Another attempt to pull the wool over our eyes

A little off topic...this shows the things that come out of the moonbats mouth do cause damage.............Albright's Confessions Indicate Likely Acceptance of Iran's N. Programs by EU

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- An Iranian MP described recent statements by Madeline Albright an indication of both US failure in forming an alliance against Iran and the increased likelihood of the acceptance of Iran's nuclear programs by western states.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8503240417

it is appropriating them as Islamic and delegimitizing actual Jews and Christians.....Bingo....Jesus was a Muslim...Not a Jew...The promise from God went to Ishmael...Not Isaac...so simple.. so basic...Why people of the BOOK....can not ACCEPT Islam.

I doubt the arabic words for "kill" and "slay" have a different meaning once they are translated to another language.

Gee, rather than telling us naive infidels that we are misinterpreting the Kuran, why doesn't he tell the Muslims all over the world that THEY got it wrong.

If it's impossible to understand the Qur'an without being fluent in Arabic, scads of Western Muslims will be so heartbroken. For, how can they call themselves Muslims, if they can't understand their "holy" Qur'an?

Ahh... Arabic! That magical language which defies translation--even by Arabic-speaking people! I guess the plan of Islam to dominate the world is doomed, then.

How can Da'wa be used to make "reverts", if it's being done in any other language than Arabic? This foolish argument of Islam and the Qur'an being comprehensible in Arabic only, hamstrings the mission of peaceful Da'wa, before it can even begin!

Well, okay. I guess I'll have to base my opinions solely on what I see Muslims do, in the world.

So far, this isn't looking good. I'm seeing non-combatants blown to bits, in the news and on the Internet. I'm seeing hostages taken, tortured, mutilated, beheaded, stoned, or shot, in videos made by the perpetrators of these actions.

I see women (in Florida) bundled up from head to toe in dark colors in eighty-five degree heat and eighty-percent humidity. These women walk everywhere, having no access to a car, or no driver for the car, or no money in their pockets for the bus.

I see at least one mosque where women are not welcome.

I don't like what I see. Too bad someone can't put it into context for me, but I don't speak or understand Arabic.

From the link in the article: "Almighty Allah told us that He’d send to them people who’d pour on them rain of severe punishment that would last till the Day of Resurrection. All this gives us glad tidings of the coming victory of Muslims over them once Muslims stick to strong faith and belief in Allah and adopt the modern means of technology."

No Islamic country can be trusted with WMDs.

I think academic debates about the contents of the Quran are pretty much bullshit. At the end of the day, the global Jihad will march on, heads will still roll, women will still be subjugated, infidels will still be persecuted, and the growing instability caused by Muslim immigrants will not stop. Trying to argue that the Quran promotes peace and tolerance won't actually have any effect on objective reality (that place where terrorist attacks can't be eliminated with clever rhetoric), it's just used to confuse and mislead people.

Hassaballa et al will continue to spread these lies and half-truths, impervious to any amount of argument. Therefore we must keep up the fight to make sure that the public gets accurate information and is not lulled into a false sense of security about Islam. This is like a tug-of-war. If we let up, they win.

When discussing 9:5, Hassaballa is careful to avoid certain key issues and phrases that require scrutiny.

First, what are the limits, if any, placed on "every strategem of war"? In fact, there are no limits placed on it in regard to war against the pagans in question; a main theme of the early part of Sura 9 is that all previous agreements with the pagans have been abrogated (explicitly in 9:3). As for tactical or strategic limitations, there are none. The hadith permit the killing of women and children in jihad when this is unavoidable. Mohammad attacked Ta'if, the fortressed community, which subsequent jurists took as legal precedent for killing women and children in jihad.

Second, even if we grant as true, for the sake of argument, all of the fictionalized context Hassaballa wants to add, we are still left with the problem, at the end of it, as to why the pagans are confronted with the 'option' of convert to Islam or be put to sword! My point is that no context that Hassaballa can dream up can ever justify the main point of 9:5, which is simply "Convert to Islam or die." In other words, everything Hassaballa has said is largely inconsequential and irrelevant to the main point of the verse: Accept Islam and pay zakat, or die. A similar problem is raised by verse 8:39 and 2:193, which Hassaballa has probably avoided deliberately (those verses say fight the disbelievers until they is no more disbelief, i.e., if necessary, no more disbelievers).

