Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the French fatwa condemning those who attack "blindly," and the dhimmis who fall for it:
Finally, after ten days of rioting, with 300 cities scenes of attacks, the supposedly "good" Muslims offer a fatwa apparently condemning the riots. The adverb "blindly" is big enough, as Robert Spencer and others have pointed out, to allow for all sorts of attacks -- if they are not "blind" but directed at, say, American or Israeli or English or Australian embassies or consulates or citizens. That might be okay. Wasn't it former Prime Minister Raymond Barre who said of a previous Muslim attack in Paris that some "innocents" were killed along with the intended (Jewish) targets, implying that there were right, and wrong, victims of such attacks?This fatwa is terrible in another way. Accepting it, indeed welcoming it, means that the French government now becomes complicit in the notion that Muslims can tell Muslims what to do, even Muslim "citizens of France." But that should be rejected. The fatwa-issuers do not have the right to tell Muslim citizens of France how to behave, even if in this particular case they are telling them that, at this point, with France not yet as far gone demographically as it will be in a decade or two, they should cool it -- for they are damaging the only thing that counts to these fatwa-issuers, which is to say, the present and future well-being of Islam. In that respect, they are no different from those whose behavior they claim to regulate; both want the same ultimate aim. The rioting Muslims want to seize the Infidel property, or the positions in society, to which as Muslims they believe themselves entitled, that they do not have to earn. In the end, the goal of the fatwa-issuers is not different: they would like to ensure not merely the survival of Islam in France and the rest of Western Europe, but its ultimate dominance.
In this respect, the rioters are akin to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, and the fatwa-issuers akin to Mahmoud Abbas. Same goal, different means. The Fast Jihad of open threats and aggression, the Slow Jihad of all the other instruments of Jihad, including the soothing words, and make-believe cool-it message of this fatwa.Articles about this subject -- the nonsense and lies and half-truths and ellipses of Muslim spokesmen (as in that Qur'anic passage about "He who kills a man...." with the important Muslim exceptions interpolated into the Hebrew original from which the passage comes, exceptions that do allow for quite a bit of such killing, and even make it a duty) -- well, such articles need to be written and submitted to local papers, and their contents made the subject of calls to various talk shows, nonstop. In other words, those who are foolish or ignorant enough not to see through these documents need to be shown up publicly, so that the wider public, already deeply suspicious, will receive one more booster shot in the series, intended to inoculate them against taqiyya and kitman. Everything, if approached in the right way, can become what is called a teaching moment.
Here is what needs to be taught:
There is not a "moderate" version of the Qur'an.
There is not a "moderate" edition of the Hadith as collected and ranked according to putative authenticity by the most respected muhaddithin, Bukhari and Muslim.
There is not a "moderate" version of the Sira.
There is only one version of each. That is the one Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri read, and so do hundreds of millions of Muslims in dar al-Islam. There they do not have to engage, or do not feel they have to engage, in the sly taqiyya-and-kitman and highly selective quotation of passages, with many telling yet unexplained ellipses in what they quote, that is so artfully employed by those Muslims in the dar al-Harb, and above all here in America. This new French fatwa demonstrates anew the Islamic ability to misstate and mislead, all in the service of continuing to misinform and fool Infidels, as many as they can, for as long as they can, as they try to figure out how to do what may become impossible: to keep lying about the tenets and history of Islam until they are so firmly entrenched that they cannot be dislodged.
But we Americans are watching how those "entrenched" Muslims in Europe are now behaving, as well as those in the Middle East. And there is nothing the Muslims in this country or in Europe can do to keep us either from drawing certain conclusions from what we can so clearly observe (or from the ever-more frantic calls from within Europe for something to be done about the islamization of Europe and its peoples). Nothing can keep us from studying Islam without bowdlerized versions of the Qur'an (Michael Sells' preposterously dishonest "Approaching the Qur'an"), and without those "guides" who are in fact professors and members of MESA Nostra and who generously offer their "services" to students and government officials alike. They are akin to some smiling fellow who offers to take Western tourists, for the slightest of fees (and possibly just a little more at the end, please, effendi?) through some Middle Eastern tourist attraction or trap, or through the souk, assuring us he has only one thing in mind, effendi: to make your trip as authentic an experience as possible, effendi, as he carefully steers you to the stalls where the owners have previously paid him off, bringing the Infidel tourist sheep to be well and truly sheared.
There are no divisions among Muslims.
The Muslim Ummah is as solid as an iceberg.
The militant violent Muslims are the part above the water.
The 'moderate' or quiet Muslims are the part below the water.
But they form a compact block and both need each other.
It is an exercise in stupidity or bad faith to try to see rifts among them that are not there.
So King would agree than with the Iranian suggestion of "calling on the French government to cooperate with them in establishing a fact-finding commission in order to investigate the conditions of French Muslims"?
http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=249990
Ha Ha Ha
Bye Bye KT, it's been nice knowing you, not!
The simple fact that Ia is still posting here is proof that you are wrong, kt. As is the posting of nariz- he is down on a small majority of those who post here, if only because they *Gasp!* believe in a Higher Authority.
Perhaps you could join him in his fear-mongering:
The ‘Other’ Threat (that Masonic/Reconstructionist/Zionist cabal-thingy):
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17957
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17927
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17958
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050513.shtml
Kingky:"if not, I have finally won and reduced this site to nothing more than a chatroom that is closed to all opposing points of view, as evidenced by censorship."
If I was Spenser and read that statement, I would kick you out for good. You have some wierd delusions of cyber messiahship.
You have delusions of grandure, my boy. No one appointed you to reduce or close anything, and you have won nothing...Your above statement lost all your credibility, that wasn't much to begin with...bye bye...
France...The news reports that the rioters usually hang around on street corners smoking hashish. One reporter interviewed a rioter rolling a joint. Drug addicted thugs, unemployed loafers, and other trouble makers, but not one muslim reported. No one of the Religion of Peace would riot or conduct themselves in anything but a pius manner...would they???
How do we even know you posted a single word? In the past we've even seen claims from the likes of kj, that people wanted him banned- no truth to any of it. Would it not be easier just to silence you completely? People often are gone from this site for days or weeks at a time, it would have seemed natural enough.
