In this article, Jim Remsen of the Philadelphia Inquirer asks a local imam about some things he read in my book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). "Where is the Koran on violence? The debate rages on whether Islam's holy book promotes it. A local imam explains the scripture" from the Philadelphia Inquirer, with thanks to Kaosktrl:
When Islamist radicals took responsibility for the deadly London transit attacks July 7, mainstream Muslims cringed. Islamic groups issued denunciations. A body of North American scholars issued a fatwa, or edict, condemning violence against civilians. The Muslim American Society called on imams to give sermons against "terror, hate and violence."
But not specifying that jihadists are actually perpetrating the terror, hate and violence that they oppose.
At the same time, critics of Islam spoke out. The Southern Baptist Convention welcomed the fatwa - but also remarked that "nearly 100 verses in the Koran promote fighting and killing." A radio host in Washington was suspended after calling Islam "a terrorist organization." The conservative Regnery Press released The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, which argues that the Koran "commands Muslims to make war on Jews and Christians" despite the benevolent assertions of U.S. Muslims and their allies.
That's not really a matter of dispute. It is as plain, as they say, as the nose on your face. The Qur'an calls Jews and Christians "People of the Book" (ahl al-kitab). Qur'an 9:29 says: "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." This is clearly a command to engage in hot war (not spiritual warfare) against Jews and Christians until they pay the jizya, the non-Muslim poll tax. Moderate Muslims may say this verse no longer applies to anyone today, or that it only has meaning in particular circumstances, or come up with some other interpretation of it, but they cannot with honesty say that the Qur'an does not command Muslims to make war on Jews and Christians.
Does the Koran promote violence against nonbelievers? Why do Muslims divide the world into "the House of Islam" and "the House of War"?We posed those questions to a local cleric, Imam Naser Khatib. Khatib, 33, a Palestinian from the West Bank city of Tulkarm, is resident imam at Masjid Al-Hidaya, a mosque in Feltonville. A slender, soft-spoken figure in an ankle-length robe, he sat recently in the mosque's kitchen and mulled the nature of Muslim scripture.
Khatib:There are 2 ayas [verses in the Koran] that tell us how to deal with non-Muslims. They say people who do not fight you or try to kick you out from your homeland, you should be virtuous toward them. But the other kind of people who fight Muslims because of their religion or try to kick them out from their homes or try to help anyone who tries to harm Muslims, these people the Muslims should fight back.
This is, of course, exactly the justification that jihadists including Osama bin Laden give for their present-day attacks: they are defending Muslims against those who have supposedly declared war on Islam by invading Muslim lands.
Inquirer:This addresses if you're attacked. How about the idea of expanding, of spreading the faith even by force? What does the Koran say about that?Khatib:This is when we have an Islamic state, not in our life right now. We don't have the leader for the whole Muslims, the caliph. When we have that, he tries to make da'wah [argumentation] to spread Islam. It's not all the time by war or by jihad. In the beginning, the prophet [Muhammad] sent his ambassador or messengers to the leaders to try to offer Islam for them, to argue for it... . Some of them said, 'We don't want to be a Muslim but we respect you,' so we didn't fight them. But others sent for their soldiers to attack Medina. These people the prophet tried to prepare an army to fight back, to defend.
This is why Osama and other jihadists so much want to restore the caliphate. Imam Khatib doesn't rule out the spread of Islam by force under a caliph. He suggests that Muslims should only fight back if attacked, but actually what he says is fully in line with traditional Islamic theology as encapsulated by Sahih Muslim 4294, in which Muhammad tells Muslims to invite the unbelievers to Islam, and to fight them if they refuse:
Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them....If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.
The interview continues:
Inquirer: But many verses talk about violence against nonbelievers. Surah 8:12 says, "I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: Smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them."Khatib:This was speaking about the battle of Badr, the first battle of Islam. This was what he [Allah] ordered the angels to do when he sent them to fight with the Muslims. Are you going to give your enemy a flower? Of course not. This is a war, so if you don't fight, they will destroy you. This is people who have come to attack the Muslims in their own place. We should fight back so we protect the religion and protect the people. This is during the battle, not in general.
Again Khatib's answer does nothing to rule out the present-day jihadist assertion that the Islamic world is in a battle with the West right now: that's why we have seen so many beheadings in Iraq and elsewhere.