Third, wiser apologists for Islam have decided to reject most if not all of Hadith and Sira (these are the Qur'an-only Muslims--though they are confronted with other problems). Hassaballa, on the other hand, is the type of apologist that appeals to "context." Well, context is Hadith and Sira, and all the nasty baggage that is contained in them. Elements of the Hadith and Sira cannot simply be rejected willy-nilly. If one accepts context for some verses, there would have to be a good reason for rejecting it for others. But readers at JW have seen the many examples of rape, torture, extortion, hatred, slavery, misogyny, assassinations, executions, etc., that are described in authentic ("sahih") Hadith and in the Sira. So why on earth would Hassaballa wish to appeal to such sources of "context"? Like most apologist-propagandists, Hassaballa is making a gambit, hoping that most readers have not read these Muslim sources. (Most of the time, this will work).

Fourth, Hassaballa neglects to mention that the vast majority of the battles waged by Muslims were not defensive but were aggressive raids and surprise attacks. Those were the most common contexts. As for Hassaballa's quotation of 9:13, about Muslims allegedly being "attacked first," that is merely an allegation. Only a true believer would take that statement at face value. (It is necessary to obtain the opinion of those n the other side of the conflict and, hopefully, objective observers. There is no such information because Muslims have exterminated or islamized those people, and then probably edited the texts to present Islam in the best possible light. Even so, it still looks bad to us [non-Muslims] today). However, even the true believer Ibn Kathir states that the 9:13 phrase "(they) attacked you first" was in reference to the Battle of Badr--which itself was an aggressive raid on a caravan by Muslims that only turned into a battle because the Qureysh had sent defensive reinforcements to protect the caravan from being raided. In addition, Muslims won the Battle of Badr, so how can it be cited as some kind of legitimate grievance or pretext for the unlimited violence and ethnic cleansing proposed in 9:5?

Fifth, Hassaballa neglects to mention the goal of Islam. The ultimate goal of all such raids and battles is to defend or spread Islam (in addition to proximate goals such as obtaining women, slaves, booty, land, etc.). The goal of Islam is to make the whole world Islamic, to make Islam dominant over all religions (9:33, 48:28, 61:9), to fight until all religion is for Allah alone (8:39, 2:193). Human contexts don't make sense unless we understand the intentions of the players. Hassaballa hopes that readers will not discover that the true goal of Islam is to bring all of humanity under sharia law.

Sixth, Hassaballa neglects to give even a basic sense of the Islamic value system, in which disbelief (in Islam) is worse than killing (2:191, 2:217). Again, human contexts don't make much sense unless we understand the value systems of the players.

"Qur'anic exegesis is an academic discipline in itself, and it requires years of learning before a scholar is able to independently comment on Qur'anic scripture. Neither Islam's conservative critics, nor the "scholars" and "experts" they read and quote from in their writings, possess such knowledge. What they do is misquote, mistranslate, or quote Qur'anic verses out of context and use those misquotations as evidence for their claims. These tactics violate every rule of Scriptural Exegesis 101."--Hassaballa

Then I guess mainstream Islam for approximately 1300 years has misinterpreted the Qur'an, taken it out of context, failed exegesis 101, etc. In short, Hassaballa along with many apologists is publishing claims about his own private Islam, which has nothing to do with the Islamic mainstream. he's trying to dress it up with modern western values, giving terms like "attack" and "aggression" modern western meanings, etc.

"Since they could not kill him, this was the only thing the Meccans could do to stop the Prophet's message."--Hassaballa

Spoken like a true believer. The Meccans had the power to do whatever they wanted with Mohammad. Hassaballa expects us to believe that the Meccans could not kill Mohammad. However, they apparently showed mercy and expelled him without forcing him to change is religion and without subjugating him. That is better treatment than was returned to them by Mohammad and the Muslims.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch7.html

"Muslim apologists will often point to Surah 2:190-193 as proof that Islam teaches only defensive warfare, but eschews offense.

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they first fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression."

These verses, it is said, admonish Muslims only to fight against those who oppress or persecute Muslims, and only until the offenders have stopped oppressing Muslims. However, there is a catch to all this. The Qur'an also teaches for Muslims to enter into exile in lands where Islam is not the dominant force, and to stir up trouble, so that this persecution will come as the natives in those lands protect the integrity of their sovereignty.