Kingky:"if not, I have finally "won and 'reduced'" this site to nothing more than a chatroom that is "closed" to all opposing points of view, as evidenced by censorship."
By your own words, hypocrite, you are not here to enlighten or infom, you are here to 'reduce' and 'close'. In other words you are a destroyer.
Your goal is to destroy this site. Or render it useless...get lost...
When I wrote "there is only one version of each" I should have explained a bit more, especially since as a comment on another article I regret the telegraphing of information made necessary by the Internet.
About the Qur'an: I did not mean that there are no differences among Qur'ans. Those who, such as Ibn Warraq know all about this stuff (I don't) in detail, can tell you what distinguishes Wafs from Harsh, and so on. Muslims themselves will tend to accept the idea, and will not threefore take issue with the statement, even though it is not precisely and completely true, that there is "only one Qur'an." I should have phrased it differently: whatever minor differences may be detected in different Qur'ans by the Western scholars who are the only ones permitted the mental freedom to do so, they are meaningless as far as the teachings about Infidels, the attitudes about Infidels, are concerned.
And while one cannot toy with what is in the authoritative collections of Hadith, where each story is assigned by the compiler, one of the accepted muhaddithin, a ranking as to likelihood of authenticity, possibly one could begin to question, here and there, the ranking system itself, and the "science" of isnad. But it hasn't happened; the most authoritative muhaddithin have not been challenged by late-comers, and how Irshad Manji or Mustafa Akyol or anyone else thinks she or he can fiddle with the Hadith, or eventoss them out altogether for the supposedly benign sola scriptura of the Qur'an, is beyond belief -- that is, beyond intelligent understanding of Belief.
Finally, the Sira. What does this word mean? It means the biography, the received, sacred biography of Muhammad, as more or less agreed upon by all Muslims. Aisha in this biography, and so is Asma bint Marwan. So are the two concubines -- the Coptic girl Mary and the Jewish widow from Khaybar, Safiya. So are the mass decaptiations of the prisoners of the Banu Qurayza. So is the unprovoked attack on the Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis. So is every single episode that we Infidels would regard as disturbing, frightening, repellent -- and that Muslims see as part of the biography of the man who us the model, "uswa hasana" in one Quranic phrase, al-insan al-kamil. If this is the Model for Muslims and for All Mankind, it is certainly a very different model from that offered byMoses with the Tables of the Law, or Jesus with the Sermon on the Mount, or Gautama Buddha, with his Eight-Fold Path.
There is one English scholar of Islam who, like a number of them, so wished to protect Islam, to do nothing that might disturb Muslims, that he apparently abandoned Islamic studies rather than reveal some of the things he had learned about differences in Qur'anic texts -- some of that Hafs and Warsh stuff again. The first name of this self-censoring scholar, de cuyo full nombre no quiero acordarme, is "Adrian."
Again, where is the proof? We have only your claim that you have been censored.
Too many cooks spoil the broath...The sheer number of people from Mohammads time forward, involved in collection, and preservation of Islamic literature dont guarantee a perfect product. The chain of transmitters, the gathering of writings by Abu Bakr and Uthman...'I heard the Prophet say' ect, is not very solid.... The selection processes of Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari and others, by todays standards of evidence gathering and chain of evidence preserving, would probably not stand up in court. Just too many people have gotten their stiring spoons in the pot, tossed in a few unknown or unwanted ingredients, and now the soup is suspect...all you got to do is smell it.
If you dont think it passes your smell test, dont eat any of it...
Both the Bible and the Quran are said to be the 'word' of God. The 'word' in the Quran (and hadiths)is on shakey ground due to the well intentioned , but mostly unsophisticated methods of compiling and authenticity, as I stated above.
The Bibles history is similar but a little different..."There were a multitude of gospels in those days" Clement, the fourth Pope...Those multitudes were collected along with other scriptural writings ect, and streamlined into early versions of what we call the Bible. This was done in two large meetings of religious scholarly guys at the Councils Cornith and Nicea, France, in the early 300's. Their processes were not that swift either...manuscripts were rejected simply because they were too long or two short.
At one point, one priest beat another to death over a dispute of literature. The multitude of gospels was reduced to four. Between the 300AD councils and 1600AD when King James had his version printed up, there have been several versions of the Bible. There are still several versions of the Bible. The saving grace is that they all tell basically the same story, except for the Goebels version that was Nazi propaganda...I dont see any religious scripture as an absolute verification of any event, but shakey as it was, I think the bible compilers did a better job of what they had to work with, than the muslim compilers did. And as far as scriptures go, the Bible is on more solid ground than the Quran...
KT, maybe you can use some of that "intellectual honesty" you have so much of.
The imams continue to pull the strings. When the deal goes down, the defenders of civilization would do well to pay particular attention to the imams.
“Maybe I should pepper the site with my ideas to keep the censor busy? "
Poor KT, reduced to performing like the true troll you are.
And how would you like it if JW/DW submitted the hours and hours of crap you’ve posted here to your workplace bosses. Letting them know how much of the company’s money you’ve wasted over the last 6 months by trolling here instead of being productive on your job. Don’t start making threats because you’re not the only one that can do it.
-_- _- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
“that he apparently abandoned Islamic studies rather than reveal some of the things he had learned about differences in Qur'anic texts”
It appears this Adrian guy had a pretty good self-preservation system.
My thought is that perhaps things are heating up in Europe faster than kt realized... and he felt the need to up the ante and try to silence this site.
Off to work. Take care all!
KT
Being censored & being banned are totally different.
Trust you to twist it.
Enjoy your exile, I am sure we will.
It was getting dull defeating & exposing you at every turn anyway.
All the best old son
Albion
Posted by: albion at November 8, 2005 11:03 AM
Anyone know why he has finally overstepped the mark?
Well, well.
Dearest KT has been done for.
In memory of him, what can we say? What best captures the essence of the undearly departed?
"An evasive ideologue and misanthrope trying to disguise falsehood as fact and fact as fiction. [sniff]"
Goodbye, KT. Check your prophet at the door.
And take up a new one, like:
Prophet Geoff [bbuh]
PS: Gary, interesting take on KT. I think it supports my suspicions about him pretty strongly. "Indeed!" it doth. Maybe his bosses should know after all.