Khatib continues:
You speak about Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the House of Islam and the House of War. This is since the 14th century, Dar al-Islam is the place where the Muslim lives in peace without fighting. Some of the new scholars who live now speak about, even if you are in the United States, for example, or even Europe, it is not a Muslim country but the Muslims live in peace, no one tries to take their money, to kill them, and they can have their own mosques. We consider this like the House of Islam.The House of War means two things. First is any place not belonging to Muslims. The other, the scholars say, is a place where Muslims can't live in peace. The new scholars add a third one: Dar al-Themma. It's like a contract or treaty so people who live in these lands live in peace. No one harms them.
Inquirer:Do you agree with that?
Khatib:I agree Dar al-Islam is a place you can live in peace. Some of the Arabian countries are considered not Dar al-Islam. You don't have the peace there. You are not safe, your money, your kids, or your house. Most scholars escape from those countries and live in the West because there is freedom in the West.
Note that he does not say he agrees that the United States is a place at peace with Islam.
Inquirer: Would the Wahhabis [the extremist Saudi Arabian Muslim sect] accept what they are saying?Khatib:Wahhabis have many problems. We do not consider them the state of Islam. They see problems in the thought and understanding of Islam. They concentrate on qeda, on how you believe in God. It means creed.
Inquirer:What's wrong with that?
Khatib:Islam is a universal understanding, it's not just to understand one part of Islam. From that thought we have the terrorists coming... . Some of their scholars speak about politics and how to spread Islam through violence. The decision to go to war or not is by the hand of the caliph, and we don't have a caliphate right now. An individual can't do it by his own hand. It's absolutely wrong. It's against Islam, and anyone who dies by this will not go to heaven, absolutely. He will go to the hellfire because he kills himself and he kills innocent people.
Khatib doesn't mention that defensive jihad -- as Osama and others have framed the present conflict -- need not be called by a caliph.
Inquirer: Do you say there are no verses about violence toward nonbelievers, except in battle? None of them refer to nonbelievers in general?Khatib:Of course not. Because Islam has mercy for all people. Allah said he sent his messenger for mercy for all people.
But under what circumstances must this "mercy" be extended to all people? Under what circumstances does battle between believers and unbelievers begin?
Inquirer:After the London bombings, you gave a sermon about violence. What did you talk about?Khatib:About how terrorists think. I said they have a misunderstanding of the Koran and the hadith [instructions] of Muhammad. We have in our history something called al-Khawarj. They lived around the year 690. The prophet told us about them, that they are praying, reciting the Koran, memorizing it, spending the night praying to Allah. And after that, they have a bad understanding so they will try to kill Muslims and non-Muslims. And these kinds of people will be in the hellfire. The caliph at that time fought this kind of people and killed most of them.
We have these days the same thought about some people. They say, 'We should fight the Muslim and the non-Muslim. The Muslim leaders because they are not practicing Islamic life and law, and so we should kill them first. After that, kill the non-Muslims because they are trying to take over Muslim lands.' They can't fight face to face, army by army, so they try to make terrorist attacks. Of course, this is a very bad understanding of Islam. It is against Islam, absolutely. Nothing of it is with Allah.
Inquirer:Could you say these things in Saudi Arabia and be safe?
Khatib: This is my understanding of Islam. I say it anywhere, and in front of any people.
In that case, go ahead and book a flight to Riyadh, Khatib. We'll be watching to see what happens. But in fact it is unlikely that the Saudis would object to what he has said here, because it is all too vague to be of much offense to them.
These imams, mullahs and ayatollahs put Fred Astaire, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson and Ruby Keeler all to shame with their theological tap-dancing around every question.
They can go up one wall, over the ceiling, and down the other with their 'scholastic softshoe' while the reporter is busy nodding naively at the taqiyya trickery.
But the problem is: send a person who doesn't know the routine to ask the callow questions, and it is the old programmer's acronym in reply.
"G.I.G.O." - Garbage In Garbage Out.
Time for journalists to learn the art of the informed follow-up. And stop taking poisonous spiderwebs for tasty cotton candy.
Suckers with laptops and By-Lines.
That, in itself could be the theme for a post-modern musical:
"P.C.: the decadent dance of death".
The clerics and Mufti's are just like the Koran. That is they all contradict each other, just as much as the Koran contradicts itself, as did Mohammed's entire life - contradict himself.
A belief that has violent passages such as the Koran that does contradict itself cannot be trusted.
Until the war on terror is over, the West should really reign in Islam within its borders. Islam cannot be trusted. And for those who disagree, just which "expert" Muslim are we suppose to believe while we wait for the next (nuclear?) bomb to go off in our cities?