"Those who believed, and adopted exile, and fought for the Faith, with their property and their persons, in the cause of Allah, as well as those who gave them asylum and aid,- these are all friends and protectors, one of another. As to those who believed but came not into exile, ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile; but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance. And remember Allah seeth all that ye do. The Unbelievers are protectors, one of another: Unless ye do this, protect each other, there would be tumult and oppression on earth, and great mischief." (Surah 8:72-73)

In this passage, “adopted exile” is translated from the root form hjr, which has as its primary meaning the ideas of containment or confinement, and can carry the connotation of being quarantined or compartmentalised. The idea garnered from this verse seems to be as follows: adopt exile in a foreign land, voluntarily confining yourself in a non-Muslim society. Eschew assimilating into the culture and way of life of the host country, and instead agitate for Islam. When opposition arises, join together and give aid and fight for Allah against the unbelievers, since voilà, persecution has arisen! Hence, what is touted as a defensive doctrine is in reality carried out in an offensive manner.

There are numerous other, more straight-forward quotes from the Qur'an which exhort the followers of Mohammed to war:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful." (Surah 9:5)

This passage is found in a portion of the Qur'an dealing with the making and breaking of treaties with pagans (unbelievers). In context, it is condoned for Muslims to break treaties with pagans if it is to their advantage to do so, UNLESS those pagans have been completely faithful in the discharge of their treaty obligations. But, after the terms of the treaty are met (the forbidden months are past), Muslims are commanded to make war. The historical context is that in ancient times, both in Arabia and elsewhere, treaties were most often made for specific periods of time. During that time period, both parties were expected to be completely faithful in the discharge of their obligations under the terms of the treaty. After the treaty term had ended, all bets were off. Groups which had been allies for a period of time might then turn on each other in the most vicious manner after the treaty time ended, without any loss of honour for either side. Hence, the Qur'an tells Muslims that pagan or unbelieving groups with whom they do not currently have a treaty are open to the prosecution of offensive war.

Likewise, in Surah 9:73, Mohammed is commanded to press hard war against unbelievers,

"O Prophet! strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed."

Also,

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." (Surah 9:123)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya (religion tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:29)

Each of these verses, in context, is dealing with waging offensive war against unbelievers for the purpose of spreading Islam. As with the previous verses which we saw, Muslims will often try to claim that these verses promote defensive warfare only, and that offensive war to propagate Islam is not Quranical. They say this in the hopes that their audience, most likely non-Muslims, will not be conversant in the Qur'an, and hence will be unaware of the contextual environment in which these verses reside. A straight-forward reading of the appropriate surat and surrounding passages using a little common sense will contextually demonstrate the offensive nature of these verses to the unbiased reader.

However, many Muslim apologists still attempt to argue that these verses in the Qur’an are being taken out of context. Because of this claim, we should then investigate what orthodox Muslim expositors and scholars have to say on this, as their words were often much less inhibited by concerns for presenting Islam in a positive light to Western audiences. One of the earliest great Muslim legal scholars, Al-Tabari (839-923 AD), explained Surah 9:5 as commanding the death of infidels if they would not embrace Islam, lest they should enter Mecca 1. Al-Mahili (d. 1486 AD) also gives a clear indication of understanding Surah 9:5 offensively and aggressively,

"The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed."2

Another of the most historically influential of Muslim jurists and Quranic exegetes, al-Baydawi (d. 1276 AD), gives a fairly typical understanding of the doctrine, commenting on Surah 9:29,

“Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth (Islam), which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the poll-tax (Ziziya tax) with submission and humiliation.”3

The Islamic philosopher and historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD), stated,

“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in (Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same.” 4

Other noteworthy Islamic jurists and philosophers promoted the same offensive strategy for jihad. Ibn Kathir (d. 1372) reiterated the famous quote attributed to Mohammed that “no two religions are to exist on the Arab peninsula”, and asserted that Surah 9:5, seen above, abrogated any covenant which might have been made between Muslims and infidels5. Ibn Hazm (994-1064) provides some interesting commentary concerning that verse, Surah 2:256 (“Let there be no compulsion in religion....”), where he demonstrates the true purpose of the ayah,