Prophet Geoff
Geoff:
KT tipped his hand on J/W several weeks ago, but not in the sense of revealing himself as a closet convert. He accused Spencer of practicing demagoguery through the selection of news items to stir up anti-Muslim sentiments. If his comments are deleted, it's likely because they contain the usual awful moral equivalency arguments (a rather devious form of demogoguery if I ever bumped into it) he is so famous for.
This room is missing something... Hmmm... what is it? Oh, I get it... From the dark outlines on the wall I think I can just make out the shape of a pink elephant... Anyway -- sometimes a haircut is a sheer delight -- and taking out the trash always leaves me with a peculiar sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. Posters bent on degrading and destroying the threads should be excluded from this site -- let's keep this a clean, well lit place!
I think Hugh's excellent post above is extremely important, and worth a bit of reflection... It has greatly troubled me that the complexity of the threat posed by Islam is unlikely to be appreciated by the greater public any time soon -- this is a tremendous problem. Even the misattribution at this site of "dhimmitude" is problematic for me. What is often ascribed as DHIMMITUDE at this site in reality is misguided good natured pluralistic fair minded naiveté. And I hope we never completely lose this Western innocence and trust in mankind -- it will be another theft of Islam, another precious aspect of our un-Muslim world crushed by Islam's hateful heavy hand...
If understanding why our enemy threatens us requires an extensive exegesis of the Koran and its attendant texts -- and if it is extremely unlikely that such an endeavor will occur among our citizens-- where does this leave us? How do we mobilize sufficient numbers of citizens to grasp why Muslim don't belong in democracies if they refuse to accept the secular underpinnings of those democracies over their entrenched sharia laws?
This is a great achilles heel for the un-Muslim world, and it is one reason Islam proves to be such a devastating agent of destruction -- Most cultures and people don't even know what kind of disease is descending upon them when Islam arrives... Islam's multifarious mechanisms and primitive, non-centralized weblike approach defies the definitions of typical organizations. It is simply unlike all other existential threats we have ever faced....
So how do we get the message out without appearing like bigots? How do we get the message out without vainly hoping that the average citizens will delve into the phantasmogoria of Islam, and keep their balance in that preposterous terrain? Sadly, I fear many will become Muslim troglodytes rather than foes of Islamic fascism in the process -- where does that leave us? How can we convey that the "radical" and the "moderate" Muslim are both part of the same beast -- a beast who want to devour us without pity or remorse, an ideological eating machine -- who, like a shark, is well designed for that purpose?
Yah!
So, take that KT, you invisible SOB!
Blindly, the French do not recognize that they have just acknowledged the French muslims do not answer to goverment or law.
If this gets temporarily resolved, the French police will never pursue or try to arrest another French muslim. And any time a French muslim has someone look at him, he will call for riots.
French appeasement has just opened the gates to a very hot place. Now we will watch as Chirac plays with fire.
I simply thought that this was an interesting unrelated article.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Organs_of_killed_Palestinian_boy_go_to_Israel
Jsla writes:
"It has greatly troubled me that the complexity of the threat posed by Islam is unlikely to be appreciated by the greater public any time soon -- this is a tremendous problem."
And a problem exacertated by shamefully deceitful media reporting on the French 'youth' riots.
Hugh,
I continue to be amazed that trained reporters and journalists do not to hear alarm bells going off when they are presented with weasel-words like "blindly" and "innocents" in those so-called fatwas. The inquisitive response, trained to the point of automaticity, should be “what do you mean by ‘innocent’/ ‘blindly’?
You wrote:
“Articles about this subject -- the nonsense and lies and half-truths and ellipses of Muslim spokesmen (as in that Qur'anic passage about "He who kills a man...." with the important Muslim exceptions interpolated into the Hebrew original that do allow for such killing, and even make it a duty) -- well, such articles need to be written and submitted to local papers, and their contents made the subject of calls to various talk shows, nonstop.”
That verse 5:32 (the “…he who kills a man…” verse) would be an excellent example to bring to public attention. This would expose to the public that the ‘religion of peace mantra’ is a lie and that the Islamic apologists who cite it are liars. If the critique was well-known, apologists would be more reluctant to attempt to trot it out as a peaceful verse. Some of us tackled 5:32 in a thread here just recently. Have you or Robert considered writing an article focussing on it?
Here are two more so-called ‘good’ verses:
“ …whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve…”
Is disbelief is okay? If so, why doesn’t the Koran say so explicitly? In fact, the Koran never says disbelief is okay. Quite the contrary. Disbelief is the worst crime/sin and over 250 verses explicitly condemn disbelievers to hell. For this quote, Sura 109 is sometimes cited, but it is ambiguous. Verse 18:39 has also been cited, cropped (as above) by apologists. Here's the whole verse:
18:29: “Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!”
Look at what the apologists brazenly cut out from the quote! The verse says that those who disbelieve will be sadistically, gratuitously tortured in hell. Why would they be punished? Because they committed the worst imaginable crime, the crime of disbelieving in Allah! The Koran says they should be killed, converted, or subjugated. So the policy is hardly ‘live and let live,’ as apologists wish to imply when they cite the verse.
Another allegedly good verse is this one:
“There is no compulsion in religion…”
Anyone who understands the meaning of the word "compulsion" and has read Koran knows that this statement fragment, presented as such, contradicts the entire Koran. Here is the full quote, with the next verse added:
2:256: “There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.”
2:257: “Allah is the protecting guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are the rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.”
Note the “he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah” part of 2:256, which the apologists chopped out. What is to be done to those people who accept other religions or who do not believe in Allah? The very next verse states unambiguously that they are to cast into the Fire. Believe in Allah, reject other religions, or else go to hell. That is compulsion.
The Koran tells us that those believers who argue amongst themselves about Allah will be doomed by Allah (42:16). Believers are obligated to fight in battle for Allah, to kill or be killed (2:211, 8:15-17, 9:39) in His name. Hypocrites and apostates will be doomed (in fact, put to death). Everyone knows the restrictions there are on women and slaves. Everyone knows the onerous rituals and superstitious restrictions that Muslims must observe. Several passages throughout the Koran forbid believers to be true friends with the unbelievers, who are the enemy. The policy of ‘kill, convert, or subdue’ the disbelievers is the very essence and extremity of compulsion. I don’t know of any ideology that involves greater compulsion.