3rdtimelucky, nice point about the constant contradictions. Here in Toledo, after RS was on on Friday, the radio host asked the local imam who a Muslim was supposed to believe if one day he stated terrorism is wrong and the next day another imam said it was justified? The imam's response was along the lines of that the other imam would see circumstances that justified the terrorism and that was okay. The radio host today was replaying the clip and stating that Muslims were going to continue to have problems until they stopped weaseling around. He's a somewhat reformed liberal, so it's nice to see at least some leaning in the correct direction.
The question Spencer poses above must be asked:
'Is the United States at peace with Islam?' What is the so-called 'Muslims persepective?
Consider this poll taken in 2002,
http://www.hamilton.edu/news/muslimamerica/analysis.html
And consider these findings on post 9/11 attitudes,
"American Muslims appear divided and conflicted in their reactions to the September attacks and their aftermath. Asked if Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network was responsible for the attacks, 44 percent offer no opinion; only a third blamed Al Qaeda. Forty percent describe the U.S. worldwide response to 9-11 as a "war on terrorism," but a third see it as a "war on Islam." Half believe that U.S. military action in Afghanistan was justified, 43 percent disagree.
American Muslims are more unified in their reactions to the widespread questioning and detentions of Muslims in the U.S. by Federal authorities since 9-11: Nearly two-thirds describe these actions as "an unwarranted abuse of civil liberties." Only 20 percent say they are "necessary to protect the country from a terrorist threat."
These findings, of course, reveal high irrationality in American Muslim opinion (only one third of American Muslims appear willing to blame Osama bin Laden for 9/11), as folks who follow this Web site might naturally expect. And one surely cannot expect complete honesty in polls of Muslims anywhere, when those polls ask questions that reflect on the faith. Deception to defend the faith, after all, is sanctioned in Islam.
But why can't a reporter ask a question like this: "Well, if many Muslims (one third of American Muslims in this poll) believe that the 'war on terror' is a war on Islam, and the Qur'an sanction violence against non-believers in defense of Islam, then shouldn't we worry about these many Muslims becoming violent?"
As the imam say himself, "Are you going to give your enemy a flower? Of course not. This is a war, so if you don't fight, they will destroy you. This is people who have come to attack the Muslims in their own place. We should fight back so we protect the religion and protect the people."
And isn't this precisely what, not a small minority of Muslims, but untold millions worldwide believe? That a war rages against Islam? And that Muslims worldwide have a religious obligation, justified by the Qur'an, hadith and Sira, to wage jihad against Infidel nations and people?
Next point of inquiry: 'jihad', the fight to defend the faith, need not always involve violence. How might Muslim groups and individuals wage jihad against Infidel peoples and nations without engaging in violence? Is deception sanctioned? What kind of tactics are suggested from Mohammad's examples in the sira? What about making treaties and agreements with Infidels for strategic purposes? Or the 'calling of truces'?
Now we are getting somewhere.
They look like clones, they talk like clones and they act the part, after all: Every Mohammedan wants to emulate Mohammed, the 'perfect' man...
Tap-dancing around the questions, the answers are the same, the lies and the deceit and the denial is the same, (9/11) and still most of the journo's, the moderators and the talk-show-hosts and the "experts on terrorism" sit there melting with PC, so much PC that they should wear diapers...
I have yet to see ONE TV or newspaper- interview where a journo asks informed questions.
I am very much looking forward to that. Hopefully we'll see Robert Spencer or Hugh Fitzgerald do that. But will there be a Mufti, Imam or Ayatollah that will take the heat?
I doubt it!
And isn't this precisely what, not a small minority of Muslims, but untold millions worldwide believe? That a war rages against Islam? And that Muslims worldwide have a religious obligation, justified by the Qur'an, hadith and Sira, to wage jihad against Infidel nations and people?
You are so right JTF. The Infidels rejected Islam despite their best efforts and warnings, therefore we must die or become dhimmis. The infidels are wrong not to accept Islam and must be destroyed. Simple as that.
It is initially hard to fathom for the novice infidel to grasp that AND that they are serious, not some fire and brimstone crazy talk.
Terminator - you wrote:
Here is a sign that at least one msm news anchor 'gets it' . . .so there is hope!
From Daniel Pipes website:
Follow the link to read the entire transcript.
MSNBC: Connected Coast to Coast, news anchor Monica Crowley interview with Daniel Pipes and Azzam Tamimi
Miira:
I read the transcript, its great!
Mohammedans are very skillful and it infuriates me every time to see them use these forums to peddle their propaganda.
Again, while they are tap-dancing around the issues they think they have a god-given right to tell lies and obfuscate the issues.
