Skip to comments.The Religion of Peace? (Abrogation Alert)
Posted on 06/28/2006 6:00:05 AM PDT by bornacatholic
During the discussion period after a recent talk by the courageous secular Muslim apostate Wafa Sultan, Judea Pearl, father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (who was barbarously murdered by pious Muslim terrorists), alluded to the Korans verses of peacewhich certain votaries of Islam uphold as the religion's exclusive legacy. According to an observer at the event, Judea Pearl derided Ms. Sultans critical view of Islam by further contending that the Koran's bellicose and brutal verses were mere cultural baggage, akin to similar pronouncements in the Old Testament. The comparison was naïve, if not absurd.
Naïve because the Korans verses of peace, frequently cited by both Muslim and non-Muslim apologists, most notably verse 2:256, There is no compulsion in religion, were all abrogated by the so-called verses of the sword. These abrogating verses of the sword recommend beheading or otherwise murdering and mutilating non-Muslims, and Muslim apostates. According to classical Muslim Koranic commentators verse 9:5 (perhaps the most infamous verse of the sword), Slay the idolators wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush , for example, cancels 124 verses that promote patience and toleration.
The sacralized Islamic sources indicate that as the Muslim prophet Muhammad accrued political and military power, he evolved from a proselytizer and persuader, to a warrior (i.e., a prototype jihadist; see: The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model), and dictatorial legislator. Thus the sword and other similar Koranic versesas per the linkage between Muhammads biography and the Koranic narrativecapture the Muslim prophet at his most dogmatic, belligerent, and intolerant. Muslims are enjoined to fight and murder nonbelieverswoe unto those who shirk these campaignsbut those who are killed fighting for the one true religion, i.e., Islam, will be rewarded amply in the afterlife. A sampling of such verses, which established these eternal injunctions, are included below:
47:4: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds
9:29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger 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.
4:76: Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.
8:12: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
8:38-39: Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
9:39: If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things.
4:74: Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.
9:111: Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
As Ibn Warraq notes, aptly (p.69):
tolerance has been abrogated by intolerance
And this doctrine of abrogation, necessitated by the many contradictions which abound in the Koran, originates as putatively taught by Muhammad, himself, at verse 2:106: Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? . This verse, in combination with verses* 16:101, 22:52, and 87:6, was elaborated into a formal system of abrogation (naskh in Arabic) by the greatest classical Muslim Koranic scholars and jurists, which entailed (p.72),
the suppression of a ruling without the suppression of the wording. That is to say, the earlier ruling is still to be found in the Koran, and is still to this day recited in worship, but it no longer has any legal force [emphasis added]
But it is only when viewed in the larger context of the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad warwhich derives substantively from the abrogating Koranic sword versesthat Judea Pearls naïve equation to similar verses from the Old Testament, becomes entirely fatuous. From the bellicose verses in the Koran, expounded upon in the hadith (the words and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by pious Muslim transmitters), Muslim jurists and theologians formulated the Islamic institution of permanent jihad war against non-Muslims to bring the world under Islamic rule (Sharia law).
Since its earliest inception, through the present, jihad has been central to the thought and writings of prominent Muslim theologians and jurists. The precepts and regulations elucidated in the 7th through 9th centuries are immutable in the Muslim theological-juridical system, and they have remained essentially unchallenged by the majority of contemporary Muslims. The jihad is intrinsic to the sacred Muslim texts, including the divine Koranic revelationthe uncreated word of Allah. The Old Testament sanctions the Israelites conquest of Canaana limited domainit does not sanction a permanent war to submit all the nations of humanity to a uniform code of religious law. Similarly, the tactics of warfare are described in the Old Testament, unlike the Koran, in very circumscribed and specific contexts. Moreover, while the Old Testament clearly condemns certain inhumane practices of paganism, it never invoked an eternal war against all of the worlds pagan peoples.
Uninformed ecumenical zeal in search of a fantasy Islam yet to be created, does not excuse making intellectual, let alone moral equivalences, between the severely limited and contextualized war proclamations of the Old Testament, and the permanent proto-jihad war injunctions of the Koran. Staking out the presumptive higher moral ground by a thinly veiled (and ahistorical!) attack on a courageous secularist seeking profound, not cosmetic (and meaningless) changes in Islamdom, is unsavory and destructive, regardless of the misguided motivations.