The three verses (5:32, 2:256, 18:29) are some of the most common I've seen cited by apologists. All three verses are actually quite bad. Exposing them all would indeed be educational.
"how do we get the message out without appearing like bigots?"
Good question. That task is made harder by the fact that the dominant PC atmosphere sets the bar, with regard to Islam, of what constitutes "bigotry" extremely low. The majority still breathe deeply of the PC atmosphere -- it's their main source of oxygen.
"How do we get the message out without vainly hoping that the average citizens will delve into the phantasmogoria of Islam, and keep their balance in that preposterous terrain?"
Somebody needs to produce a handy, clear, simple, short yet substantive compendium of the Problem of Islam. Spencer's Politically Incorrect Guide and Bostom's Legacy of Jihad are both good contributions to the education of the Infidel -- but they are not what is needed to introduce the PC-softened Infidel (i.e., the vast majority of Westerners) to the problem.
What is needed is a small book that simply lists (with no lubricating prose at all) all the problems of Islam, in simple ruthlessly minimalized, clearly presented format, providing references and Internet links. This would be the absolute first book for the Infidel to read; Spencer's and Bostom's books would be the second line of intellectual defense; Bat Ye'or's books would be for those wishing more in-depth information; and so on.
I came late to this discussion, but notice that the moderators or Robert proved King Tolerance statement that this forum is censored, thus giving the lie to Mr Spencers statement that he is not responsible for content of posters. And not only is he responsible, but as was apparently stated by King Tolerance, on the basis of another posters comments, merely a rah rah chorus, where discussion is verboten or at least inhibited.
And that perpetual infant Gary said:
That is a lie and a mischaracterization child. I have no problem with those who believe in a higher authority, however bear in mind that it is the Muslims who claim that a higher authority gives them rights to subdue kaffirs and wage Jihad.
All I've ever said is there are no winners in the battle for god, and despite the macho blustering of you and other posters here, I seriously doubt that any of you are up to actual armed conflict, where it is your life, blood and limbs or those of your family that are on the line.
I'll leave this discussion with the following cogent advice, and this is the message I've been trying to purvey... the rants of the infantile idiots of the extreme right and in particular those who are uncensored on this blog are counterproductive... you actually do OUR (yes OUR) cause more harm than good.
Childish, irrational, self righteous, idiots from which I have difficulty distinguishing any difference from the Jihadi and self righteous, childish, irrational Muslim.
Ever time I hear you guys wail about PC and Multicult I hear also the rants and whines of the racists and NAZI's who also whine about PC and Multicult.
Lurk on their sites, you'll see what I mean.
Multiculturalism and politically correct language have enable my and your forefathers to emigrate into America and become citizens. One set of my great grand parents weren't so welcome when as Asheknazim they stepped off the boat at Baltimore.
In the "good ole days" before politically correct, there was no problem with Jim Crow laws, calling blacks "nigger" and Jews "Kike" or Hispanics "spic" or Italians "wops".
You guys really want to roll back the hands of time.
BTW Gary et al, "Whose Higher Power"? Yours or the Muslims? If you say yours, just how does that make you different than the Muslims, and please no obfuscation (Judeo Christian taqiyya), argumentums ad ridiculums or moral equivalencies.
Deal with the issue only. Whose Higher Power? If yours how do you differ from the Muslim who claims that their god is the true god. And how do you or the Muslim indeed to prove it and convince the non believer.
You see you exposed the soft underbelly of the Judeo Christian Right, you are allies with the Muslims in the war against the unbeliever.
You are allies with the Muslims, didn't realize that did you?
Wonder what atheists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Orianna Fallaci, Van Gogh and Pym Fortuyn (were the latter still alive) have to say about the likes of you?
How fragile a belief, when a minority can threaten it.
Could one not remain to post about the subject under discussion -- Islam? Must "left" and "right" be brought in by so many so often? Can't that be checked at the door? I posted about this somewhere -- perhaps I can find that posting and put it here. As to Final Authorities and stuff like that, this site should be open to all those alarmed about Islam, and the peculiar strength of Islam's appeal to the marginal who see it not as a vehicle of Arab supremacism that stunts the mental growth, but as a vehicle of protest against the Western world, or against whatever world they think they inhabit, and to analyze the ways in which Muslims present things, the ways that they manage to sanitize Islam, or to deflect attention, or prevent study of Islam that might be truthful rather than a mess of MESA-Nostra apologetics. The postings should also ideally supplement what is known about the history of Muslim subjugation and mistreatment of non-Muslims, over 1350 years, and especially now. Among those who visit and who post, are those with their own direct experience of Islam; some are non-Muslims who grew up in Muslim societies, some have worked in Muslim countries, some have observations on what is happening in their own cities, towns, schools, town meetings, local newspapers, that are worth putting up here.
Robert has strong religious beliefs and interests. I have none. No interest in spiritual matters. No interest in life after death, no interest in an explanation of the universe that doesn' t involve equations, no interest in le pari de Pascal and hitting the jackpot and winning a good place in Heaven, or avoiding Hell. Don't believe, never believed, perfectly content, do like to decorate a Christmas tree and give, and get, Christmas presents. Like Christmas carols, Christmas parties especially if there is some kind of Asian food. Also like King James version of the Bible, and occasionally, on television if I am in a southern state, snatches of a real hellfire-and-brimstone sermon. Have a hymnal, and especially like "Once to Every Man and Nation/Comes the moment to decide etc." The other day re-read Donne's "Devotions," have also read some Herbert, Traherne, Teresa of Avila, Oxford Book of Christian Verse. End of connection to religion. Does that mean it is illegitimate for me to comment on Islam, that enemy of mental freedom and of all Infidels, including those who are not trying to convert Muslims, but would like them either, if they are Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims, for all our sakes, and especially that of their own children, to simply take the next step and jettison it altogether.
All this score-settling and hard feelings based on invocation of such words as "multiculturalism" or "the Left" or "the Right" or "capitalism" remind one of the disputes, in the period when Lenin and the Bolsheviks were seizing power, between left S.R.'s (Social Revolutionaries) and members of the Kadet (Constitutional Democrats) Party, or the disputes between the Zionists and the Marxists among the Jews blocked up by German troops in the Warsaw Ghetto, in 1944. The Bolsheviks killed left SR's and Kadets with equal fury. And we all know what happened to the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto.