"The prophet Muhammad did not accept from the Arab heathens less than Islam or the sword. This is compulsion of faith. No compulsion in faith (or religion) applies only to Christians or Jews because they are not to be forced to embrace the religion. They have the option either to embrace Islam, the sword, or to pay the poll-tax. In this case they can keep their own faith. It was truly said on the authority of the apostle of God that there is no compulsion in the faith.” 6

Thus, compulsion certainly was to be applied to any non-Muslims who were not Christians or Jews. These latter two groups were given the third, apparently non-compulsive, choice of submitting to pay the jizyah poll-tax and live out their lives as a permanent underclass.

Modern Muslim scholars, historians, and exegetes have taken similar stances on jihad. Al-Buti reveals for us the following,

“The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War which is demanded in islamic law, is not defensive war (as the Western students of islam would like to tell us) because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars”7

He likewise states,

“You may wonder now: Where is the wisdom of forcing infidels and their associates to embrace islam? How could the mind set of the twentieth century understand such matters? The answer is: We wonder where the wisdom is when the state forces an individual to be subjugated to its system and philosophy despite the freedom he possesses? How can it be reasonable for the state to have the right to subjugate its citizens to the laws, principles, and ordinances it enacts, while the creator of all does not have the right to subjugate them to His authority and to convert them from every creed or faith to His religion?” 8

And in further refutation of the “defensive war“ theory,

“This is the concept which professional experts of thought attempt to conceal from the eyes of muslims by claiming that anything that is related to a holy war in islamic law is only based on defensive warfare to repel an attack....It is no secret that the reason behind this deception is the great fear which dominates foreign countries (East and West alike) that the idea of Holy War for the cause of God would be revived in the hearts of muslims, then certainly, the collapse of European culture will be accomplished. The mind set of the European man has matured to embrace islam as soon as he hears an honest message presented. How much more will it be accepted if this message is followed by a Holy War?” 9

In exegeting Surah 9:29, which commands the laying of the jizyah onto the infidels, Khan states,

"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon the fighting against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first the fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory."10

Thus, the teaching is that Muslims are to fight when they have sufficient strength to win, and that this fight is obligatory. When Muslims are not strong enough to fight their enemies, they are likewise to lie low until such a time as they can fight, according to another prominent modern Muslim scholar. Quoting as-Suyuti, as-Saleh wrote,

"The command to fight the infidels was delayed until the Muslims become strong, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be patient."11

Saleh goes on to cite Zarkashi in a footnote saying,

"Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak condition what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most high made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the situation, that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to pay the levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. These two options, to fight or to have peace return according to the strength or the weakness of the Muslims."12

Saudi scholar al-Amin likewise points to the Qur’an for the justification of offensive holy war,

"God had made it clear to us that (we should) call for acceptance of islam first, then wage war. It is not admissible to wage war before extending the invitation to embrace islam first, as the Qur’an says. ‘We verily sent our messenger with clear proofs and revealed to them the scripture and the balance, that mankind may observe right measure, and he revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and uses for mankind and that Allah (God) may know him who helps Him and his messengers—Allah is strong, Almighty"’ (Surah Iron 57:25).”13

This is especially informative for those who may remember that in the aftermath of the 11 September terrorist attacks, Saudi religious and political leaders, in the process of extending their condolences to President Bush, also extended an invitation to him to convert to Islam. Qutb, in a chapter entitled “Jihaad in the Cause of God”, says this about those who believe that jihad is to be a defensive war only,

“They are ignorant of the nature of Islam and of its function, and that it has a right to take the initiative for human freedom. Thus wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience.”14

Thus, while touting “freedom of individual conscience”, Qutb seems to be espousing the right of the “Islamic community” to take control of political authority, which would seem to hearken back to what was seen earlier with Surah 8:72-73. Qutb, it should be noted, was executed by Egypt’s Nasser government for attempting to overthrow the secular regime. Fattah adds,

“Islam has approved war so that the Word of God becomes supreme. This is war for the cause of God (Holy War). Muhammad, therefore, sent his ambassadors to eight kings and princes in the neighborhood of the Arab Peninsula to call them to embrace islam. They rejected his call. Thus, it became incumbent on the muslims to fight them.” 15

Pakistani Islamic authorities stand with their brethren on this issue. Fazlur Rahman notes the abundant discussion of jihad in the Qur’an, and rejects the modern interpretation of jihad as defensive war only16. Maududi, likewise, rejects attempts to make a distinction between offensive and defensive jihad and views jihad as the means by which to overthrown all non-Islamic systems and replace them with submission to Allah17.