* 16: 101: And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.; 22:52: And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise; 87:6: By degrees shall We teach thee to declare (the Message), so thou shalt not forget
The discussion of abrogation/naskh draws heavily upon the insightful analysis, here pp. 67-75, of my courageous mentor and colleague Ibn Warraq.
(Sira, Hadiths, also)
the town named "Haditha".....are the residents and interlopers there especially big on the letter and spirit of Hadiths? (rhetorical question only)
"Judea Pearl derided Ms. Sultans critical view of Islam by further contending that the Koran's bellicose and brutal verses were mere cultural baggage, akin to similar pronouncements in the Old Testament."
Poor, deluded, self loathing liberal.
Technically, she may be correct. And Christians had their problems... history tells us this, just look at the Dark Ages. But Christians have emerged and matured.
So, if we ignore the differences in the religions, (a huge leap, given that Jesus is the Son of God, and had peace as his message, while mohammed is a prophet, a man, who had many flaws, and a documented violent streak. Jesus never killed men in front of their wives and daughters and then raped the women). Ok, so if we say, this is islam's Dark Ages, that means islam could take another 200 years to come out of this.
Can we afford to wait? Global travel is trivial now, in 1300 it was a big deal to go to the next town. I don't believe they had bomb vests in 1300. And I'm certain that there were no WMD, no nukes in 1300. The muslims are actively trying to acquire said WMD to be used on infidels.
The ignorance, and self destructive nature of liberals is unbelievable.
The key difference is that Islamic nations broadcast such calls for physical holy war, enslavement, etc. citing Koranic verse.
see this movie if and when you can:
Obsession: Islam's War Against The West
For Christians, there is a new covenant with God. And I don't see Jews calling for destruction of their enemies.
Islamists are also a threat to Hindus and Buddhists and war with them constantly.
It is a supremacist ideological system (all at once political, legal, and religious). It considers those of other faiths to be sub-human (deserving of fewer rights under the law, permissible to be be enslaved or killed).
In an e-mail to the Post, Amanda D. Rogers-Harper, a spokeswoman for the US State Department, confirmed that as of June 10, a total of 18,683 non-immigrant US visas had been issued to Saudi citizens since the start of the current fiscal year.
"This," she noted, "is twice as many as the 9,338 issuances to Saudis" in the corresponding period last year, marking an increase of over 100 percent in just the past 12 months.
*Does this make any sense considering the information generated by Freedom House?
REVISED SAUDI GOVERNMENT TEXTBOOKS STILL DEMONIZE CHRISTIANS, JEWS, NON-WAHHABI MUSLIMS AND OTHER "UNBELIEVERS"
May 23, 2006 -- Freedom Houses Center for Religious Freedom today released a report analyzing a set of Saudi Ministry of Education textbooks in use during the current academic year in Islamic studies courses for elementary and secondary students. The textbooks promote an ideology of hatred toward people, including Muslims, who do not subscribe to the Wahhabi sect of Islam.
The report, entitled Saudi Arabias Curriculum of Intolerance, was prepared by Freedom Houses Center for Religious Freedom in cooperation with the Institute for Gulf Affairs.
Freedom House analyzed a set of 12 current Saudi Ministry of Education religion textbooks, used in the current academic year in Saudi Arabia (and in Saudi run schools outside the Kingdom). These texts were collected by the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs from teachers, administrators and families with children in Saudi schools. Freedom House had them translated by two, independent Arabic speakers.
What is being taught today in Saudi public school textbooks about how Muslims should relate to other religious communities will poison the minds of a new generation of Saudis, said Nina Shea, Director of the Center for Religious Freedom and principal author of the report. Whatever changes have been made in the Saudi educational system, clearly more needs to be done.
The reports findings contradict claims made repeatedly by senior Saudi government spokesmen that they have thoroughly revised their educational materials. Over a year ago, Saudi embassy spokesman Adel al-Jubeir stated: We have reviewed our educational curriculums. We have removed materials that are inciteful or intolerant towards people of other faiths. The new Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, while on a nation-wide speaking tour earlier this year, asserted: We eliminated what might be perceived as intolerance from old textbooks that were in our system. Just last week, on May 18, the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal stated that the whole system of education is being transformed from top to bottom. Textbooks are only one of the steps that have been taken by Saudi Arabia.