There's a time and a place for that kind of dispute, or arguing, or even arguefying, as Empson would say. This isn't the time. This isn't the place.
Nariz:
The fact that bloggers on this site rail against the strictures of PC and the ultra right does as well, doesn't mean they do it for the same reason. Ernst Zundel and his ilk like to pass off Holocaust denial as a form of expression protected under the concept of freedom of speech/thought, but in fact they are totalitarians who have no interest in freedom. Multiculturalism was conceived as a means of making ethnic minorities feel their culture is as valued as the majority's culture, but it has devolved to the point where it boils down to a declaration of entitlement to greater rights (or wrongs) than the rest of society, hence the notorious instruction to Aussie coppers to treat Muslim wife beaters differently from domestic wife beaters.
Nariz,
You got it all so wrong. I too am from an immigrant family, in fact, all of my grandparents (peace and blessings upon them) were immigrants from what was then a destitute island in the Mediterranean just prior to the outbreak of WW I. Married in the old country, the emigrated to New York and Chicago, infants in tow and later offspring born here. They found their first life in Little Sicily.
They virtually had nothing, just the clothes on their back. One grandfather made a living selling newspapers on the corner, the other slaughtering hogs on the South Side (Go Sox!) stockyards. My father, my aunts and my uncles, none of them finished high school, supporting a family was very difficult in an immigrant community during the depression. My father and my uncles served in the U.S. armed forces of WW II, one uncle did not make it back. My own dad, despite my childish inquisitiveness back in the '50's, and until the day of his death decades later, couldn't speak to me of his time in the 7th Army in Sicily.
Growing up in Chicago, there were Wops, Sheenies, Shanties, Shines, Pollocks, Bohunks, Krauts, Nips, Gooks, Chinks, Honkies, Spics, 'Ricans, Kikes and Niggers, a virtual melting pot of epitaphs, but we all had our own neighborhoods. It was not multiculturalism and political correctness that brought us together, and brought together we are, for in each of these groups, I count many close friends.
The change came through respect; it was coming to America and leaving the old hostilities behind. Most importantly, it was adherence to a set of common values, a common culture that allowed our diversity to unite, not divide, us, to allow us to share in Saint Gennaro day and a Seder equally, and enjoy each others company doing so.
Please do not confuse multiculturalism with diversity, do not confuse political correctness with respect, for they are polar extremes.
I don't care where the immigrants come from, if they can't or won't assimilate, send them back!
The French a demonstrating the stupidity of allowing in a predatory immigrant group and are now reaping the whirlwind.
"...this site should be open to all those alarmed about Islam..."
And when posters such as Nariz so selfishly, mendaciously, and tiresomely diverts the discussion back onto his favorite topics of excoriating capitalism and excoriating Chrisitanity -- all semblance of true exploration and honest debate go out the window -- not to mention the fact that this is a completely unrelated topic to that of Jihad and Islamic fascism...
I have said many times before, these vile posters need to start their own sites... I have checked, and domains such as the following are still available:
Even_Though_It_Looks_Like_It's_Islam's_fault_ the_true Evil_is_all-In-The-Western-world.com
or
Christians_were_Just_As_Bad_1000_years_ago_as_Muslims_are_today_so_there.com
or
Everything_boils_down_to_Capitalism_vs_the_World.com
or
Prove_to_me_despite_the_mountains_of_evidence_and_quotations_directly_from_the_mouths_of_fanatical_pious_Muslims_that_this_has_anything_to_do_with_Islam.com
Non-topical posts by idiots like Nariz, KT, and Ia786 contribute NOTHING to this site, and in fact seriously degrade it's influence and the caliber of its content.... Censure them without any PC guilt whatsoever -- this is the essence of editorial imperative, and a central plank of freedom of speech -- Do it carefully, and thoughtfully, of course. But if posters cannot stick with the subject at hand, and show an inane tendency to lob bombs and divert threads onto their pet OFF TOPIC subject matter -- THEY SHOULD GO...
Sorry Hugh -- Your exhortation to stay on topic is a good one --
BTW -- are you about 112 years old ? It sounds like you're saying you have personal memories back to the 10s and 20s...! WOW -- you're mental faculties are very well preserved!
Nariz writes:
"Ever time I hear you guys wail about PC and Multicult I hear also the rants and whines of the racists and NAZI's who also whine about PC and Multicult."
Nariz,
I think part of that issue is that many people on the right (I am on the right, so no offense, right wingers) use the term "multiculturalism" to mean
some academic moral equivalence philosophy that holds that all cultures are equal, by some measure
of equality. I, and I suspect many others, use it
to mean that I accept that there are cultures (and
religion may or may not be a part of the culture) different from mine, and assuming that they can get along with me, I can get along with them (reciprocity). In that sense, I see "multiculturalism" as a good thing. The straw man
(from my POV) multiculturalism helf up here as bad is obviously bad, but I think the word is being used in a way I don't accept.
PC is something I don't like. Not calling someone
wop, kike or nigger is common courtesy, and to do so is pretty close to "fighting words". However,
observing that Jews own lots of newspapers (as you have done) or that according to the FBIs crime statistics, blacks commit crime at a higher rate than whites, who outcrime Asians, while PI, are
either true or false and should be discussable without PC censure (but not here!). So here, you use the term in a way I don't accept.
As usual, Hugh is right that this is not really
the right place to get hung up on all of this, but it appears to me that right wingers are treated with kid gloves here in comparison to left wingers. Sometimes long annoying Christian missives appear, which look like they were written by Franklin Graham on acid. Why don't those get
censored?
In any case, reciprocity is one of the foundational underpinnings of human morals, something that is lacking in the behavior of
mohammadans towards nonmuslims, and something that
we need more of here too.
epg sez:
"...The French are demonstrating the stupidity of allowing in a predatory immigrant group..."
The French should know, but they don't. Villepin thinks he knows but he is wrong: He thinks he knows what Muhammedanism is about but he is unable and unlikely to learn, even if they spit in his face...