The above are only a very small sampling of what could be presented with regard to both the historic and modern orthodox Muslim positions on holy war. As can be seen, the justification is often drawn directly from those verses which were quoted above, and which are often said to be “defensive only” or “taken out of context” by Muslim apologists. Thus, it should certainly be seen that offensive war for the specific purpose of spreading the Islamic religion is very much a Quranic practice."

Caroline, thanks for that excellent link.

"Muhammad himself survived several assassination attempts. In one of these, a Meccan tried to crush the Prophet's head with a large boulder while he was praying at the Ka'abah, the holy shrine at Mecca."

If Only.

"I must address a few very important points here. For there to be any semblance of an intelligent and scholarly analysis of verses of the Qur'an, a full understanding of the Arabic language along with understanding of the context of the verses in question is an essential prerequisite."

Using the argument that a full knowledge of Arabic is essential in the analysis of Qura’an, is a very famous maneuver. Not only is it exercised against western critics that attempt to argue against any Qura’anic Verse, it’s also exercised against Arab Muslims who actually understand the verse well. They then wonder why the verse is so hostile, because they presume the divinity of Qura’an. Quranic Arabic is a straightforward Arabic, unlike the Latin Bible translated into other European languages in the medieval ages. It does not require translation into other Arabic languages, for there only exists one formal Arabic language that all Arab nations understand. The linguistic difference between every Arabic country is just a matter of a pronunciation difference, but every Arab understands the classical Arabic (Fosha). The words “slay”,” smite” or “behead” do not require more than one translation. Moreover, there are no Arabic words with the same meaning but the ones used in the mentioned verses. The difference between the Tafsirs in interpreting Qura’an or Sunnah, is just circumstantial. For instance, they might vary in interpreting the occasion a verse came on, but they would never have different interpretations of one word. The prerequisites Hasaballah mentioned above are only there to protect Qura’an from being interpreted for what it truly is, by Arabs before westerns. On the other hand, Tafsirs and translations have been so flexible after September 11th. But that’s only to serve one stream of “western Muslims” who fear “mistreatment” after Islam was seen for what it truly is that day.

"From the very beginning of his mission, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was violently opposed by his people. At first, the Pagan Arabs simply ignored the Prophet's call and ridiculed his message. They quickly realized, however, that this tactic did not stop the flow of converts to Islam. The Meccans then turned to torture and repression of Muhammad and his companions to try to muffle his message, which was nothing more than the abandonment of the worship of idols for the worship of the One True God."

So, let me get this straight, Mohammed was born in a Pagan Arab tribe who trusted him with everything, enough to call him “ the truthful”. All of a sudden, he goes up to them, trying to enforce “his message, which was nothing more than the abandonment of the worship of idols for the worship of the One True God”!!!!
Doesn’t Hasaballah understand where Meccans came from? I know I do! But it does not end there. They expel him, just to get rid of him, without having to kill him, then this happens "slay the pagans wherever you find them" in verse 9:5 and then Mr. Hasaballah refers to them as “the hostile Arab tribes surrounding Medina”. What common sense is Hasaballah blessed with? Oh hold on a second, he satisfies the "essential prerequisites to analyse Qura'an" , as i mentioned above, that's what it's there for, and that’s what it does to you.

"The guiding principle of Islam with respect to non-Muslims is one of tolerance and mutual respect, plain and simple: "God does not forbid you from dealing kindly and justly with those who do not fight you for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes: for God loveth those who are just." (60:8)

But then, Mr. Hasaballah, isn’t the same God who urged Mohammed to come with the message of the “ abandonment of the worship of idols for the worship of the One True God”?! so, Allah allows Muslims to fight for their faith, but does not allow other faiths to keep their “idols” ?