However, the report shows that these textbooks:
Condemn and denigrate the majority of Sunni Muslims who do not follow the Wahhabi understanding of Islam, and call them deviants and descendants of polytheists.
Condemn and denigrate Shiite and Sufi Muslims beliefs and practices as heretical and call them polytheists;
Command Muslims to hate hristians,Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers, including non-Wahhabi Muslims, though, incongruously, not to treat them unjustly;
Teach the infamous forgeries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as historical fact;
Teach other conspiracy theories accusing Freemasons, Lions Clubs and Rotary Clubs of plotting to undermine Muslims;
Teach that Jews and the Christians are enemies of the [Muslim] believers and that the clash between the two realms is perpetual;
Instruct students not to greet, befriend, imitate, show loyalty to, be courteous to, or respect non-believers;
Assert that the spread of Islam through jihad is a religious duty;
Instruct that fighting between Muslims and Jews will continue until Judgment Day, and that the Muslims are promised victory over the Jews in the end;
Include a map of the Middle East that labels Israel within its pre-1967 borders as Palestine: occupied 1948.
The Wahhabi sect of Islam is the foundation of the Saudi states political ideology, and at the core of its educational curriculum. According to the Saudi embassy in Washington, the Saudi public school system has 25,000 schools, educating some 5 million students. Saudi Arabia also runs academies in 19 world capitals, including one outside Washington in Alexandria, Virginia, that use some of these same religious texts. Moreover, Saudi Arabia also distributes its religion texts around the world to some Islamic schools and madrassas that it does not directly operate.
Given the closed nature of Saudi society, the Center has not undertaken a comprehensive review of the entire Saudi educational reform effort. The report was undertaken in response to concerns over whether the Saudi government has removed intolerant passages from its textbooks, and it urges the U.S. government to raise at the highest levels the continued teaching of hate and intolerance within Saudi Arabia.
The report is posted on the Centers website www.freedomhouse.org/religion and
*Is it too much to ask our government to wake-up and smell the Jihad coffee? Remember, these are textbooks that been "improved." Imagine what was taught the Saudi children who, as adults, are now the recipients of the incresased number of Visas."
*Speaking as a Christian, (The Qu'ran teaches I am a swine) I object to this inane and indefensible practice of more than doubling the numer of Visas given to those who were taught I am a swine.
*I wonder if any Jews,(whom the Koran teaches are Apes), also object?
*How about your average Liberty-Loving pagan, atheist ect?
"Islamists are also a threat to Hindus and Buddhists and war with them constantly. "
Actually islam is a greater threat to Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos and any other religion not "of the book".
Oddly, islamists are supposed to have some small respect for Jews and Christians because they are "of the book". That is, mad mohammad was aware of the old Testament, and acknowledged it as a Holy Book. We see how islamists treat Jews and Christians... those they have some small regard for. Now, how do you think an islamist will deal with a Buddhist? A Hindu?
This will come down to world war, or complete submission worldwide to islam. There can be no middle ground.
"The ability of the liberal to ignore the facts and justify their world view inspite of them is amazing and suicidal."
You and I understand the threat that is islam. Many, (most?), on this site understand the threat. My fear is that the enemy within and without may be too much for us. I don't think so, but it is a concern. While islam and it's practitioners are fierce enemies, liberals are cowards. They use governmental systems and positions of power to bully people. If a liberal is faced with something approximating a fair fight, they cower. They claim to be peace loving. Give a liberal a chance to be violent without fear of reprisal, and they grab it. They are hippocrites, and cowards.
So, this leaves islam as the true enemy, aided by self hating cowards we call liberals.
We can make no mistake, this is a war like the world has never seen, and our way of life is at stake.
There is a circle of fire - wherever Islam meets another culture, there is war or persecution.
I couldn't agree more.
The Lutheran Church monthly The Lutheran Witness, May 2006, provides an interesting take on the "Doctrine of Abrogration" in "Islam, keeping the facts straight," by Dr. Alvin Schmidt.
Thanks, brother. Do you have a link?
