myth of moderate Islam
The Spectator (U.K.) ^ | 07/30/05 | Patrick Sookhdeo

Posted on 07/28/2005 6:48:23 AM PDT by Pokey78

The funeral of British suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer was held in absentia in his family’s ancestral village, near Lahore, Pakistan. Thousands of people attended, as they did again the following day when a qul ceremony was held for Tanweer. During qul, the Koran is recited to speed the deceased’s journey to paradise, though in Tanweer’s case this was hardly necessary. Being a shahid (martyr), he is deemed to have gone straight to paradise. The 22-year-old from Leeds, whose bomb at Aldgate station killed seven people, was hailed by the crowd as ‘a hero of Islam’.

Some in Britain cannot conceive that a suicide bomber could be a hero of Islam. Since 7/7 many have made statements to attempt to explain what seems to them a contradiction in terms. Since the violence cannot be denied, their only course is to argue that the connection with Islam is invalid. The deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Brian Paddick, said that ‘Islam and terrorists are two words that do not go together.’ His boss, the Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, asserted that there is nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim.

But surely we should give enough respect to those who voluntarily lay down their lives to accept what they themselves say about their motives. If they say they do it in the name of Islam, we must believe them. Is it not the height of illiberalism and arrogance to deny them the right to define themselves?

On 8 July the London-based Muslim Weekly unblushingly published a lengthy opinion article by Abid Ullah Jan entitled ‘Islam, Faith and Power’. The gist of the article is that Muslims should strive to gain political and military power over non-Muslims, that warfare is obligatory for all Muslims, and that the Islamic state, Islam and Sharia (Islamic law) should be established throughout the world. All is supported with quotations from the Koran. It concludes with a veiled threat to Britain. The bombings the previous day were a perfect illustration of what Jan was advocating, and the editor evidently felt no need to withdraw the article or to apologise for it. His newspaper is widely read and distributed across the UK.

By far the majority of Muslims today live their lives without recourse to violence, for the Koran is like a pick-and-mix selection. If you want peace, you can find peaceable verses. If you want war, you can find bellicose verses. You can find verses which permit only defensive jihad, or you can find verses to justify offensive jihad.

You can even find texts which specifically command terrorism, the classic one being Q8:59-60, which urges Muslims to prepare themselves to fight non-Muslims, ‘Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies’ (A. Yusuf Ali’s translation). Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik’s book The Quranic Concept of War is widely used by the military of various Muslim countries. Malik explains Koranic teaching on strategy: ‘In war our main objective is the opponent’s heart or soul, our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts.... Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision on the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose on him.’

If you permit yourself a little judicious cutting, the range of choice in Koranic teaching is even wider. A verse one often hears quoted as part of the ‘Islam is peace’ litany allegedly runs along the lines: ‘If you kill one soul it is as if you have killed all mankind.’ But the full and unexpurgated version of Q5:32 states: ‘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.’ The very next verse lists a selection of savage punishments for those who fight the Muslims and create ‘mischief’ (or in some English translations ‘corruption’) in the land, punishments which include execution, crucifixion or amputation. What kind of ‘mischief in the land’ could merit such a reaction? Could it be interpreted as secularism, democracy and other non-Islamic values in a land? Could the ‘murder’ be the killing of Muslims in Iraq? Just as importantly, do the Muslims who keep quoting this verse realise what a deception they are imposing on their listeners?

It is probably true that in every faith ordinary people will pick the parts they like best and practise those, while the scholars will work out an official version. In Islam the scholars had a particularly challenging task, given the mass of contradictory texts within the Koran. To meet this challenge they developed the rule of abrogation, which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original intention of Mohammed, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war. For the peaceable verses of the Koran are almost all earlier, dating from Mohammed’s time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina. Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, Mohammed’s own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da’wa (mission).

So the mantra ‘Islam is peace’ is almost 1,400 years out of date. It was only for about 13 years that Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards it became increasingly aggressive, albeit with periods of peaceful co-existence, particularly in the colonial period, when the theology of war was not dominant. For today’s radical Muslims — just as for the mediaeval jurists who developed classical Islam — it would be truer to say ‘Islam is war’. One of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, al-Ghurabaa, stated in the wake of the two London bombings, ‘Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir.’ A kafir is an unbeliever (i.e., a non-Muslim), a term of gross insult.