“Then there is the issue of how the Qur'an treats Jews and Christians”

Aha, thank you very much, wasn’t it Mohammed who condemned all the men of the Jewish faith in Medina to death, enslavement of their women, and conversion of their children? How would a common Muslim feel about Jews after his biggest role model says that it’s ok for Jews to be treated that way?

Archimedes - it's chapter 7 from "10 Myths about Islam". The other chapters are worth a read as well:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/islam_myths.html

Using the English translation is the best thing to being to understand the Koran at all because Arabic is a tough language and unless one has the time, not worth studying.

Islam is man's version of the HIV virus, moderates tells the people it is one thing, enters the body of people, then destroys from within.

If Arabic can not be translated, then when Bush went to Iraq and spoke to them, his words could have been such as saying " I have a toe growing out of my forehead".

If you can not translate the written word, you can not translate the spoken word as well.

Another top notch post by JW, Robert, Caroline, Archimedes, and all, a must read here.

THANX Robert, for refuting that article! I knew you would acknowledge it as an important task. That contained a lot of common fallacies. Now I can use it as a weapon against those who pointed me to the article and dismissed everything I had said to them before as 'Islamophobic' or that I can 'find what i want to find' in the text.
:D

Tushar

This sounds like the muslims are finally going on the defensive. Now the onus is on THEM to prove they are NOT violent. And they know it. They can no longer transgress with impunity. They can feel the heat is on. And it is only going to get hotter.

This is a good time to talk about the SLOW jihad and the FAST jihad.

The Fast jihad is what we know as terrorism. This is perpetrated by angry, sullen, undisciplined muslims who can not resist the temptation to vandalize our society out of spite. They also vandalize to scare us. (As if we will convert just because they threaten us.) That is the nature of terrorism. It is like punching your fist through a wall in an argument. You do it because you are angry and because you want to make a point that you are angry. However, it usually doesn't end up with you winning the argument. This Ffast jihad does nothing to advance the cause of islamization of the infidel world. In fact, it retards that progress.

The other jihad is the Slow jihad. This is the one we have to worry about. Slow jihad is accomplished through political changes, social changes, and through demographics. This is the jihad that we see everyday. This is the jihad of mosque construction, dhimmification, immigration, halal meat stores, the institution of Sharia law as they attempted to Canada last year, and MSM pro-muslim bias, to name just a few.

This slow jihad, unlike the fast jihad, can not be foiled by the police, nor fought by the army. Nor will vigilantism put a dent in it. This slow jihad is relentless and it will inevitably win the war for islam through nothing more sinister than birth rate discrepancy.

Unless something is done - by the political leadership, since they alone are empowered to implement policy changes and only policy changes can address the slow jihad.

But how do you change the mind of the politicians? By making the people demand change. How do you do that? Simple.

Fast jihad.

Ironically, Fast jiahd is the cure for Slow jihad. It is only through acts of violence, the more spectacular the better, committed by muslim terrorists that will awaken the population to the threat, put fear into them, and hopefully some anger, that will force the governments to implement policy changes. Some of this has already taken place in Europe. The killing of Van Gogh and the cartoon riots did a lot to awake the population.

Ironically, it is the Fast jihadists, that are working at odds with the slow jihadists. While the muslim apologists like CAIR do damage control and propaganda, the Fast jihadists, the terrorists, undo their efforts by offending the basic sensibilities of non-muslim human beings to such a point that even some liberals are turning against them. While one iman declares islam a religion of peace, another imam, in the next mosque, is calling for violence and overthrow. This is good. If all we had were the slick apologists, and no terrorists, the west would be a lot closer to subjugation by islam by now.

Fortunately, for every apologist, there is a terrorist. And unlike the apologists, the actions of the terrorists make much bigger headlines. This is our saving grace in the west. Islam will be defeated politically in the west as long as the Fast jihadists outpace the Slow jihadists. As long as the stupid, impetuous, youth of islam, led by some cranky older radical continue to behave according to their more base instincts, then the smart, patient, Slow jihadists will always be on the defensive, always fighting an uphill battle, sinking into the quicksand of increasing public awareness.

I wish to address every Muslim on the planet:

We Americans will believe that Islam can be reformed (or is the word 'transformed'?) into a non-violent ideology only when it happens. And not one moment before.

I'm not exactly holding my breath...

