Four unstated premises of the mainstream media about Islamic jihad

Really, it's all very clear. If you say "Death to the Jews!" or praise Bin Laden or applaud the Iraqi "resistance" or the Iraqi "insurgency," well, then you are not a hater. Hate is only when Ramzi Kalark or Jiminy Cricket or Amnesty or hrw says it's hate. How could anyone of goodwill be so hateful as to think otherwise?
{Maybe it's, How could anyone be hateful as to THINK?}

Let's all remember that Allah gives certain people a special dispensation to hate. But since that's godly hate, then it's not hate. Isn't that obvious?

More proof that the BBC are not interested in fully reporting hate when it's from any islamic or arab source: the following page is from the BBC website, and is a brief compendium of statements by the great statesman and Holocaust expert currently in charge of Iran, Mr Ahmadiranmaninjihad. Notice that they give plenty of space to his self-justifications, his analysis of international relations vis-a-vis the UN etc, but report his views on Israel and the Holocaust (because they could not realistically omit them) as briefly as possible, skimming over them before returning to something they feel more comfortable reporting - Ahmadiranmaninjihad's championing of human rights and equality... The page can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4616336.stm

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

A nation which has culture, logic and civilisation does not need nuclear weapons. The countries which seek nuclear weapons are those which want to solve all problems by the use of force. Our nation does not need such weapons.

NUCLEAR RESEARCH

We are asked why we have started [nuclear] research. We answer that there is no limitation to research. There are no limits imposed on research in NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty] or in the Additional Protocol. Nor have we made such a commitment. Research is necessary for the life and dynamism of a nation.

THE UNITED NATIONS

The UN Security Council has been set up for the world security. Is the UN Security Council a mere tool in their [Western powers] hands to use at their will - threatening to send our case to the UN if we refuse to comply with their demands? Our understanding is that the UN Security Council belongs to all nations and is not a tool for a few countries. Why do they use it for their own purpose?

SPEECH AT THE UN

The prevalence of military domination, increasing poverty, the growing gap between rich and poor countries, violence as a means to solve crises, spread of terrorism - especially state terrorism - existence and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the pervasive lack of honesty in interstate relations, and disregard for the equal rights of peoples and nations in international relations, constitute some of the challenges and threats.

ISRAEL

As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.

THE HOLOCAUST

They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets.

GOVERNMENT

Government belongs to all people. It has to address the problems of every parts of the country. All parts of the country should move forward simultaneously. Every Iranian is entitled to equal right, especially in developing individual talent and development.

MORALITY

Human excellence, the excellence of human society comes about in the light of justice and spirituality. Measures that are taken outside religious morality, politics minus morality, economics minus morality, culture minus morality only turns the world into a hell for nations and humanity.

HUMAN RIGHTS

We neither oppress anyone nor are we prepared to submit to anyone's oppression. We want justice, peace and security for all nations. We are defenders of human dignity all across the world.

BELIEF

Belief in a saviour is universal. It is the pivot of our beliefs as Muslims and Iranians. We believe that an offspring of the prophet, may peace be upon him, will be the ultimate saviour. His name and attributes are clear. He will come and will administer ultimate justice.

IRANIAN POWER

The Iranian nation is a learned nation. It is a civilised nation. It is a history-making nation... You know and we know: you need us far more than we need you.

Such PC thinking is a leading reason for our downfall. Islam can say and do against non-Muslims without impunity ... and no one blinks an eye. What will it take for the naive media and others to understand the magnitude of our problem and the identity of the enemy? Such stupidity boggles the mind.

Here is my contribution to the list, inspired by the item on Saudi Arabia blaming the "west" for the Iran nuclear crisis:

Muslims never do anything wrong, they only react to provocations from infidels. Whether its Thailand, the ME, Europe, India, Indonesia or the US, Muslims are always the victims. They cut the heads off of Christian school girls in Indonesia or Buddhist monks in Thailand because Muslims are must avenge historical "wrongs" or slights.

The media bias has been staying the course of stupidity since the first attack on sovereign American territory. The 1979 Iran hostage drama was a crushing moral and political victory for Jihad! that the U.S. and the west still hasn't found an answer for. It was here that the media became neutered to the threat facing the world.