In the words of Mundir Badr Haloum, a liberal Muslim who lectures at a Syrian university, ‘Ignominious terrorism exists, and one cannot but acknowledge its being Islamic.’ While many individual Muslims choose to live their personal lives only by the (now abrogated) peaceable verses of the Koran, it is vain to deny the pro-war and pro-terrorism doctrines within their religion.

Could it be that the young men who committed suicide were neither on the fringes of Muslim society in Britain, nor following an eccentric and extremist interpretation of their faith, but rather that they came from the very core of the Muslim community and were motivated by a mainstream interpretation of Islam?

Muslims who migrated to the UK came initially for economic reasons, seeking employment. But over the last 50 years their communities have evolved away from assimilation with the British majority towards the creation of separate and distinct entities, mimicking the communalism of the British Raj. As a Pakistani friend of mine who lives in London said recently, ‘The British gave us all we ever asked for; why should we complain?’ British Muslims now have Sharia in areas of finance and mortgages; halal food in schools, hospitals and prisons; faith schools funded by the state; prayer rooms in every police station in London; and much more. This process has been assisted by the British government through its philosophy of multiculturalism, which has allowed some Muslims to consolidate and create a parallel society in the UK.

The Muslim community now inhabits principally the urban centres of England as well as some parts of Scotland and Wales. It forms a spine running down the centre of England from Bradford to London, with ribs extending east and west. It is said that within 10 to 15 years most British cities in these areas will have Muslim-majority populations, and will be under local Islamic political control, with the Muslim community living under Sharia.

What happens after this stage depends on which of the two main religious traditions among Pakistani-background British Muslims gains the ascendancy. The Barelwi majority believe in a slow evolution, gradually consolidating their Muslim societies, and finally achieving an Islamic state. The Deobandi minority argue for a quicker process using politics and violence to achieve the same result. Ultimately, both believe in the goal of an Islamic state in Britain where Muslims will govern their own affairs and, as the finishing touch, everyone else’s affairs as well. Islamism is now the dominant voice in contemporary Islam, and has become the seedbed of the radical movements. It is this that Sir Ian Blair has not grasped. For some time now the British government has been quoting a figure of 1.6 million for the Muslim population. Muslims themselves claim around 3 million, and this is likely to be far nearer to the truth. The growth of the Muslim community comes from their high birth-rate, primary immigration, and asylum-seekers both official and unofficial. There are also conversions to Islam.

The violence which is endemic in Muslim societies such as Pakistan is increasingly present in Britain’s Muslim community. Already we have violence by Pakistani Muslims against Kurdish Muslims, by Muslims against non-Muslims living among them (Caribbean people in the West Midlands, for example), a rapid growth in honour killings, and now suicide bombings. It is worth noting that many conflicts around the world are not internal to the Muslim community but external, as Muslims seek to gain territorial control, for example, in south Thailand, the southern Philippines, Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine. Is it possible that a conflict of this nature could occur in Britain?

Muslims must stop this self-deception. They must with honesty recognise the violence that has existed in their history in the same way that Christians have had to do, for Christianity has a very dark past. Some Muslims have, with great courage, begun to do this.

Secondly, they must look at the reinterpretation of their texts, the Koran, hadith and Sharia, and the reformation of their faith. Mundir Badr Haloum has described this as ‘exorcising’ the terrorism from Islam. Mahmud Muhammad Taha argued for a distinction to be drawn between the Meccan and the Medinan sections of the Koran. He advocated a return to peaceable Meccan Islam, which he argued is applicable to today, whereas the bellicose Medinan teachings should be consigned to history. For taking this position he was tried for apostasy, found guilty and executed by the Sudanese government in 1985. Another modernist reformer was the Pakistani Fazlur Rahman, who advocated the ‘double movement’; i.e., understanding Koranic verses in their context, their ratio legis, and then using the philosophy of the Koran to interpret that in a modern, social and moral sense. Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, an Egyptian professor who argued similarly that the Koran and hadith should be interpreted according to the context in which they originated, was charged with apostasy, found guilty in June 1995 and ordered to separate from his wife.