*Islam does consider us people of the book. However, as is often the case with Islam, it is not what it seems at first blush. Islam thinks that in the ORIGINAL Bible, Mohammed was identified as the last of the Prophets whom we, Christians and Jews, were supposed to accept. Islam believes we rejected Mohammed and THEN changed the Bible to obscure the truth. Havcing done that, we are not innocent. We are the childen of apes and swine deserving death
Don't be seduced into believing Islam respects Holy Writ. They consider it fiction - just like the Crucifixion of Jesus
a link to the artcile itself would be helpful. I got to the site but I have no idea where the article is.
That is my understanding of the dominant Islamic doctrine.
One must be prepared however to answer the minority view and to answer it as a terrorist would and why it is ultimately unsatistfactory. It is unfortunate that this is the one thing lacking in the article which could come to blindside you in a discussion.
The minority view holds that "abrogation" [2:106] refers only to the prophets before Muhammad of the Old and New Testaments, whose writings are considered to have been corrupted by its oral transmitters, copyists and translators. This view holds that every verse in the Qur'an remains in force in its historical context and resolves the contradictions between the "tolerant" and "intolerant" verses by limiting the scope of the warlike verses to Muhammad's return to and conquest of formerly unpersuaded Mecca (630 AD).
The problems with the minority "moderate" view are that it is supported neither by the Qur'anic text, tradition (hadith) nor history. This is simply demonstrated.
Textually, the chapter (surah) of the Qur'an (9) which commenced the war on Mecca does not limit its condemnation to the inhabitants of Mecca but makes blanket statements about Christians and Jews everywhere:
[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.
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
From the traditions (sayings or hadith), there is no limitation of war to Mecca or self-defense. Muhammad promised the eventual conquest of the "Great Satan" of the day, Rome:
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6924:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A'maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina... A third (part of the army) which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah's eye, would be killed ani the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople... (not until 1453 AD)
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6930:
...You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to Conquer it. Then you would attack Rome and AllgLh will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack the Dajjal and Allah will enable you to conquer him. Nafi' said: Jabir, we thought that the Dajjal would appear after Rome (editors inserted 'Syrian territory') would be conquered.
Sahih Muslim, Book 042, Number 7067:
...How would you be,0 people. when Persia and Rome would be conquered for you?...
Sunnah Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2506:
We went out on an expedition from Medina with the intention of (attacking) Constantinople...
Finally, the history of Islam is that immediately after the conquest of Mecca (630 AD) and the death of Muhammad, the Muslim went on a tear, conquering Palestine, Persia, North Africa, Spain in just a few decades, indicates that those who knew Muhammad personally understood that the war begun in surah 9 was open ended, as do most Muslims todsy.
If you know how to Google, Google. List the author and title.
Eastern Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
You cited the piece. Provide the link.
Amen, brother Cato
The fanaticism inherent within Islam goes back to Edward Gibbon when in the last volume of Decline and Fall he - in his own inimitable and sardonic style - described Mohammed and his jihads.
But I can also send you a remarkable contemporary essay by a remarkable writer who explains why moderation will inevitably be trumped by extremism in Islam. The essay was cited by David Brooks of the N.Y. Times as the best journal article of 2004.
The author lived in several Islamic cultures and he speaks from on-the-ground experience. He details why the dynamics of Islamic faith and culture make the triumph of the most militant and fanatical views inevitable.
I can respond by separate mail if you'd prefer.
He knows, for example, that Ayatollah Khomeini was 28 when he married a 10 year old and knocked her up when she was 11. He also told his faithful folllowers they should marry off their daughters and get them out of the house before they had their first period. (Islam Unveiled Robert Spencer)
"The Religion of Peace" Ping !
You referred to Spencer. Do you follow Jihad Watch? I recommend it. It's not PC (and it's sometimes dangerous!) to discuss the reality that Mohammed was a pedophiliac, an epileptic illiterate tribal bedouin, and a militant jihadist.
It's a sad state of affairs when so much of our Western civilization becomes so paralysed by PC multicultural nonsense that we become too afraid to speak the truth and recognize our very real enemies. You agree?
Yeppers. That is the size of it.
Since Saudi is getting in bed with the ChiComs, this would be a fine time to do something about Mecca, Medina, and the Dome of the Rock... imho.
Yeah. I read Jihad Watch daily. I agree totally, brother