Nice guy Jimmy Carter was just not up to the task of dealing with a popular student and spiritual revolution. This should have been his strength; any halfway competent "man of the people" leader would've known what to do.

Instead after a year of "I will make not decision that will result in the harm of one American citizen" he launches a near suicidal special forces operation. The man and the ideas he stood for got trumped - completely and utterly whipped.

(It's worth remembering that the decision to storm the U.S. embassy came out of a democratic process. The vote was 3-2. Two for the Soviet embassy)

Let's have a look at some of the examples for the points Sorge Diaz raises:

Sorge Diaz: “Unstated Premise 2; Comments by non-muslims should be examined, comments by Muslims accepted uncritically: The message of Muslim spokesmen is never critically examined in the piece, while the message of their critics, well....”

Here’s an example

S I Rosenbaum: “The bloggers cite verses in the Koran that encourage believers to kill enemies of the faith. But Muslims say these passages are taken out of context and refer only to historical times.”

Ibn Warraq addresses this issue (scroll down to “Context”) http://challenging-islam.org/articles/warraq-debate-muslims.htm

I can’t speak for all citations, but in several cases this historical context argument doesn’t work. Verses 33:60-62 state that those guilty of sedition (i.e., non-violently promoting public dissent against Islam) must be seized and slaughtered, and 33:62 states explicitly that this is a law of Allah that will never be changed.

In addition, Sura 9 makes it clear that Islamic holy war is a religious duty to conquer all religions, no matter how averse this may be to non-Muslims. Fighting (kill, convert, subjugate) non-Muslims, hypocrites, and apostates is a religious duty. Those who fail to do it will be punished in this life and in the hereafter.

Heck, Allah himself boasts of having carried out multiple genocides throughout history to wipe out the disbelievers (17:17, 10:13, 38:3, 32:26); and Allah has destroyed whole towns/townships of disbelievers (7:4, 17:16, 21:6, 18:59, 28:58, 46:27).

Note: Allah also has the option of using believers to punish the disbelievers (8:17).

“"It's not an open-ended edict to go out and kill people," said Bedier, the CAIR spokesman. "There are hundreds of thousands of verses that talk about peace."”

Hundreds and thousands of verses! This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he’s lying, or else Rosenbaum misquoted him too. First of all, there are about 6236 verses in the Koran, give or take depending on who’s counting. Of those, only a tiny percentage refer to peace, and the peace is always in Islamic terms (e.g., people must Surrender to Islam, live under Islamic rule, or be put to death). Hundreds of verses preach intolerance, cruelty and violence, injustice, and so on. There are only about 62 verses in the entire Koran that refer to good moral values, and most of these are restricted to Muslims, not extended to non-Muslims.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

Perhaps Bedier should immediately notify the Al-Azhar University, the top scholarly authority of Sunni Islam, to update their copy of the Reliance of the Traveler. “Hey folks! Bedier says remove those laws that implement Sura 9!” Of course, Bedier is too busy trying to convince the infidels that such verses no longer apply or do not exist. And yeah, Al-Azhar would immediately heed the advice.

Next:

Sorge Diaz: “Unstated Premise 3; There is such a thing as Moderate Islam: The existence of Moderate Islam, a great, wonderful doctrine that will save us all, is assumed away; it is never looked for, let alone found. The History and Theology of Islam is conveniently ignored.”

75 out of 85 (86-88%) of the Meccan Suras (alleged to be from the peaceful tolerant phase of Mohammad’s career) contain at least one passage that contains intolerance/hate.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009791.php#comments (scroll to bottom)
The remainder of the Meccan Suras are very short, contain ambiguous statements, and tend to be poetic rather than policy-making. The most you’ll get in the way of Islamic tolerance are a few ambiguous statements or some veiled threats (e.g., tolerate the disbelievers now, but they will come to know!).

While journalists are generally wrong in their reporting of Islam (for a variety of reasons), they are correct in the following, as far as it is goes:

"There is such a thing as Moderate Islam:"

It exists. It's the place where the majority of the world's Muslim population lives -- the place that 4/5 of its illiterate, unknowledgeable population calls home.

It's when moderate Muslims leave the plantation that problems can arise.

Some, a few, will travel the road taken by those such as Ibn Warraq and renounce Islam.