Mr. Robert Spencer writes:

"All this is, of course, not quite accurate. For one thing, the greatest victory of the early Muslims, the battle of Badr, was an offensive conflict sparked by Muhammad's orders to raid the caravans of the Quraysh."

Offensive conflict? Ha, what an outright lie. Why did Prophet Muhammad launch a caravan raid against the Quraysh?

Oh, let's take a look at the historical situation that Spencer refuses to provide:

1. Muslims are expelled and/or flee from Makkah
2. All their property and wealth is confiscated by the pagan Makkans
3. Muslims come to Madina, mostly living off the charity of the Ansar (helpers) who invited the Prophet to Medina in the first place
4. Pagan Makkans constantly threatening that they will not let the fleeing Muslims live in peace in Madinah

The early Muslims could not sustain themselves in poverty and were victims of an injustice, with all their property and livelihoods taken away from them.

So, the Battle of Badr occured with the Muslims attacking a Makkan caravan to recover property and the wealth that was taken away from them.

This was not just a random unjustified military action by the early Muslims.

A. Ahmed,

How many caravans did Mohammad and his men get to raid before they could say they had been paid back? (Badr was hardly the first case).
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/RootsTerrorism0.htm

A follow-up question: Why didn't they ever stop piracy/ highway robbery against non-Muslims?

Also, you provide no evidence that the property of Muslims was confiscated by the "pagan Makkans".

However, even if the Meccans did confiscate the Muslims' property, this is irrelevant. The caravan did not actually contain that property, but Mohammad ordered his men to raid it. (Anyways, your idea of justice is that if person Y steals from person X, then person X is justified in slealing from person Z?) The Qureysh sent an army to defend the caravan. Clearly, Muslims were the aggressors in that so-called battle. In addition, cutting peoples' heads off (8:12) is hardly justified for this alleged confiscation.

You state:

"The early Muslims could not sustain themselves in poverty"

Some people work for a living (i.e., they do not turn to criminal activity or alleged vigilante activity).

"This was not just a random unjustified military action by the early Muslims."

Correct, though it was not a regular military action. It was part of a systematic policy of striking fear into the non-Muslims. The proximate goal was to obtain booty, which was to be spent toward the ultimate goal to further the cause of Islam. The very foundation of Islam rests on terrorism, assassinations, plunder, slave-trading, extortion, and deceit, all directed against non-Muslims. (see the above-cited link for evidence). Had Mohammad and his men not turned to violence and these other forms of criminal activity, Islam would have remained merely one of the many (360+) tribal religions.

Ahmed is full of it. According to the Sira(Ibn Ishaq's hagiography) Muhammad chose to leave Mecca, and took with him his cousin Ali who was his first student (Talib, and in fact both Muhammad and Ali are Titles not names, Muhammad means praised one and Ali means exalted one) and a few other gullibles (what Asma bint Marwin called them, which resulted in her cruel murder) like Abu Bakr, Umar, Hamza. No one's property was confiscated, and Muhammad went begging to the people of Yathrib (Medina), with his cousin Ali and once there started to support himself first by begging (then by raiding). Muhammad left Mecca a laughing stock, rejected by his own tribe, but hardly oppressed or persecuted.

Good grief, this guy carries on as if Islam were so incredibly profound, deeper than the deep, blue sea, so intensely complicated and complex that only the most dedicated, brilliant scholars with at least seventy-five years of intensive study and experience could possibly unlock the secrets of the mystical Qur'an.

It's a pile of incoherent gibberish riddled with ignorance; superstition; fantasy; myths; intense brutality; Muhammad's sexual exploits and savage cruelty; unbounded hatred and intolerance; and a pathetic attempt to establish Arab supremacy by condemning all other religions and damning those who practice them. There is nothing complicated about Islam, nothing at all. It would be child's play if it wasn't X rated.

Muslims, the "best of people", really shouldn't insult our intelligence with their self-righteous, indignant tirades lamenting our misconceptions of their noble religion. It only makes us more determined to prove them liars, and that becomes more obvious every day by the words and deeds of their fellow jihadists.

One of the above posters makes me imagine a guy walking out into the middle of no man's land at Somme on 1 July 1916, wearing a shiny helmet and carrying a scimitar.

The next, and last, thing he hears is the bolts of thousands of Mausers and Enfields slamming home...