I'm glad you have people who pull the plug on creeps like Tamimi, but here (or in Europe) I have yet to see it. Every-time I see such a 'discussion' the Mohammedan 'guest' on the panel makes sure to avoid and evade giving answers but instead charges into propaganda mode and starts spewing poison against the US or whoever is against the Jihad.
This above interview is the best I've come across so far. It shows that Crowley doesn't weat velvet gloves and diapers when he takes the lying maggots to the grill...
In the name of Allah
"They intend to put out the light of Allah (i.e. the religion of Islam, this Quran, and Prophet Muhammad SAW) with their mouths. But Allah will complete His light even though the disbelievers hate (it)."
(Qur'an 61:8)
"And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion (Islamic Monotheism) if they can."
(Qur'an 2:21)
The fighting here is with the ideological propoganda as explained in the first qoute.
"Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you till you follow their religion. Say: "Verily, the Guidance of Allah (i.e. Islamic Monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance."
(Qur'an 2:120)
These verses are given clear commentary by your criticism of everything in this article. The scholar is asked a question, He gives an truthful answer and instead of accepting the truth you look for ways to question him and attack his words.
The problem is not that we do not speak out or that we do not do enough...the problem is that every step we make we are attacked by folks like you.
Hey, here's a concept, maybe the Muslim scholars who practise and teach their religion are correct and it is a fringe group distorting my Faith while those non- muslims who claim knowledge of Islam but only criticise it are wrong!!!
And again, The verses of Qur'an from the top ring true on this site!
thank you all for your time.
Bill - so we infidels are the ones fighting you Muslims hey? Am I comprehending it all right?
Answer me this - why were the French defending their backyards from Islam before the Crusades?
Why were the Spanish fighting for their land from Muslim hordes before the crusades?
Why were the Serbs fighting Islam in their backyards and still are to this day, as we see over on DW?
Why is Islam in the Jewish land of Israel?
Why have the Muslims put their Mosque over a known Jewish holy site, the Temple Mount? Where is the Islamic tolerance in that?
Why are Muslims blowing up Hindu's and Atheists in Bali?
Why are Muslims killing Hindu's in India?
Why are Muslims killing Thai infidels in southern Thailand? and the Philiphines?
Why are Muslims flying planes into buildings?
Why are the Mad Mulla's in Iran promising to wipe out Israel if they get the bomb?
Why does your own book say,
"fight and slay the pagans whereever you find them"?
or "Do not befriend a Jew or a Christian for they are the people of the book?"
or any of the other 110 war verses I could quote from the Koran??
Tell me Bill, do you support Mohammeds actions in sleeping, er that is, having SEX WITH A NINE YEAR OLD CHILD??? This "man of god"?
Why is it that Islam was spread by the sword in North Africa?
Why is it that in malaysia their former leader said Jews were of monkeys and that they "rule the world"?
Why is it that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in WW2 (Yasser Arafat's mentor) was Hitlers ally? As were many of the Muslim people in the Balkins?
Why is it that Islamic countries, with the exception of say Indonesia anmd Turkey (where the murder of infidels happens at a private level and the government/s turn a blind eye) will not allow tolerate any infidels?
Bill, Hmmmmmmm is that your real name? Bin Laden grew up eating, breathing, and living Islam at the very heart of Islamic land, and I'm suppose to believe an Islamic expert called "Bill" who says Bin Laden is "wrong". Tell me Bill, if Allah is so great, why do the evil Saudi's who according to the likes of you, and other Muslims, have Islam "all wrong", why do the Saudi's brand of Islam control your holiest site?
So the Islamic leaders of Iran, Pakitstan, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Ache, Afghanistan, Jordon, Syria, Algeria, these leaders who also grew up with Islam, and command the following of millions of millions of people, that they are all just a "few extremists who have Islam wrong"?
Yep all these actions, world wide, according to you Bill are just the actions of a "few extremists" who have your religion wrong. As were the characters who lead the Islamic invasions of Europe in the 700's onwards, or even before that in the Middle East.
Yes Bill - Islam is truely a 'Religion of Peace'. It leaves all infidels in its wake, "Resting In Peace". I'll be glad if you can prove me, or history wrong.
Bill,
Are you the Bill W. I recently had an email conversation with?
Clicking on "Bill's" name yields this result:
http://www.svmatch.com/
Which yields this:
svmatch.com
What be you Buh...Buh...Buh...BILL?
Dear Mr Spencer and hello to all the participants of Jihad Watch
I have read your brilliant and powerful book, many thanks for your work and efforts to inform the world about the current war between Islam and the West and the non-Muslim world.