But others, maybe a majority, will experience a different epiphany, and will travel the road taken by true, dedicated believers.

That, to me, seems to be one essential part, among many, that is conveniently ignored.

So, how to change that kind of reporting.

I'm not sure how, but I visit here for suggestions.

Good morning, Arch:

"Of course, Bedier is too busy trying to convince the infidels that such verses no longer apply or do not exist. And yeah, Al-Azhar would immediately heed the advice."

Which leads to a significant problem for lazy journalists.

Who should they believe (without doing any research themselves, of course)?

Lifelong Muslims who promote CAIR's deceitful, but melodic 'religion of peace' line, or lifelong Muslims who tell them what the Qur'an actually says?

The decision is usually a 'no brainer'.

PRCS,

How to correct this bias in journalism? 1. Education.

Sending in letters to the media source (as you've done), as well as writing embarrassing articles exposing mistakes are obvious options.

And the more the public is educated, the more likely they'll be to object when erroneous information is put in front of them.

Regarding the moderate Muslim issue, I think Warraq's statement is a good wording, essentially that there are moderate Muslims but there is no such thing as moderate Islam.

Nevertheless, many (I'm not sure of the percentages) of those illiterate Muslims listen to their clerics or teachers, and there are general attitudes that pervade the cultures. A Muslim need not have ever read the Koran to regard non-Muslims as the enemy; he needs only to live in a culture where the clerics, teachers, government, law enforcement, and media (radio and television and conversation) express the attitudes and policies laid down in the Koran.
The societies in question are to a significant extent structured around the Koran's dictims.

One question I would put as a test of whether a Muslim living in a western democracy is truly moderate:

What are your views about non-Muslims and ex-Muslims who criticize Islam publicly?

Answers to this question, I think, would reveal that there are far less moderate Muslims (living in western democracies) than is commonly believed.

This just goes to show that even our government doesn't get it at times. Mr Sutherland must have his head up his halfmoons. You can not get along with an enemy that is sworn to either your conversion, or death!!! This is what Islam is all about. Complete domination!!! I hope that if and when they examine my words against Islam, that they have a koran to check them out. It seems that the government types don't do their homework when it comes to Muslims and Islam. Bloggers do not hate Islam. We hate the facist agenda of Islam. With Islam there is no democracy, no freedom, one man, one vote is non existant in Islam. We as bloggers know this even if the politicians don't. Nuts to the PC crowd!!! Islam and Muslims hate us!!! We're a free people and they want to subject us to their form of slavery. No thank you. I'd have to be a fool to give away my freedom just to get along with a facist in a corupt religious system.
So go ahead and say that I hate Islam. It's true. I DO HATE ISLAM!!! But I don't hate the people.
They hate me without a cause, other than the cause of Islam!!! "the religion of peace".

Why does liberal or left-leaning media have a bias which favors Islamic radicals?

Conservatives will view conflict as that between good vs evil; whereas liberals view all conflicts through the spectrum of class warfare i.e. the "haves" vs the "have-nots"

Since liberals see equality (rather than liberty) as the goal to promote justice in the world, it is imperitive for the rich to give their accumulated wealth to the poor. Therefore when there is an assymetrical conflict, the poor are always in a virtuous struggle for social justice, and the rich are the villains.

Liberals must define the boundries of the "group" or "class" in order to understand the sides of the conflict. Muslims are lumped together as the poor, brown-skinned "other" who are oppressed by the capitalist white man (or Jew). This always has to be the case because liberals believe that man DOES live on bread alone, and when the poor commit acts of violence against the rich it is only out of instinctual frustration because the capitalists hoarded all the bread.

This is, of course, all bullshit, and human nature trancends all race and class. Poor, brown people can often be evil too. Traditional muslim society is not oppressed by the west, it has been defeated by the west (with the spreading of true "liberal" values across the globe).

Is it possible for lefties to percieve that Islamists base their behavior on an archaine fascist supremicist ideology from the 7th century? Of course not. Only rich, white, or jewish people can be fascist, and Muslims will abandon their "opiate of the masses" once the rich westerners close the gap between rich and poor in the third world.