The US-based Free Muslims Coalition, which was set up after 9/11 to promote a modern and secular version of Islam, has proposed the following:

1. A re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century, where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.

2. Separation of religion and state.

3. Democracy as the best form of government.

4. Secularism in all forms of political activity.

5. Equality for women.

6. Religion to be a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God, not to be forced on anyone.

This tempting vision of an Islam reformed along such lines is unlikely to be achieved except by a long and painful process of small steps. What might these be and how can we make a start? One step would be, as urged by the Prince of Wales, that every Muslim should ‘condemn these atrocities [the London bombings] and root out those among them who preach and practise such hatred and bitterness’. Universal condemnation of suicide bombers instead of acclamation as heroes would indeed be an excellent start.

Mansoor Ijaz has suggested a practical three-point action plan:

1. Forbid radical hate-filled preaching in British mosques. Deport imams who fail to comply.

2. Scrutinise British Islamic charities to identify those that fund terrorism. Prevent them receiving more than 10 per cent of their income from overseas.

3. Form community-watch groups comprising Muslim citizens to contribute useful information on fanatical Muslims to the authorities.

To this could be added Muslim acceptance of a secular society as the basis for their religious existence, an oath of allegiance to the Crown which would override their allegiance to their co-religionists overseas, and deliberate steps to move out of their ghetto-style existence both physically and psychologically.

For the government, the time has come to accept Trevor Phillips’s statement that multiculturalism is dead. We need to rediscover and affirm a common British identity. This would impinge heavily on the future development of faith schools, which should now be stopped.

Given the fate of some earlier would-be reformers, perhaps King Abdullah of Jordan or a leader of his stature might have the best chance of initiating a process of modernist reform. The day before the bombings he was presiding over a conference of senior scholars from eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and, amazingly, they issued a statement endorsing fatwas forbidding any Muslim from those eight schools to be declared an apostate. So reform is possible. The only problem with this particular action is that it may have protected Muslim leaders from being killed by dissident Muslims, but it negated a very helpful fatwa which had been issued in March by the Spanish Islamic scholars declaring Osama bin Laden an apostate. Could not the King re-convene his conference and ask them to issue a fatwa banning violence against non-Muslims also? This would extend the self-preservation of the Muslim community to the whole non-Muslim world.

Such reform — the changing of certain fairly central theological principles — will not be easy to achieve. It will be a long, hard road for Islam to get its house in order so that it can co-exist peacefully with the rest of society in the 21st century.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo is Director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: crushislam; islam; islamicfascists; islamisadeathcult; islamisevil; islamisnotareligion; islamofascism; knowislamnopeace; muslim; muslims; religionofpeace; religionofpieces; trop; waronterror; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

1 posted on 07/28/2005 6:48:23 AM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Smart guy. Wonder how long until the liberals start wailing or a fatwa is issued for his death.


2 posted on 07/28/2005 6:55:10 AM PDT by FierceKulak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Muslims must stop this self-deception. They must with honesty recognise the violence that has existed in their history in the same way that Christians have had to do, for Christianity has a very dark past.

While I agree with this article as a whole, this statement is absolutely ludicrous. To compare the history of Islam to the history of Christianity is revisionist drivel and historically dishonest.

The past of the Catholic Church is not as dark as people would like to think.
3 posted on 07/28/2005 7:03:25 AM PDT by mike182d ("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Ping!


4 posted on 07/28/2005 7:10:41 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

"Islam and terrorists are two words that don't go together" says it all. Why should Islam change when the west holds them blameless? Lunacy! Anywy, two words that do go together are Islamic terrorists.


5 posted on 07/28/2005 7:11:39 AM PDT by Mr. Keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Convert from ECUSA; Dajjal

Ping!


6 posted on 07/28/2005 7:11:54 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; jan in Colorado; SheLion; knighthawk; backhoe; Salem; Dark Skies; USF; Fred Nerks
BTTT

islam explained

7 posted on 07/28/2005 7:16:55 AM PDT by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform

I've sent that ( and related ) link to everyone I know- I hope we wake up in time, because the enemy is inside the gates, already.