Europe is ready for another revolution. It will not be pretty, it will be bloody, but I hope it will be thorough...
Not one mosque must remain in Europe !
The Mussulman has no place anywhere in Europe or in any civilized country and we have a duty to ourselves and our children to keep it that way.
We have to make sure that history will never be forgotten, before we are forced to repeat it...
When we, myself included, engaged the 3 stooges in arguments, they are playing us like a violin.
If we don't reward them they will grow tired of being ignored. We can do as in days of old, shun them. Let your blood boil, your B/P skyrocket, but shun them now for peaceful discourse later.
jsla, Dr. Pepper,
Jsla: “So how do we get the message out without appearing like bigots?”
Focus on immorality and atrocity, cite the Koran, Hadith, and Sira. We emphasize the fact that all the bigotry belongs to Islamic doctrine and the conduct of the prophet. Getting this information out clearly requires a brief condensed format, as Dr. Pepper has pointed out.
Dr. Pepper: “What is needed is a small book that simply lists (with no lubricating prose at all) all the problems of Islam, in simple ruthlessly minimalized, clearly presented format, providing references and Internet links.”
Here is a recent example:
Posted by Sebastien on Jihadwatch (excerpt):
"All Muslims believe Mohamed is the final prophet of Allah. They all believe that the Koran is divinely dictated. They all believe that the Koran is perfect for all time. They all believe Mohamed is the perfect man who must be emulated.
This perfect man had sex with a nine year old girl. FACT
This perfect man ordered the death of poets who criticised him. FACT
This perfect man ordered the death by decapitation of 800 innocent Jews at Banu Quaraiza. FACT
This perfect man hated art. FACT
This perfect man took as slaves, the wives of executed prisoners. FACT
This perfect man robbed caravans, destroyed towns and kept 20 % of the booty. FACT
This perfect man said women had half the value of men. FACT
This perfect man called for the death of infidels wherever they could be found. FACT
This perfect man lied, to hide his ambitions. FACT
This perfect man arranged to have a revelation that suited him when he wanted his son in law's wife. FACT
This perfect man said that he knew of no greater act for Allah than Jihad. (Not the internal struggle bullshit) FACT
This perfect man ordered the killing of apostates. FACT"
-------------------------------
Sebastien's example also included some links that are well-known to most JW/DW readers and would provide a good introduction to the problems of Islam.
The bad verses in the Koran can also each be condensed to express the main point, and then listed. The information should be organized categorically according to different issues, such as women's rights, religious tolerance/hatred, violence and cruelty, etc. (for a resource containing categorized problematic verses, see http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm )
The phrasing in such a pamphlet (or web version of a pamphlet) should pull no punches in illustrating just how bad Mohammad and his Koran were. Describe how Asma bint Marwan, poetess and mother of five young children (one of them a suckling infant), was assassinated, etc. Show Mohammad's true character. Quote the Koran where "Allah" says that anyone who doesn't want Mohammad to succeed in his mission should go hang himself. Quote the Koran where Mohammad ("Allah") forgives all of Mohammad's past and future sins.
A FAQ format also might be useful. Another idea would be to use a "Myths versus Facts" format. (Jihadwatch/Dhimmiwatch site should have something like this).
As Dr. Pepper said, once people understand the basic facts, they can then move on to Spencer's, Bostom's, and Bat Ye'or's books and links.
What did KT do? I can't believe I missed it. LOL
Archimedes,
As you've discovered, Muslims have been bamboozled by the inclusion of 5:32, and the perversion of its original intent, in the Qur'an. With that in mind, I respectfully disagree with one aspect of an opinion you expressed in a similar thread:
"Thanks for those links. As far as I'm concerned, verse 5:32 is an absolute joke. As you noted, it is in reference to the Children of Israel. However, this is not the main problem with it, because, in the Koran, it is taken as a statement from Allah and it is extended to believers (Muslims)."
Regarding that sura, I believe it is THE problem, and one that should be shouted from the rooftops.
It's a problem for average Muslims who, in their ignorance of its true origins and intent, falsely believe it is Allah's word.
It's a bigger problem for hypocritical (moderate) Muslims who ignore the truth about their 'noble' religion.
It's an even bigger problem for non-Muslims, like our president, who, knowing nothing about it in the first place, cite paraphrased segments of it anyway.
And It can be turned into a real problem for the clerics and other liars who really don't want the truth to be known.
I've been working on a letter, concenrning 5:32's illegitimacy, to send to my elected officials; one which can, with minor changes, be sent to news agencies, talk shows, etc.
Nonstop.
Perhaps you and I can work on this together.
PRCS,
"It's a problem for average Muslims who, in their ignorance of its true origins and intent, falsely believe it is Allah's word."
I agree. This aspect of 5:32 (i.e., its origins) can certainly be pursued to show Mohammad's fraudulence. Dealing with 5:32 requires a two-step argument. First, point out the true origins. Second, once the origins are established, one can nevertheless deal with the verse as though it were authentic (Muslims assume that it is authentic. One must deal with the fact that Muslims are taking 5:32 as something that applies to them. I believe many Muslims would not be troubled all that much by the true origins of the verse; they can just claim there is a shared origin between Judaism and Islam and that somehow validates Mohammad's prophesy). By addressing the moral problem left open by the "corruption on earth" exception, the apologist is put in a very difficult position. Apologists desperately need 5:32, because there are so few morally good verses in the Koran. Showing that the verse is really a morally bad one removes a major propaganda tool of the apologists.
The way I'd present the problem is to quote the verse and then ask "What's corruption on earth?" and "How is corruption on earth punished?" The answers to these questions are so terrible and outrageous that 5:32 loses all credibility as a "good" verse. At least, it is no good if you're a disbeliever.
Any materials I've put up on the previous thread, feel free to use. I've written quite a lot of notes on 5:32, and I've developed a more detailed argument on another site, so let me know if you'd like me to post some of the main points. I should add that I'm no expert, but I do believe my critique of the "corruption on earth" exemption is sound. (I've read a brief statement by Ibn Warraq on 5:32, and basically his view is consistent with mine that, far from being a good verse, it is actually a morally bad one for the reasons I've cited. Indeed, 5:33 describes the penalties).