The way to obtain "moderate" Muslims and keep them that way is to possess military superiority and let them know that you will use it if need be. Otherwise they are not likely to stay "moderate."
That's why reconciliation and "peace making" which involves surrenders of territory, especially territory which enhances military superiority and defensive capability, cannot bring any peace or reconciliation.
Hence, the whole "peace process" has been a delusion or a fake from the beginning. Now, is everybody in the State Dept, or UK Foreign Office, or CIA or MI5 or MI6, or NSC so stupid and ignorant that they are not aware of how to keep Muslims moderate?

Noodles, I agree with most of what you say. But don't forget that there many many Arab billionaires who take the lead in funding jihad against Israel, spreading dawa in Europe, etc.
Ask the "left" and the MSM why they don't report more on the foreign workers in Arab countries who are not only economically exploited but often humiliated --and severely punished [like beheadings] for supposed transgressions against Islamic law.
So the sympathy for the Arabs as the "poor" is based on deliberately overlooking the Arab billionaires, arab exploitation of non-arabs, etc.

Eliyahu, your exactly right. Arafat was one arab millionaire who was a master at decieving the west while rallying the Muslim masses.

Arafat always would play up the "israeli oppression" angle when he spoke in english to western journalists; While he would call upon holy warriors to fight to establish muslim rule over all of Israel as it had been for 1200 years prior. Imperialism is good if it is by muslims only, because God said so.

The left-media doesn't pick up on it because they are so general when lumping people into groups to fit their formula of class-warfare. It is why those like Robert Spencer (pbuh) are labelled "racist" when criticising Islam, even though Islam is not a race. They draw a line in the imaginary sand and everyone has to be on one side or the other. The fact that you are a muslim billionare gets cancelled out by the thousands more of white or jewish billionaires.

"thousands of Jewish billionaires" do not cancel out "one arab billionaire." After all,there are thousands of billionaires in Saudi Arabia alone. Then you have the prolific ruling families in the Persian Gulf emirates [formerly known as the Trucial Coast], in Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, etc.

Don't forget that the late Rafiq Hariri, ex-pm of Lebanon was a billionaire. Given that many other prominent people have been murdered by Syrian agents in Lebanon over the past 30 years, and that the Western powers have been very indulgent toward --or have favored-- Syrian control of Lebanon since the 1970s, then I can see no reason for all the concern over Hariri's murder other than his being a billionaire plus his happening to be a Sunni Arab friendly with the Saudi royals.

I'm just articulating what I percieve is a leftist view of the situation. Of course I don't buy into it.

they are correct in the following, as far as it is goes: "There is such a thing as Moderate Islam:" It exists. It's the place where the majority of the world's Muslim population lives the place that 4/5 of its illiterate, unknowledgeable population calls home.
--- posted by PRCS

Right. I'm thinking of the populations of northern Nigeria, Libya, Egypt, Northern Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, southern Thailand, and several other edens and envisioning Moderate Moslem Man throughout.

MORE MOSLEMS MORE ISLAM MORE KORAN MORE HADITHS MORE DEPARAVITY MO!

You don't have to be literate to memorize the Koran. Just hateful. In moderate doses, of course.

The bloggers cite verses in the Koran that encourage believers to kill enemies of the faith. But Muslims say these passages are taken out of context and refer only to historical times.

So then, the literal word of God applies only to exigent circustances?

Or, are the Moslems implying that the Koran is not the literal word of God, but instead a series of pronouncements concocted by Mohammed to deal with a running series of exigent circumstances?

Or, last choice, is the Koran an accurate reflection of current day Islam?

Which is it?

DISLOYAL NYTIMES DISLOYAL WAPOST DISLOYAL CHITRIB DISLOYAL LATIMES

It goes without saying, of course, that SI Rosenbaum dealt with these fundamental questions.

Did she get a list of bad surahs from these whining Moslems?

Truth is like a handful of mercury- the tighter they try to hold it, the more it gets loose.

The Press' general agenda is: pander.

If they alienated a noisy minority by delivering uncomfortable news -before it reaches a critical mass in the public mind-, it might cut into their short-term profits.