8 posted on 07/28/2005 7:19:58 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mike182d

It's plenty dark, I'd say. Christianity has outgrown violent conquest and coerced conversion, and it is no longer used in most of the world to legitimize unelected governments (or maybe you're also a monarchist as well). The triumph of Christianity is that it has overcome it's long, dark history. I'd say the historical parallel is useful in instructing Christians on the dangers of Islam, and Muslims on what model they need to consider.

It's intellectually dishonest to deny the violent acts committed by men in the name of Christianity. As for the past of the Catholic church, I doubt you can be reasoned with on this topic. Reminds of the time I was lectured by a defender of the Church's past about Martin Luther's anti-semitism. Seemed ironic.


9 posted on 07/28/2005 7:25:40 AM PDT by usafsk ((Know what you're talking about before you dance the QWERTY waltz))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

I think the sleeping giant took a heavy duty sleeping pill.


10 posted on 07/28/2005 7:26:24 AM PDT by CAP811 (One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: usafsk
I'd say the historical parallel is useful in instructing Christians on the dangers of Islam, and Muslims on what model they need to consider.

Simply put, violence and conquests are contrary to the life and teaching and Spirit of Jesus but they are consistent with the life and teaching and spirit of Mohammed.

11 posted on 07/28/2005 7:29:15 AM PDT by Dark Skies ("The sleeper must awaken!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; EdReform
One of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, al-Ghurabaa, stated in the wake of the two London bombings, ‘Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir.’ A kafir is an unbeliever (i.e., a non-Muslim), a term of gross insult.

OFENSIVE JIHAD (EXPLAINED BY MUSLIMS)

(excerpt)

"I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that, ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’ and they establish the prayer and the zakat. And if they do this, then from me is protected their blood and their wealth except by the right granted by Allah."

As for his (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) actions, they are full of actions that show Jihaad is to start the fighting. So when he went out to Badr to take the caravan belonging to the Quraysh, this was going out to fight, this is offensive – as Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) initiated the action before the Quraysh. Likewise, when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) invaded Hawazin in the battle of Hunayn, when he (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) seiged Ta’if and the battle of Mutah to fight the Romans and the Battle of Tabuk – all of these are evidences to show that Jihaad is to start fighting kuffar (offensive). This should clarify the erroneous view that in origin Jihaad is defensive.


12 posted on 07/28/2005 7:30:40 AM PDT by USF (I see your Jihad and raise you a Crusade )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The 22-year-old from Leeds, whose bomb at Aldgate station killed seven people, was hailed by the crowd as ‘a hero of Islam’.

"We come in peace! We come in peace!"

13 posted on 07/28/2005 7:30:54 AM PDT by Schnucki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Since the violence cannot be denied, their only course is to argue that the connection with Islam is invalid. The deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Brian Paddick, said that ‘Islam and terrorists are two words that do not go together.’ His boss, the Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, asserted that there is nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim.
 
The inability or unwillingness to identify the enemy will assure that England is a muslim caliphate within my lifetime.
Owl_Eagle

(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,

 it was probably sarcasm)

14 posted on 07/28/2005 7:33:40 AM PDT by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Marked for a repeat read.


15 posted on 07/28/2005 7:39:09 AM PDT by frithguild (If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usafsk
It's intellectually dishonest to deny the violent acts committed by men in the name of Christianity. As for the past of the Catholic church, I doubt you can be reasoned with on this topic. Reminds of the time I was lectured by a defender of the Church's past about Martin Luther's anti-semitism. Seemed ironic.

Prior to the reformation, the Catholic Church was Christianity. So, by referring to the Catholic Church's history, I refer to the whole of Christianity's history prior to the 16th Century.

Second, it may be intellectually dishonest to deny the violent acts committed by men in the name of Christianity, but these acts were not done by the Church herself. Take for example the masacre of Jews in Germany during the Crusades. This was committed by ignorant, illiterate, and overzealous plebians and thoroughly condemned by the Church - in fact many bishops in Germany tried to hide Jews in their Cathedrals during the massacre.