By advancing both arguments, the apologist is left with no escape. They cannot claim that Mohammad took the verse from somewhere else without admitting Mohammad, and therefore Islam, is a fraud. On the other hand, if they persist in viewing the verse as authentic, they are stuck with the embarrassing problem of having to defend the brutal punishments, laid down in the Koran, for "corruption on earth."
"Are we gonna win via a grad school academic movement?"
My guess would be: NO. But those "PBUH" paste ups aren't going to win anything either! I think most of us are on the same side, and if the posters have ideas about defeating Jihad, even a teensy weensy idea about how to do it, wouldn't you agree that's a good item that might fit into a larger business plan? Huh?
Hugh wants us to leave our Lefts and our Rights right at the door.
But when it's hard to deny that the Left has created and perpetuates the stultifying climate of PC givens that hobble our effort at dealing collectively with the problem of Islam, how is the Left not relevant to jihadwatch?
Or is it easy to deny that?
Nariz,
PC Leftism has its uses -- many of them quite laudable for social change.
However, the self-defense of a proud West is not in the quiver of PC Leftism.
So, let us use PC Leftism to help our minorities, our disadvantaged, our workers, and so forth -- all noble and good things.
But when it comes to the criticism of Islam and our defense against it, we must say to PC Leftism: Sit down and be quiet.
Archimedes...there is a possiblity that none of those 'facts' about Mohammad are actually facts. I read some speculations that Mohammad may not have existed at all. I have not yet researched this, so all I know is the topic and someone suspects it. Maybe Robert or Hugh know something of this. It does leave a question though, if Mohammad never existed, who wrote all that fiction?
Archimedes,
Thanks for your input.
I would say that a short book on the Problem of Islam should strictly follow three guidelines:
1) it should be no more than an adumbration -- a list of facts, each fact presented as briefly as possible
2) every fact listed should be referenced, at the place where it appears with ONE (and only one) direct source; and added to that with a footnote number to the back of the book for further references
3) the book should be as complete as possible -- a complete list of facts demonstrating the problem of Islam. This could amount to 1000 listed facts, perhaps more.
Following these three general guidelines, the book should be formatted according to categories:
1) Mohammed
2) The texts -- Koran, Hadith, Sira
3) Islamic history of Jihad
4) Islamic terrorism (choose a good time period perhaps beginning in the 1980s, up to the present):
a) attacks
b) groups
c) apologies
5) Sharia (history and present)
6) Islamic intolerance in terms of thought and expression (history and present).
These 6 categories are not meant to be a general overview of Islamic history and culture. They are meant to pinpoint areas by which the book can frame the problems of Islam.
There will be overlap, but the categories should be kept as distinct as possible.
After reading some on the Islam Undressed site, I think a campaign that revolves around the Borg from Star Trek might be a good start. Of course, you can't use the Borg per se, but you can use phrases like "You will be assimilated." It ties Islam to a concept known to most people. It hits people immediately at an emotional level and provides the over-arching view of what we are facing.
"[We] got no PR; the Moslems have awesome PR"
Not only do we have little or no PR, and the Muslims have good PR -- Muslim PR finds a supportive structure in the West's PC dominance, while our PR is marginalized and ostracized by our own West.
'Ever time I hear you guys wail about PC and Multicult I hear also the rants and whines of the racists and NAZI's who also whine about PC and Multicult.'~ nose/giaour
Moral equivalency. Expected. Touched a nerve did I?
Good!
And good night, all.
Nariz:
I respect your coming on here and posting, but to refer to the posters here, and to all muslims as "Childish, irrational, self righteous, idiots from which I have difficulty distinguishing any difference from the Jihadi and self righteous, childish, irrational Muslim" is NOT helping anything and is wrong besides. Not all muslims are self righteous, nor childish, nor irrational, and neither are the posters here.
If you dislike the religious affiliations of some of them, so be it. But I see no Christians running around decapitating people in Christian-majority nations, so I fail to understand your angry unacceptance.
Your confrontations with the Christians (or Jews, Hindus or other theists) on the site - not one of whom has offered you the "three choices" - are not appropriate, whatever your military background might have been.
In outreach,
Prophet Geoff [bbuh]
The collective Western publics need to be administered some severa shock-therapy in the
form of TV ad spots, radio, lawsuits, PR campaigns. This is the way.
Posted by Chaz Martel
A massive PR campaign would be the ideal way to reach the public but there is only one problem--nobody in the politically correct, left-wing, mainstream media would sell air time for what they would consider an Islamophobic hate fest; they LOVE Islam and take great pains to call muslim terrorists "freedom fighters" and a vast array of other euphemisms to avoid linking them to the barbaric violence they are so famous for. They are the jihadists' best friends and eager collaborators.
The MSM will never allow the truth about Islam to be aired on their networks. They have been engaged in a despicable propaganda campaign on behalf of Islam since 9-11 and would sooner sign off the air than expose the vulgar, hideous face of Islam. Without venues, a PR campaign is impossible. I doubt if even conservative newspapers would run full page ads for fear of lawsuits and backlash.
Short videos could be produced and aired in churches, synagogues, private schools, and private gatherings but there would be considerable risk involved, and advertisements for the viewings would be invitations for muslim wrath.
Maybe you know something I don't, but a PR campaign is easier said than done. It can be accomplished to some extent on a local level with leaflets, bumper stickers, business cards, and word of mouth, with links to informative websites and reference books. But even then, discretion and caution are crucial to avoid confrontations and possible retribution. One of the easiest ways to get killed these days is by exposing the vulgarity and evil of Islam. But violent retribution against the critics of Islam doesn't faze the "progressives" as they wring their hands and lament the egregious social injustice that plagues the poor, pitiful, perpetually victimized ummah. Hypocrites, all of them.
Do you know any medium that would actually air ads, TV spots, etc. depicting uncensored Islam? I don't.
duh swami,
You said: "Archimedes...there is a possiblity that none of those 'facts' about Mohammad are actually facts."
True, we really don't know for sure that Mohammad even existed. (I believe Ibn Warraq has written on this). But nevertheless Islamic fundamentalists assume he did exist, and they hold him up an as example for (male) believers to emulate.