As a student of World history, I find your book to both scholarly and easily readable to the average person.
The affect of reading your authoritative work is to see the current "war on terror" with the proper perspective as a war of the Islam against the world.
You book and Bat Yeor's Eurabea are both inspiring and frightening. I am left with the desire to help out in what ever small way possible; so I have decided to give away as many copies of your book to friends and at work.
Let's hope that you will soon make the NY Times best sellers list .
Please continue your valuable and good work
hopefully together we all can wake people up before it's to late.
Not only must we understand Islam's true nature but also save our history from current revisionist interpretations of those Dihimmis who hate the west.
I will forever scrutinize every bit of news I receive and watch out for sign of Dihimmitude.
God Bless
Yours truly EL Cid
PS I have chosen El Cid as my screen name for his bravery in defense of the Spain and the West.
Thank you, JTF, that is interesting information. JTF also said "How might Muslim groups and individuals wage jihad against Infidel peoples and nations without engaging in violence?"
A majority of Muslims in the U.S., U.K., Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. may not be willing to take up arms or strap on a Islamicide belt. But they are willing to make taqiyah statements like this imam to defend the jihadists, and they are willing to contribute to Islamic "charities" that support those who do strap on the belt.
THAT is what our leaders are not willing to face up to: that our foe exists at a societal level. It is not a few fanatical jihadists working alone; it is a few fanatical jihadists supported by an entire societal structure. Removing the few jihadists does no good, since their society will quickly regenerate more.
While our leaders are holding hands and kissing Saudi princes, everything in their society, from their government to their schools to their mosques to their media, works toward furthering their agenda: a global Islamic Caliphate. If it can be accomplished without violence, great. But regardless, the end result is not open to negotiation.
Thank you, JTF, that is interesting information. JTF also said "How might Muslim groups and individuals wage jihad against Infidel peoples and nations without engaging in violence?"
A majority of Muslims in the U.S., U.K., Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. may not be willing to take up arms or strap on a Islamicide belt. But they are willing to make taqiyah statements like this imam to defend the jihadists, and they are willing to contribute to Islamic "charities" that support those who do strap on the belt.
THAT is what our leaders are not willing to face up to: that our foe exists at a societal level. It is not a few fanatical jihadists working alone; it is a few fanatical jihadists supported by an entire societal structure. Removing the few jihadists does no good, since their society will quickly regenerate more.
While our leaders are holding hands and kissing Saudi princes, everything in their society, from their government to their schools to their mosques to their media, works toward furthering their agenda: a global Islamic Caliphate. If it can be accomplished without violence, great. But regardless, the end result is not open to negotiation.
3X -luckY:
You blew my mind! Your above post is great, you are getting better by the day!
Let's get together! You know what to do. Get on to Susanp and if you know of a few more people we have a movement!
Andrew Bolt seems to be on the right track, even Kim Beazley (unbelievable) want's to cut funding to the Koran Schools in Australia which we are funding with tax-money to the tune of a hundred million a year: Let's make it happen!
Ready if you are!
"The decision to go to war or not is by the hand of the caliph, and we don't have a caliphate right now. An individual can't do it by his own hand. It's absolutely wrong."
How to analyze this statement...?
Osama made Al-Zarqawi an Emir, and Kaplan, the Turkish welfare claimant and father of 17 who the Germans finally expelled made claims to be the Caliph. I'm not a betting woman, but wouldn't be mildly surprised to hear of some Islamic organization somewhere laying claims to the emergence of a Caliph citing whatever chapter or verse in support of their claims Mohideen Moonbat-style.
"America's Secret War" by Dr. George Fiedman.
I recommend the above book for those who enjoyed
Robert Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide
TO Islam (and the Crusades).
Dr Friedman's book is one of the finest I have ever read. In depth analysis of our government's
strategy for dealing with Islam.
The WMD argument for Iraq was pretty much what I
suspected, a "smokescreen".
Terminator - what do you propose? How do I get in contact with you?
It would have to be away from all the mad muslim eyes - as I have a young family (two of whom under Sharia should get the death penalty as technically they are supposed to be Muslim but are not - they are Jew Loving Christians!) Plus I've had many anti Muslim letters published - so I'm probably not real popular with the "Peace Lovers" who would love to kill me!
Susanp - Terminater - email???'s Would love to talk, as I also have others who feel the same.
BUt how do we do it in private? (excuse my ignorance). If we publish emails here - the Mad Mulla's also get them?? How?