The question is: are we defining religions here as an entity in and of themselves or by the acts of its alleged followers? The dark history of Islam is not about the wrongdoings of over-zealous followers but rather a product of the religion itself, as an entity. The same cannot be said about the history of the Catholic (Christian) Church and thus the histories of the two are no where near comparable.
16 posted on 07/28/2005 7:41:18 AM PDT by mike182d ("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

I would agree. However, forced conversion and conquest was practiced for centuries by men whose actions were endorsed by the Church. It took centuries for this to change, as it will with Islam. They've not had a reformation. I'd love it if they'd all just drop the Koran and convert, but it's much more likely that a moderation of belief will occur.

Regardless, I don't expect much to change without an increase in violence both against civilized nations and within the Islamic world.


17 posted on 07/28/2005 7:46:46 AM PDT by usafsk ((Know what you're talking about before you dance the QWERTY waltz))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Some in Britain cannot conceive that a suicide bomber could be a hero of Islam

It is exactly this kind of head-in-the-sand mentality that permeates Western democracies and puts every single one of us in peril. The followers of islam are completely dedicated to their religion and will sacrifice everything possible (including their own lives) to see that islam becomes the dominant force on Earth.

I fear that, even with more horrific attacks like 9/11, we still won't see the threat of islam for what it truly is - a murderous false religion and philosophy in which whose rabid followers gleefully bestow death and destruction upon anyone who opposes it.
18 posted on 07/28/2005 7:49:17 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (Islam is war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

I thought of something the other day. It's commonly said that
1. Islam is a cult
2. Suicide bombers are "brainwashed".
3. Suicide bombers often come from the most normal of circumstances, educated, middle-class etc. etc. etc.
So how is this brainwashing accomplished?

Well, here's what I thought of the other day. Muslims are instructed to pray 5 times a day. We know what the imams and the mullahs preach and we know what they write, but what do these muslims pray about? I'd be willing to bet that in this case prayer = brainwashing. I'll bet you could take any cross section of humanity, give them a script that they are to intensely "pray" about 5 times a day and give them a year or two or three and what do you have? A brainwashed robot in most cases I'd wager.

What do these people "pray" about? Here's my guess. Death to America. Death to Jews. Give me courage to be a martyr. Make me worthy of the martyrs that have gone before. So I wonder, what are the so-called "moderates" praying about? I'm betting it ain't "God bless Mommy and Daddy and big sister and big brother". I'm betting it's more like "death to America" too.

When you see these lines of muslims with their butts in the air and their hands turned up - you just got to ask yourself - what script is running through their heads? What, exactly, is their so-called "prayer"?


19 posted on 07/28/2005 7:51:56 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten (Is your problem ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usafsk

The difference is that the Inquisition contradicts the Bible, while Jihad is fundamental to the Koran.


20 posted on 07/28/2005 7:55:36 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: usafsk
There have actually been many reformations within Christianity and in the hearts of individual Christians. Reformation in Christianity means a move away from the errors of man and closer to Jesus.

Reformation in Islam (to a less violent definition of Islam ) would require a movement away from its prophet and I am not sure that Islam can move further away from its prophet and still be Islam. And even if it did, there would always be devout followers calling for a return to Real Islam as envisioned by Mohammed.

21 posted on 07/28/2005 7:55:48 AM PDT by Dark Skies ("The sleeper must awaken!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Osama bin Laden IS Islam's "Martin Luther" and Reformation!

THIS IS NOT FROM AL-QAEDA!

THIS IS JUST A BIT OF WHAT ALL MUSLIMS, INCLUDING SO-CALLED MODERATES, SIGN UP FOR WHEN THEY SAY THE BISMALLAH, "THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS PROPHET"!

KORAN [3.28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

KORAN [4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

KORAN [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

KORAN [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

KORAN [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair [Ezra] is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:176] Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:177] Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:56:791] Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!' "

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6981] Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him.

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6982] Ubaidullah has reported this hadith with this chain of transmitters (and the Words are):
"There is a Jew behind me."

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6983] Abdullah b. 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
You and the Jews would fight against one another until a stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6984] Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:
The Jews will fight against you and you will gain victory over them until the stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; kill him.