The reaon for hope is the old saying: "Who're you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

The Press is looking more and more like mini-Pravdas, comically unreal; and the Arts seem like a gelding society, kicking their tame pet faiths of Judaism and Christianity (not to mention the Moonies, Buddhists and Hindus) while studiously avoiding casting even a trembling shadow over the Crescent faith built by a pedophile warlord. (Theo Van Gogh's blood is still on The Western Street.)

The disconnect becomes Pythonesque.

APF,

Not Edens, for sure. Just the plantation.

It's when moderate Muslims leave the plantation that problems can arise.

Another serious problem raised by the "historical context" defence, made by the CAIR spokesman and conveyed by Rosenbaum in her article, is that, to get the historical context, you've got to go to the Hadiths (esp. Bukhari and Muslim collections, for Sunnis) and the Sira. These sources simply show in graphic detail how wife-beating, terrorism, raids, mass rapes including forced impregnation, imperialistic jihad fighting in the name of Allah, execution of apostates, etc., took place--all under the command of the prophet himself. These Islamic historical contexts make the Koran look worse, not better.

On the other hand, "Quran-only" Muslims are also in trouble: They can't use the historical context to argue for any alleged justifications for the killing of unrepentant apostates ordered in 4:89-91, and they are forced to admit that the killing of "hypocrites" is ordered in 33:60-62.

With the historical context, or without it, the Koran is still chock-full of morally objectionable edicts.

http://challenging-islam.org/articles/warraq-debate-muslims.htm

Here's Ibn Warraq's discussion of this issue:

"2. Out of context
Let us now turn to another argument or defensive tactic used by Muslims: the “you have quoted out of context” defense. What do they mean by “You have quoted out of context”? This could mean two things: first, the historical context to which the various verses refer, or second, the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from. The historical context argument is not available in fact to Muslims, since the Koran is the eternal word of God and true and valid for always. Thus for Muslims themselves there is no historical context. Of course, non-Muslims can legitimately and do avail themselves of the historical or cultural context to argue, for instance, that Islamic culture as a whole is anti-woman. Muslims did contradict themselves when they introduced the notion of abrogation, when a historically earlier verse was cancelled by a later one. This idea of abrogation was concocted to deal with the many contradictions in the Koran. What is more, it certainly backfires for those liberal Muslims who wish to give a moderate interpretation to the Koran since all the verses advocating tolerance (there are some but not many) have been abrogated by the verses of the sword.
Out of Context Argument Used Against Muslims Themselves:

Now for the textual context. First, of course, this argument could be turned against Muslims themselves. When they produce a verse preaching tolerance, we could also say that they have quoted out of context, or more pertinently (1) that such a verse has been cancelled by a more belligerent and intolerant one, (2) that in the overall context of the Koran and the whole theological construct that we call Islam (i.e. in the widest possible context), the tolerant verses are anomalous, or have no meaning, since Muslim theologians ignored them completely in developing Islamic Law, or that (3) the verses do not say what they seem to say.

For instance, after September 11, 2001, many Muslims and apologists of Islam glibly came out with the following Koranic quote to show that Islam and the Koran disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32: “Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind ”.

Unfortunately, these wonderful sounding words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: V.32: “That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”

The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. Behave or else is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated and banished!

Behind the textual context argument is thus the legitimate suspicion that by quoting only a short passage from the Koran I have somehow distorted its real meaning. I have, so the accusation goes, lifted the offending quote from the chapter in which it was embedded, and hence, somehow altered its true sense. What does “context” mean here? Do I have to quote the sentence before the offending passage, and the sentence after? Perhaps two sentences before and after? The whole chapter? Ultimately, of course, the entire Koran is the context.

The context, far from helping Muslims get out of difficulties only makes the barbaric principle apparent in the offending quote more obvious, as we have seen from Sura V.32 just quoted. Let us take some other examples. Does the Koran say that men have the right to physically beat their wives or not? I say yes, and quote the following verses to prove my point:

Sura IV.34: ”As for those [women] from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [or beat] them ”

This translation comes from a Muslim. Have I somehow distorted the meaning of these lines? Let us have a wider textual context:

Sura IV.34: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. God is high, supreme.”