These doubts about Mohammad's existence can be added to further strengthen the argument pursued by PRCS re Mohammad's authenticity. Possibly, this would make "Mohammad" the product of some writer(s)' fiction, writer(s) who plagiarized the basic idea of 5:32 from earlier sources.
Dr. Pepper,
I agree with your short book idea (and many of the elements of it), though I am thinking more along the lines of a "pamphlet" perhaps 3 pages in length. Your short book my be an intermediate step between my pamphlet and books such as Spencer's or Warraq's, or the Bostom volume. I'm thinking of addressing the person who knows little more about Islamic ideology than what they've heard in the mainstream media (i.e., religion of peace). On the first page there would be (under a title) a list of the categories of problems/issues. The examples for each of the categories would then be presented over the next 2.5 pages. The categories I am thinking of are (not nec. in order)
Women's Rights in Islam.
Slavery in Islam.
Islamic Policy Toward non-Muslims.
Violent Jihad.
Freedom of Expression.
Islamic Policy for Muslims' Conduct and Belief.
The main body of the pamphlet would cite, under each category heading, appropriate examples of brief "factoid" statements condensed from the Koran and Hadith, some historical examples (e.g., for Violent Jihad, approved massacre of 100,000 Hindu POWs, prophet-sanctioned use of catapult against buildings containing women and children, etc.) and recent examples brutal sharia rulings. Koranic references (e.g., 9:5) would appear in the main text, and other references would be listed at the end of the pamphlet.
Note: by "prophet-sanctioned use of catapult" I mean "prophet-approved use of catapult."
No Nariz - people of immigrant stock like myself are sick of one particular group of whining immigrants who no sooner than landing in Infidel land want everything changed to suit them. If someone walked into your house and demand you change the decor, you'd be pissed to say the least. They've been fed, housed, clothed and educated by the State, a damn sight more than they'd ever get in the hellholes from which they fled.
kt, errr, bin: are you saying that the thousand-Plus a month that the French government gives away to each family is marginalizing?
Otherwise there is NO sense to your statement.
Londongirl
As usual I am in full agreement with your post.
Best regards
Albion
Well put Londongirl. Hear hear.
Who's this 'bin' then? Another facist flushed? I hope it was in an imam-approved toilet.
Arch, as a Prophet myself, I would be happy to issue a Standard 101-A Fatwa approving your catapult for reasonable remuneration.
I will, however, not star in distribution videos for said catapult, unless there be beer and scantily-clad maidens, may Allah curse them.
Geoff
Wholly Profit
Archimedes,
I agree with your pamphlet idea and that it should be the first to be presented, followed by a short book along my lines.
However, 3 pages seems too short: I would say 5 pages. A pamphlet of 5 pages would not be too much for the average person to digest.
I don't know if other folks here experience my problem, but I frequently find myself failing to have at my fingertips the correct, or sufficient amount of, information needed to criticize Islam on certain points that come up whether in conversations out in the "real world", or conversations on the net.
Even on the net, where one has the advantage of opening a second window to Google to one's heart's content, the sheer volume and complexity of information we the Jihadwatchers need to make the appropriate case at each particular juncture of a discussion or argument can be off-putting. I'm an intelligent guy, I have two undergraduate degrees (history, comparative religions) from an American university, but I am frequently at a loss to come up with the required info. Then, when I start to research it, I quickly find myself in a jungle of complexity and cross-references within which it is difficult to discern priorities: which is the best piece of data for this particular question, this particular criticism, this particular argument about Islam? Answers to this question can often lead one down several hours of reading and meandering through trees and forests of radiating information about Islam. And this quandary only gets worse because there are so many good presentations and essays about Islam out there!
Our cause needs a uniform, single, authoritative, complete yet simply presented reference that outlines the Problem of Islam.
Four years after 911, and we are still far too messy, slapdash and far-flung with our information presentation.
The bottom line in all this nonsense,is COLONIZATION IN REVERSE,and so far it seems to be working.
Unless the West takes drastic steps,and stops making shallow politically correct excuses for this plague of Koranimals,you can kiss your rights and anything else you hold dear goodbye.
Prophet Geoff,
"Arch, as a Prophet myself, I would be happy to issue a Standard 101-A Fatwa approving your catapult for reasonable remuneration."
That easy! Don't forget that, as a prophet, you too can pardon yourself of all past and future sins.
Here's a humourous look at Mohammad, which you may or may not have seen, a comic called "Mohammed's 'Believe it or Else!'"
http://islamcomicbook.com/comics/english/index.htm
Dr. Pepper,
You wrote:
“I frequently find myself failing to have at my fingertips the correct, or sufficient amount of, information needed to criticize Islam on certain points that come up whether in conversations out in the "real world", or conversations on the net.”
One thing I’ve found handy was to make a compendium of verses and reports into categories (including the six I mentioned previously—women’s rights, slavery, violent jihad, policy toward non-Muslim, freedom of expression, and Muslims’ conduct). Most of the material in this compendium is reduced down to the expression of the concepts (e.g., never befriend the disbelievers) and the sura-ayat numbers, rather than the full exact quotes. With everything prepared in categories, I can just cut and paste from what I already have organized as need be for putting together a letter or post. If I need the full quotes, I just go to an on-line Koran, using the sura-ayat numbers already collected for referencing.
The on-line Koran at the skepticsannotatedbible site has been useful (they use Pickthal’s translation). One advantage of this resource is that many of the verses have already been classified according to various moral and factual problems. It is not done by a scholar of Islam, and it is far from complete (e.g., I think the annotation of sura 9 is only about 50% complete). However, it is still very useful.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
An on-line Koran that has multiple translations and commentary from Islamic scholars is at http://al-islam.org/quran/
Hugh and others referred to the Hebrew original of Quran 5:32. It is found in Seder Neziqin of the Talmud [or Order Nezikin]. This is one of six major divisions of the Talmud, and deals with laws of damages. You can find an acceptable English translation in the Soncino English edition of the Talmud which ought to be found in most good university and big city public libraries. I don't have the exact page and verse no. unfortunately.
Emile Dermenghem in Muhammad and the Islamic Tradition [trans. from French], quotes 5:32 on p 96, but does not give the Quranic context nor does he mention the Talmudic origin.
Eliyahu,
Thanks for this information regarding the origins of 5:32.