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6985] Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:283] Narrated Abu Juhaifa:
I asked Ali, "Do you have the knowledge of any Divine Inspiration besides what is in Allah's Book?" 'Ali replied, "No, by Him Who splits the grain of corn and creates the soul. I don't think we have such knowledge, but we have the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur'an, and we have what is written in this paper as well." I asked, "What is written in this paper?" He replied, "(The regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives, ******** and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel." *********

HADITH Sunan Abu Dawud [14:2526] Narrated Anas ibn Malik:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.

KORAN: http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/
HADITH: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html
22 posted on 07/28/2005 8:00:37 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usafsk
I would agree. However, forced conversion and conquest was practiced for centuries by men whose actions were endorsed by the Church. It took centuries for this to change, as it will with Islam. They've not had a reformation.

Which actions were "endorsed" by the Church?

Furthermore, the Reformation was a cause of many Catholic deaths in the name of conversion, so I wouldn't stand so tall on that pedestal.
23 posted on 07/28/2005 8:04:20 AM PDT by mike182d ("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

well said , I'm aghast that we're still playing footsie with these muderous LIARS , we're in the BIGGEST,most protracted war for our very existence EVER!!!


24 posted on 07/28/2005 8:05:19 AM PDT by Dad yer funny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
The difference is that the Inquisition contradicts the Bible, while Jihad is fundamental to the Koran.

For the forum's education:

The Real Inquisition
25 posted on 07/28/2005 8:10:24 AM PDT by mike182d ("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Just as importantly, do the Muslims who keep quoting this verse realise what a deception they are imposing on their listeners?

PART 1: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html
PART 2: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/2.html
PART 3: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/3.html

                     al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation (Part I)

Assallamu `Alaykum,

    Today, I would like to present the concept of "al-Taqiyya" in the
following exposition. This topic is as thorny as previous ones have
been, and many people have experienced great difficulty in trying to
understand it. I pray to Allah (SWT) that this discussion will help loosen
some of the intellectual rust that has accumulated over the years in many
peoples' minds. The interminable negative propaganda that people are
bombarded with on a daily basis serves to nurture feelings of animosity and
disbelief towards the Shia; additionally, it may promote the explicit
denial of proven facts and truths. Nonetheless, you owe it to yourself to
search for the truth; and, indeed, Allah (SWT) has commanded that you do.
As such, it is your prerogative to believe or reject everything that the
Shia claim; but my plea is that the next time you hear a discussion about
the Shia in your Mosque, or any place else, please remember my posts, and
question the person who is discussing the topic. Only then, will you see my
point, In Sha' Allah (SWT).

I intend to demonstrate and prove that the concept of "al-Taqiyya" is an
integral part of Islam, and that it is NOT a Shi'ite concoction.

As usual, the two perspectives, the Sunnis and the Shia, will be presented
to maintain a level of fairness and integrity in the reporting of this
topic.


============
Introduction
============
The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's
beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies  at a
time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from
physical and/or mental injury."  A one-word translation would be
"Dissimulation."

The above definition must be elaborated upon before any undertaking of this
topic is to ensue.  Although correct, the definition suffers from an
apparent generalization, and lacks some fundamental details that should be
construed:

First, the CONCEALMENT of one's beliefs does NOT necessitate an ABANDONMENT
of these beliefs.  The distinction between "concealment" and "abandonment"
MUST be noted here.

Second, there are numerous exceptions to the above definition, and they
MUST be judged according to the situation that one is placed in.  As such,
one should NOT make a narrow-minded generalization that encompasses all
situations, thereby failing to fully absorb the spirit of the definition.

Third, the word "beliefs" and/or "convictions" does NOT necessarily mean
"religious" beliefs and/or convictions.

With the above in mind, it becomes evident that a better, and more accurate
definition of  "al-Taqiyya" is "diplomacy."  The true spirit of "al-
Taqiyya" is better embodied in the single word "diplomacy" because it
encompasses a comprehensive spectrum of behaviors that serve to further the
vested interests of all parties involved.

26 posted on 07/28/2005 8:11:20 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mike182d
The question is: are we defining religions here as an entity in and of themselves or by the acts of its alleged followers? The dark history of Islam is not about the wrongdoings of over-zealous followers but rather a product of the religion itself, as an entity. The same cannot be said about the history of the Catholic (Christian) Church and thus the histories of the two are no where near comparable.