If anything, the wider textual context makes things worse for those apologists of Islam who wish to minimize the misogyny of the Koran. The oppression of women has divine sanction, women must obey God and their men, who have divine authorization to scourge them. One Muslim translator, Yusuf Ali, clearly disturbed by this verse adds the word “lightly “in brackets after “beat “even though there is no “lightly “in the original Arabic. An objective reading of the entire Koran (that is the total context) makes grim reading as far as the position of women is concerned. There are at least forty passages in the Koran that are misogynistic in character.

Finally, of course, many of the verses that we shall quote later advocating killing of unbelievers were taken by Muslims themselves to develop the theory of Jihad. Muslim scholars themselves referred to sura VIII.67, VIII.39, and Sura II.216 to justify Holy War. Again the context makes it clear that it is the battle field that is being referred to, and not some absurd moral struggle; these early Muslims were warriors after booty, land and women not some existential heroes from the pages of Albert Camus or Jean-Paul Sartre. Let us take another example: Sura IX. Here I have tried to use where possible translations by Muslims or Arabophone scholars, to avoid the accusation of using infidel translations. However, many Muslim translators have a tendency to soften down the harshness of the original Arabic, particularly in translating the Arabic word jahada, e.g. Sura IX verse 73. Maulana Muhammad Ali, of the Ahmadiyyah sect, translates this passage as: “O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” In a footnote of an apologetic nature, Muhammad Ali rules out the meaning “fighting” for jahada. However, the Iraqi non-Muslim scholar Dawood in his Penguin translation renders this passage as: “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”

How do we settle the meaning of this verse? The whole context of Sura IX indeed makes it clear that “make war “in the literal and not some metaphorical sense is meant. Let us take another verse from this Sura, Sura IX.5: “Then, when the sacred months have passed away, kill the idolaters wherever you find them …” These words are usually cited to show what fate awaits idolaters. Well, what of the context? The words immediately after these just quoted say, “and seize them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Ah, you might say, you have deliberately left out the words that come after those. Let us quote them then, “If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.” Surely these are words of tolerance, you plead. Hardly: they are saying that if they become Muslims then they will be left in peace. In fact, the whole sura, which has 129 verses (approximately 14 pages in the Penguin translation by Dawood), in other words, the whole context, is totally intolerant; and is indeed the source of many totalitarian Islamic laws and principles, such as the concepts of Jihad and dhimmis, the latter proclaiming the inferior status of Christians and Jews in an Islamic state. All our quotes from the Arabic sources in Part One also, of course, provide the historical context of raids, massacres, booty, and assassinations, which make it crystal clear that real bloody fighting is being advocated.

First the idolaters, how can you trust them? Most of them are evildoers (IX. 8); fight them (IX. 12, 14); they must not visit mosques (IX. 18); they are unclean (IX. 28); you may fight the idolaters even during the sacred months (IX. 36). “It is not for the Prophet, and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear they are people of hell-fire.” (IX.113) So much for forgiveness! Even your parents are to be shunned if they do not embrace Islam: IX. 23 “O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you takes them for friends, such are wrong-doers.” In other words if you are friendly with your parents who are not Muslims, you are being immoral.

The theory of Jihad is derived from verses 5 and 6 already quoted but also from the following verses:

IX. 38 - 39: Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: ‘March in the cause of God ’, you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come. If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men.
IX. 41: Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons. IX. 73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal harshly with them.

The word that I have translated as fight is jahid. Some translators translate it as go forth or strive. Dawood translates it as fight, as does Penrice in his Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, where it is defined as: To strive, contend with, fight –especially against the enemies of Islam. While Hans Wehr in his celebrated Arabic dictionary translates it as “endeavour, strive; to fight; to wage holy war against the infidels.”

As for the intolerance against Jews and Christians, and their inferior status as dhimmis, we have IX verses 29 –35:

“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.
“The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!
“They make of their clerics and their monks, and of the Messiah, the son of Mary, Lords besides God; though they were ordered to serve one God only. There is no god but Him. Exalted be He above those whom they deify besides Him!….
“It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters may dislike it.
“O you who believe ! Lo! Many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar men from the way of Allah; They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of painful doom …”

The moral of all the above is clear: Islam is the only true religion, Jews and Christians are devious and money-grubbing, who are not to be trusted, and even have to pay a tax in the most humiliating way. I do not think I need quote any more from Sura IX, although it goes on in this vein verse after verse."

End of Warraq excerpt.