From my standpoint, it is only in the past several centuries that Jews were as safe in Christian lands as they were in Muslim. It's only in the past 50-100 years that the Christian world has become significantly more friendly towards Jews than the Islamic world.

27 posted on 07/28/2005 8:12:19 AM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian (Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: usafsk
The triumph of Christianity

The triumph of Christianity has always been inherent in its scriptures, and they do not prescribe violence and forced conversion.

The Qu'ran and Hadith are different. Islam was founded on violent conquest and its scriptures do not merely permit but expressly command the forced conversion of the world to Islam. Infidels who do not submit are to be killed.

28 posted on 07/28/2005 8:13:10 AM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Is it not the height of illiberalism and arrogance to deny them the right to define themselves?

It's racist and fascist too.

29 posted on 07/28/2005 8:13:56 AM PDT by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mike182d

Thanks Mike, that's a very informative link.


30 posted on 07/28/2005 8:22:52 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Salem; SJackson; Alouette; dervish; Cornpone; Do not dub me shapka broham; IAF ThunderPilot; ...

Ping!


31 posted on 07/28/2005 8:30:33 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA (tired of all the shucking and jiving)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

The actual definition of "al-taqiyya" is the justification for cowardice. It is the only way a coward can be made to feel like a hero/martyr.


32 posted on 07/28/2005 8:32:30 AM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alexander Rubin

Ping!


33 posted on 07/28/2005 8:33:01 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA (tired of all the shucking and jiving)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mike182d
The Real Inquisition

It's a bit of a whitewash, don't you think, in that there is no authority from the New Testament for doing anything to "heretics" beside removing them from the congregation. And the secular power of the church was anathema to a "kingdom not of this world".
34 posted on 07/28/2005 8:33:16 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
The actual definition of "al-taqiyya" is the justification for cowardice. It is the only way a coward can be made to feel like a hero/martyr.

You can't judge them by the Christian standard, "Matthew [10:33] But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." It is just another way that Islam is the inverse of everything Christian and noble.
35 posted on 07/28/2005 8:38:46 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I am astounded & saddened that the wonderful culture of the UK is so close to extinction!

By the time the reformation of islam is complete, if ever, the former multicultural nations will be a part of the caliphate. Britain will be west pakistan & the USA will be west saudi arabia. Remember, the christian reformation took hundreds of years.

Besides, the vast majority of those who call for reform of islam are NOT muslims. Tony Blair & George Bush, etc. can call for reform all they want, but every Friday around the world, many (1,000 - 10,000 - 100,000?) islamic clerics call for violent jihad against ALL non-muslims.

What would be the consequences for the USA of there were just 1,000 Jim Jones or David Koresh type preachers, heavily financed, spreading their vile nonsense across our country? Would it too long before we had another Civil War?

Regarding the death of multiculturalism - it is still alive & well. The London bombings are but a slight wound to this idiocy. I fear the only thing that will kill it is Islam!
36 posted on 07/28/2005 8:41:40 AM PDT by Mister Da (Nuke 'em til they glow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

yup , they've proven themselves to be murderous LIARS , our half measures and stern words will get us killed


37 posted on 07/28/2005 8:47:40 AM PDT by Dad yer funny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
It's a bit of a whitewash, don't you think, in that there is no authority from the New Testament for doing anything to "heretics" beside removing them from the congregation. And the secular power of the church was anathema to a "kingdom not of this world".

Hardly. There is no authority from the New Testament claiming that the New Testament, or the Bible, is the sole authority.
38 posted on 07/28/2005 8:51:41 AM PDT by mike182d ("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; backhoe; Stopislamnow; Fred Nerks; canalabamian; Leapfrog; Critical Bill; King Prout; ...
Thanks so much for posting this. It's a "keeper." Must be read several times. Meanwhile, do you all recall how Harry Belafonte described the 9/11 attacks on America as "MISCHIEF?"

"The very next verse lists a selection of savage punishments for those who fight the Muslims and create ‘mischief’ (or in some English translations ‘corruption’) in the land, punishments which include execution, crucifixion or amputation. What kind of ‘mischief in the land’ could merit such a reaction?"

Thanks again. I'm glad I saw this one!

Char

39 posted on 07/28/2005 8:54:20 AM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It will be a long, hard road for Islam to get its house in order so that it can co-exist peacefully with the rest of society in the 21st century.

If we truly want to survive, this is not something we should hold our breath over.

1300+ years of worldwide Islamic murder, conquest and forced conversion does not set a good precedent for optimism that Islam will change from blood red to peaceful white.

40 posted on 07/28/2005 9:02:11 AM PDT by Gritty ("Madrid,London and the Theo Van Gogh murder are the opening shots of a European civil war-Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da
"I fear the only thing that will kill it is Islam!"

Islam must be entirely discredited and eradicated. However, if it was gone tomorrow, Muslims would simply find another excuse. They could decide, using al-taqiyya, to convert en masse to Christianity. (That would be a mess, wouldn't it)? They could subscribe to any or to no faith, and the struggle, usch as it is, would reveal itself for what it is - class warfare.

41 posted on 07/28/2005 9:03:00 AM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
From my standpoint, it is only in the past several centuries that Jews were as safe in Christian lands as they were in Muslim. It's only in the past 50-100 years that the Christian world has become significantly more friendly towards Jews than the Islamic world.

Why would Jews be more safe in the land governed by a holy book that exhorts its followers to kill Jews than in a land governed by those whose faith is based on the same God and scriptures as those of the Jews?

42 posted on 07/28/2005 9:06:40 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mike182d
There is no authority from the New Testament claiming that the New Testament, or the Bible, is the sole authority.

There is no authority for anything else's claim to authority in Christianity, and certainly none in contradiction to it. So there you have it, it is redundant or in contradiction. There are no other possibilities.
43 posted on 07/28/2005 9:09:56 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Convert from ECUSA

I just got an e-mail from Bigfoot, he says Islam is moderate and a Religion of Peace.

It may not have been Bigfoot, I think it's those wacky guys Tony and George pretending to be Bigfoot.


44 posted on 07/28/2005 9:11:33 AM PDT by Sabramerican (Sarcasm/Some here don't get it unless you spell it out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
There is no authority for anything else's claim to authority in Christianity,

How about the institution that deemed the current collection of writings in the NT as authoritative? Or did they not have the authority to deem it as such in the 4th Century?
45 posted on 07/28/2005 9:14:39 AM PDT by mike182d ("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

This is just more PC BS. You can't reform Islam. It is an evil ideology and in no way should be considered a religion. A muslim can't be a 'good muslim' unless he jihads on nonbelievers. I say Islam should be purged from society at any cost.


46 posted on 07/28/2005 9:18:45 AM PDT by bk1000 (A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Why would Jews be more safe in the land governed by a holy book that exhorts its followers to kill Jews than in a land governed by those whose faith is based on the same God and scriptures as those of the Jews?

I don't know. It may be a matter of interpretation of the Koran. To many Muslims at the time, Jews and Christians were to be allowed to live in peace -- but they weren't allowed to rule. In many cases, it was that the Muslim rulers were more interested in running a successful nation than a strictly religious one.

But the fact is that during the Medieval period and the Renaissance, Jews were generally treated better by Muslim countries than Christian ones.

47 posted on 07/28/2005 9:23:05 AM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian (Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bk1000
I say Islam should be purged from society at any cost.

Including freedom?

48 posted on 07/28/2005 9:24:14 AM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian (Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Damn, if the "Greatest Generation" had been as smart as this one, so many of them wouldn't have had to die and we wouldn't have had to bomb Dresden and Hamburg to smithereens! We'd all be living in peace now with "moderate Nazis"!


49 posted on 07/28/2005 9:27:45 AM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

Freedom for islamists, yes. If we abandon PC, then no one needs to loose their freedom. It is only when we deny the truth and search grey-haired grandmas instead of muslims, that people loose their freedom. If Muslims don't like being profiled, they should stop blowing stuff up or return to their Muslim utopias. There is no place for Islam in modern society.


50 posted on 07/28/2005 9:29:05 AM PDT by bk1000 (A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson