In "Islam's Ann Coulter" in the Los Angeles Times a few days ago, Rabbi Stephen Julius Stein excoriates the courageous Wafa Sultan for allegedly misrepresenting the peaceful teachings of the Qur'an. In it, I was sorry to see, Stein notes that Daniel Pearl's father Judea Pearl, with whom I have had several discussions about the Qur'an and Islam, said that he understood that the Qur'an "also included 'verses of peace' that proponents of Islam uphold as the religion's true intent. The Koran's verses on war and brutality, Pearl contended, were 'cultural baggage,' as are similar verses in the Torah."
I have been meaning to write a response to his piece, but have been unable to free up the time -- and now Andrew Bostom has done the job in FrontPage:
During the discussion period after a recent talk by the courageous secular Muslim “apostate” Wafa Sultan, Judea Pearl, father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (who was barbarously murdered by pious Muslim terrorists), alluded to the Koran’s “verses of peace”—which certain votaries of Islam uphold as the religion's exclusive legacy. According to an observer at the event, Judea Pearl derided Ms. Sultan’s critical view of Islam by further contending that the Koran's bellicose and brutal verses were mere “cultural baggage”, akin to “similar” pronouncements in the Old Testament. The comparison was naïve, if not absurd.Naïve because the Koran’s “verses of peace”, frequently cited by both Muslim and non-Muslim apologists, most notably verse 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion”, were all abrogated by the so-called verses of the sword. These abrogating verses of the sword recommend beheading or otherwise murdering and mutilating non-Muslims, and Muslim apostates. According to classical Muslim Koranic commentators verse 9:5 (perhaps the most infamous verse of the sword), “Slay the idolators wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…”, for example, cancels 124 verses that promote patience and toleration.
The sacralized Islamic sources indicate that as the Muslim prophet Muhammad accrued political and military power, he evolved from a proselytizer and persuader, to a warrior (i.e., a prototype jihadist; see: The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model), and dictatorial legislator. Thus the sword and other similar Koranic verses—as per the linkage between Muhammad’s biography and the Koranic narrative—capture the Muslim prophet at his most dogmatic, belligerent, and intolerant. Muslims are enjoined to fight and murder nonbelievers—woe unto those who shirk these campaigns—but those who are killed fighting for the one true religion, i.e., Islam, will be rewarded amply in the afterlife. A sampling of such verses, which established these eternal injunctions, are included below:47:4: “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds”
9:29: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
4:76: “Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.”
8:12: “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”
8:38-39: “Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.”
9:39: “If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things.”
4:74: “Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.”
9:111: “Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.”
As Ibn Warraq notes, aptly (p.69):
…“tolerance” has been abrogated by “intolerance”
And this doctrine of abrogation, necessitated by the many contradictions which abound in the Koran, originates as putatively taught by Muhammad, himself, at verse 2:106: “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” This verse, in combination with verses* 16:101, 22:52, and 87:6, was elaborated into a formal system of abrogation (naskh in Arabic) by the greatest classical Muslim Koranic scholars and jurists, which entailed (p.72),
…the suppression of a ruling without the suppression of the wording. That is to say, the earlier ruling is still to be found in the Koran, and is still to this day recited in worship, but it no longer has any legal force [emphasis added]
But it is only when viewed in the larger context of the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad war—which derives substantively from the abrogating Koranic sword verses—that Judea Pearl’s naïve equation to “similar” verses from the Old Testament, becomes entirely fatuous. From the bellicose verses in the Koran, expounded upon in the hadith (the words and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by pious Muslim transmitters), Muslim jurists and theologians formulated the Islamic institution of permanent jihad war against non-Muslims to bring the world under Islamic rule (Shari’a law).
Since its earliest inception, through the present, jihad has been central to the thought and writings of prominent Muslim theologians and jurists. The precepts and regulations elucidated in the 7th through 9th centuries are immutable in the Muslim theological-juridical system, and they have remained essentially unchallenged by the majority of contemporary Muslims. The jihad is intrinsic to the sacred Muslim texts, including the divine Koranic revelation—“the uncreated word of Allah”. The Old Testament sanctions the Israelites conquest of Canaan—a limited domain—it does not sanction a permanent war to submit all the nations of humanity to a uniform code of religious law. Similarly, the tactics of warfare are described in the Old Testament, unlike the Koran, in very circumscribed and specific contexts. Moreover, while the Old Testament clearly condemns certain inhumane practices of paganism, it never invoked an eternal war against all of the world’s pagan peoples.
Uninformed ecumenical zeal in search of a fantasy Islam yet to be created, does not excuse making intellectual, let alone moral equivalences, between the severely limited and contextualized war proclamations of the Old Testament, and the permanent proto-jihad war injunctions of the Koran. Staking out the presumptive “higher” moral ground by a thinly veiled (and ahistorical!) attack on a courageous secularist seeking profound, not cosmetic (and meaningless) changes in Islamdom, is unsavory and destructive, regardless of the misguided motivations.
* 16: 101: “And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.”; 22:52: “And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise”; 87:6: “By degrees shall We teach thee to declare (the Message), so thou shalt not forget”
This Iraqi reformist, who presumably knows more about Islamic society than a rabbi, would not agree with Rabbi Stein. He go as far as to say that Arab society has "social schizophrenia", including "delusions of grandeur":
Iraqi Reformist on Arab Society and Social Schizophrenia
(OT, sorry about that, but busy packing to move and just wanted to say this)
To AMartinez~
You had it right both times.
Israel
IsReal.
Stay safe, Everyone!
The majority of people throughout the world are not aware of what islam is. And those who are introduced to the reality of islam tend to have what the psychiatrists call "denial". And they have soft lives. Soft meaning that there is still a theatre showing. The circus is in town. There is the library for the literary minded. There are the discos for the young. And there are the clubs and bars. It is hard to believe that there is not goodness and mercy all around. Yes, there is the occasional famine and tsunami. Okay, here's my dollar. On with the party. Wafa Sultan, an islamic apostate, coming from the horrific background, is not even in the same league as the uninformed. They don't even begin to understand what she says, even though she says it in both English and muslim tongues. They simply won't understand. The father of Nick Berg was in forgiving mode. And so is Mister Pearl. Maybe all they want to believe is that mankind is not that barbaric. That their son was another death that occurs through car crash/machine gone wrong/freak accident. Just another accident statistic. I think that the psychiatrists' "denial" theory is in play.
Why dont these same people defend Hitlers book?...I am sure one or two pages of his book wont make you puke so it must be good.A book that calls for the death of anyone should be banned. You can not encite to Riot or yell fire in a crowded building. call for the overthrow of the Government.Its called common sence. But by all means lets have P.C. no matter who dies.
Bostom says: "[Mohammad] evolved from a proselytizer and persuader, to a warrior (i.e., a prototype jihadist; see: The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model), and dictatorial legislator."
That's partly true, but I'm getting a little tired of hearing this standard characterization because it neglects the fact that what Mohammad in the Meccan phase was promising/threatening complete annihilation of the Meccans if they refused his message.
10:13. “And indeed, We destroyed generations before you, when they did wrong while their Messengers came to them with clear proofs, but they were not such as to believe! Thus do We requite the people who are Mujrimun (disbelievers, polytheists, sinners, criminals, etc.).”
Al-Jalalayn, 10:13. “And indeed We have destroyed generations, communities, before you, O people of Mecca, when they did evil, by way of idolatry, and, indeed, their messengers brought them clear proofs, indicating their truthfulness; but they would not believe (wa-ma kanu li-yu'minu: this is a supplement to zalamu, 'they did evil'). So, just as We destroyed those, We shall requite the sinning, the unbelieving, folk.”
19:98. And how many a generation before them have We destroyed! Can you (O Muhammad SAW) find a single one of them or hear even a whisper of them?
Al-Jalalayn, 19:98. “And how many - in other words, many - a generation, namely, [how many] a community from among the communities of the past, We have destroyed before them, for their denial of [Our] messengers. Can you see, [can] you find, [so much as] one of them, or hear from them [so much as] the faintest sound? No, indeed! So, just as We destroyed those [folk], We shall destroy these [Meccans].”
17:14. (And it will be said unto him): Read thy Book. Thy soul sufficeth as reckoner against thee this day. 17:15. Whosoever goeth right, it is only for (the good of) his own soul that he goeth right, and whosoever erreth, erreth only to its hurt. No laden soul can bear another's load, We never punish until we have sent a messenger. 17:16. And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation. 17:17. How many generations have We destroyed since Noah! And Allah sufficeth as Knower and Beholder of the sins of His slaves.
Al-Jalalayn, 17:16. “And when We desire to destroy a town We command its affluent ones, those [inhabitants] of its who enjoy the graces [of God], meaning its leaders, [We command them] to obedience, by the tongue of Our messengers; but they fall into immorality therein, rebelling against Our command, and so the Word is justified concerning it, that it should be chastised, and We destroy it utterly, We annihilate it by annihilating its inhabitants and leaving it in ruins.”
21:9. “Then We fulfilled to them the promise, and We saved them and those whom We willed, but We destroyed Al-Musrifun (i.e. extravagants in oppression, polytheism and in sin). 21:10. Indeed, We have sent down for you (O mankind) a Book, (the Qur'an) in which there is Dhikrukum, (your Reminder or an honour for you i.e. honour for the one who follows the teaching of the Qur'an and acts on its orders). Will you not then understand? 21:11. How many a town (community), that were wrong-doers, have We destroyed, and raised up after them another people! 21:12. Then, when they perceived (saw) Our Torment (coming), behold, they (tried to) flee from it. 21:13. Flee not, but return to that wherein you lived a luxurious life, and to your homes, in order that you may be questioned. 21:14. They cried: "Woe to us! Certainly! We have been Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, etc.)." 21:15. And that cry of theirs ceased not, till We made them as a field that is reaped, extinct (dead).”
Al-Jalalyan 21:15.“So that, saying, remained their cry, which they would make and repeat, until We made them as reaped [crops], as crops harvested with sickles when they were killed with the sword, stilled, dead, like the stillness of fire when it is extinguished.”
I think it is high time for the media to properly present Islam in its dogmatic entirety. I am so tired of people who, perhaps innocently, continue to talk about this "faith" as if it is simply another, different, version of knowing God. It is not. I'm sorry to say that, but it's simply ture.
Islam was kind of quaint when it was confined to areas of the world that held no power to do damage to the larger world. That is no longer the case. We will NEVER begin to win this long "twilight war" unless we begin to understand, and state publicly, that this "religion" is at war with the rest of the world. And by the rest of the world, I don't simply mean Europe and the U.S.
Most Muslims are decent, family loving, loyal human beings, but those values exist outside of Islam. The challenge is finding a way for them to apostasize without committing cultural suicice. It's very hard. Very, very hard.
God damn anyone who thinks they know what
"God" has ordained for people, but Islam isn't working any more.
I would personally be willing to cut my quality of life in half to send a message to the Saudis and others who rely on our oil addiction to stop it NOW. Not later. We are surely in for more major problems with this intensetly repugnant "religion."
Sigh...
I seek instruction.
The doctrine or principle of abrogation (of earlier verses by later) appears prominently in a lot of commentary here and elsewhere on the Qur'an and on Islam. For instance, in the Bostom piece, "According to classical Muslim Koranic commentators verse 9:5 (perhaps the most infamous verse of the sword) . . . cancels 124 verses that promote patience and toleration." And he uses the phrase "the sacralized Islamic sources," describing, I suppose, the ahadith. (Is that the right plural?)
Anyhow, some time ago I did get the free Qur'an from CAIR and it's a very nice edition, with full transliteration and detailed notes. Now, all of you who want to start flaming or to discount everything in the edition because it comes from CAIR are welcome to break off reading this post now. I seek instruction, not a flame war.
The edition comes from "The Book Foundation" in the UK and the translator and explainer is Muhammad Asad, whose biorgraphy is in a prologue in the book. And on p. 31 he says, summarizing a long note to 2:106, "In short, the 'doctrine of abrogation' has no basis whatsoever in historical fact, and must be rejected." Earlier in the note he says, ". . . some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur'an have been 'abrogated' by God's command before the revelation of the Qur'an was completed. . . . [T]here does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever declared a verse of the Qur'an to have been 'abrogated.'" The first letter in "Tradition" is capitalized, indicating a technical term, I expect.
I think Mr. Spencer's principle of framing his challenges in terms of major schools of Islamic thought and jurisprudence (rather than in endless and fruitless arguments over bits of the Qur'an) is a wise and productive one. I could expand elsewhere on why I think this, but not right now.
It seems that a flat denial of the principle of abrogation in a detailed and scholarly edition of the Qur'an distributed by Muslims themselves is prima facie evidence that there exists a non-trivial Muslim school of thought that denies that principle. To dismiss the denial willy nilly as a "deception" ("tawqeed?") is not plausible to me and would have to be argued, not assumed. I am quite ready to listen to the arguments.
Finally, my question: Is there a significant school of Islamic scholarship and teaching that denies the principle of abrogation? If so, what is its history and provenance? If not, where did this Muhammad Asad come from (academically and "ecclesially")? The answer may be too long for this space or for answerers' available time. If so, feel free to give me fairly specific references in standard works, where I can learn more.
Pilgrim
Stephen Julius Stein's hatchet job on Wafa Sultan is absolutely disgusting and cowardly. Equating Sultan with Anne Coulter was a dirty shot. Sultan has never advocated annihilating or forcibly converting anyone, though Coulter has. Stein perhaps cannot handle a hard unapologetic criticism, but this is precisely what Islam needs. Stein's not putting anything on the line with his apologetics. The Islamists probably love him because he is running interference and causing confusion.
He accuses Sultan of being over-the-top and anti-Muslim. If he had a grasp of reality, he'd realize her statements, if over-dramatic, pale in comparison to the over-the-top reality she describes. If he had taken the time to read some of Sultan's writings (or perhaps if he had simply exercised some patience and heard her out), he would have realized that Sultan is trying to help Muslims break free from Islam. (Note to Stein: This is a good thing). But Stein seems willing to try and preserve a "religion" at any cost.
Bostom is right. People like Stein are pursuing a fantasy Islam that simply does not exist. Islam needs to be hit very hard with forceful criticism, but this is frustrated by naive individuals like Stein who try to prevent that criticism from having the impact which it should. The reform which Stein imagines cannot happen as long as he is playing 'let's pretend'.
Wafa Sultan's statements might sound over-dramatic to somebody who has not lived in a city that has a 10% muslim population. I have seen cities that have 90% muslim population, and, if I am given a chance to speak, will be called as hysterical by these people.
Ann Couler is a witty, often offensive, cultural critic and comedienne. To compare her with Wafa Sultan, who addresses issues of life and death, is absurd and ridiculous.
Coulter makes me laugh, and her law degree gives her a bit of gravitas at the same time. Wafa Sultan's message, on the other hand, should be played out in every public forum imaginable. They are not the same. Puhleeze.
The entire MEMRI article (June 21,2006) of which the most important part has been posted (by Yojimbo) above, is re-posted below:
Iraqi Reformist on Arab Society and Social Schizophrenia
In an article titled "Arab Society and Schizophrenia," Iraqi reformist Dr. Abd Al-Khaleq Hussein, who writes on several reformist websites, argues that Arab society suffers from "social schizophrenia," - the symptoms of which are similar to those of individuals suffering from actual schizophrenia. He further argues that the Arab governments must immediately launch social and political reforms which will gradually lead to democracy in the Arab world. If significant reforms are not carried out, he says, disasters will continue to strike the Arab word, and democracy will ultimately be imposed upon it through violent upheavals, as occurred in Iraq. In the article, he also called upon the Arabs to accept the help offered to them by the West - and especially by the U. S. - with the aim of facilitating positive change that will permit them to integrate into the international community.
The following are excerpts from the article: [1]
"This Split Personality Disorder Characterizes Not Only Specific Sectors of Arab Society, But [Also] the Governments, the Institutions of Civil Society, and the [Political] Parties"
"'Schizophrenia' is a word in ancient Greek that means 'split personality'... but it is also used in the social sciences to describe societies afflicted by severe duality in their behavior and their [moral] standards. In fact, if we carefully compare the medical and social forms of this disorder, we will find that the symptoms are very similar...
"Iraqi social scientist Ali Al-Wardi was the first to characterize the Iraqi people as suffering from this severe social illness, which he labeled 'split personality.' According to his theory, Iraqis suffer... from a conflict between the Bedouin values that have been passed down through the generations and the cultural values that the Iraqi society has acquired...
"As an illustration, he presents the example of a young Iraqi who wishes to choose his own wife, just like an enlightened Western man, and to exchange love letters with her,... but when he hears that some other man has similar relations with his sister or cousin, he immediately turns into a 'Bedouin' and murders his beloved sister and her lover...
"This split personality disorder characterizes not only specific sectors of Arab society, but [also] the governments, the institutions of civil society, and the [political] parties, especially the Islamic ones...
"The social and medical forms of this disorder have similar symptoms. The most important of these is delusions from which the patient suffers... For example:"
"Delusions of Grandeur"
"A [schizophrenia] patient believes that he is exceptional and that others should treat him as though he is an important person. The Arabs also believe that they are more important than others in every respect. They [believe that they] are the best among nations..., and regard other nations with contempt. They acknowledge no religion [but their own] and are unwilling to coexist peacefully with other religions. [They believe] that their faith is the only faith that mankind should embrace, and that whoever fails to embrace it is an infidel.
"In other words, all other religions are heathen, heretical and fabricated, and their followers should abandon them and embrace the Arabs' religion - Islam. If they fail to embrace Islam, the Muslims are entitled to wage war upon them, to kill their men or convert them by force, to take their women hostage, to sell their children in the slave market and to plunder their property...
"This disparaging view applies not only to non-Muslims, but also to other schools of thought within Islam. Each Islamic school of thought is full of contempt and hostility towards the others. The Salafis and Wahhabis, for example, are convinced that the Shiites must be killed, and that whoever kills them will be rewarded in the world to come..."
"Paranoia"
"A schizophrenia patient believes that others are plotting against him with the aim of harming and killing him, even though he hasn't a shred of evidence to prove this. This is exactly what happens with the Arabs, who are addicted to conspiracy theories. Whenever a disaster befalls them, they claim that it was brought about by a 'hostile Western Crusader-Zionist' conspiracy. They [say this] without bothering to think rationally and determine the true causes for their defeat...
"A schizophrenic imagines that people have nothing better to do than to talk about him, gossip about him, and plot against him. Consequently, he lives in a constant state of intense doubt and suspicion towards others, including the people closest to him, such as his wife, whom he suspects of cheating on him... The patient believes that even broadcasts on TV or on the other media are directed personally at him.
"This is exactly what happens in the Arab society with respect to foreign ideas and books. No society places books and ideas under siege the way Arab society does. Arab airports and sea ports are known for seizing books from the passengers. The Arabs are famous for translating the fewest books and for showing the greatest hostility towards the foreign sciences, to which they refer contemptuously... as 'imported ideas.' In addition, no people burn books and persecute intellectuals with more gusto than the Arabs."
"Somatic Delusions"
"The patient imagines strange and illogical things, for instance that foreign bodies are moving inside him, even though there is no evidence to suggest this. Similarly, Arab societies and governments suffer from the illness of [constantly suspecting] espionage by foreign agents. This is why the Arab jails are full of political prisoners and oppositionists accused of spying for other [countries]. In the eyes of the Arab governments and societies, the political opposition and the liberal intellectuals are traitors and agents of foreign intelligence [apparatuses]..."
"Disorganized Speech"
"A [schizophrenic] patient's speech makes no sense. There is no connection between the sentences, and the hearer or reader cannot understand what [the patient] means to say. The Arab societies display the same symptom - [it is] even [displayed by] people who present themselves as intellectuals and writers. We read them with the hope of understanding what they mean to say, but to no avail... And when you dispute [their claims], they say that the problem lies not with the writer but with the reader, since he is shallow and insufficiently educated, and that is why he fails to understand the ideas of the important writers and intellectuals..."
"Loss of Human Feeling"
"This is another phenomenon spreading through the Arab societies. Unrestrained terrorism and cold-blooded butchering of innocent people in front of the TV cameras provide [further] indisputable proof that Arab society is afflicted with this dangerous disease. It should be noted that the famous religious scholar Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi advised to refrain from showing the killings on TV. This means that he supports these acts, but advises not showing them in this manner, since they give Islam and the Muslims a bad reputation. In the eyes of some, this makes Al-Qaradhawi a moderate cleric."
"The Patient Loses the Ability to Enjoy Activities He Enjoyed in the Past"
"This is also true of the Arab society today. During the course of their history, the Arabs used their powers of reasoning and exercised independent judgment in religious ruling [ijtihad]... in order to find rational solutions for existing problems. But a few hundred years ago... the gates of ijtihad were shut, the mind was shut down, and [clerics] began to rely exclusively on what was said by the founding fathers [of Islam] over 1,400 years ago, even if their solutions were inapplicable to contemporary problems..."
"Inactivity and Lethargy"
"Schizophrenia patients spend most of their time in idleness or slumber. Laziness,... sleepiness, fatalism and lack of productivity are also widespread in the Arab countries. A study published a number of years ago found that a Western worker is five times more productive than an Arab worker..."
"Loss of Zest for Life"
"This is a well-known tendency in Arab society. As bin Laden said in his address to the West, 'you love life, while we thirst for death.' This is an integral part of Arab heritage... This is why preachers in the mosques glorify death [in their sermons] to young people, [teach] them to hate life, and encourage them to carry out jihad terrorist operations..."
"Isolation From the World"
"Schizophrenia patients prefer to live in isolation from the rest of the world, and spend most of their time alone, detached from other people. They are uninterested in the company of friends and relatives, are unable to form friendships with other people or to maintain previous friendships, and do not care that they have no friends.
"All these symptoms are also prevalent in the Arab society, and are due to faulty education from an early age. Most textbooks for children and youth teach hatred towards others, and [encourage the reader] to avoid the company of non-Muslims. More than that, [they instruct the reader] to avoid greeting a non-Muslim, and, if greeted by a non-Muslim, to reply in an aloof and contemptuous manner. [They also teach that] if you shake hands with a non-Muslim, you must afterwards wash your hands. Directives of this sort are published by all religious schools - even by moderate clerics, and certainly by extremist ones.
"Arab culture also encourages isolation from the world. The world is divided into two camps: 'believers' and 'infidels'... Sheikh Al-Islam ibn Taymiyya encouraged [the Muslims] to hate the unbelievers, saying: 'When you spend time in the camp of the unbelievers - for purposes of medical [treatment], study or trade - harbor hostility towards them in your heart.'..."
"Denial of the Disease"
"Schizophrenia patients deny that they are ill, and believe that they are completely well. They are hostile towards anyone who tries to treat them or wishes to help them. Similarly, the Arabs are unaware of the duality in their behavior and standards, and do not realize that they are backward and require immediate treatment in order to overcome their backwardness and [to avoid] the disasters that befall them. Anyone who tries to draw their attention to their own backwardness... is accused of treason and of being a foreign agent, usually [an agent of] the 'imperialists,' 'Crusaders.' or 'Zionists.' Consequently, intellectuals have been persecuted in Arab countries throughout the ages..."
"Mental Paralysis"
"A [schizophrenia] patient is utterly convinced that his notions are correct, to the point of [mental] paralysis... The same [phenomenon] is also widespread in the Arab society, which believes that only its own culture and notions - which have been handed down from generation to generation - are valid, and tries to eliminate those who think differently... [Schizophrenia] patients are unable to understand abstract ideas according to their context, and take everything literally....
"A similar situation exists in Arab society, which cannot differentiate among various situations. Occupation of one country by another is a vile thing, but there are exceptional cases in which the occupation is necessary since it is for the good of the occupied country. This is true for Iraq, and for Europe during the Second World War. But Arab society regards the liberation of Iraq from an extremely vile, fascistic regime as an [act of] colonialism aimed at plundering [Iraq's] treasures and killing its people…"
Al-Zarqawi, bin Laden, and Al-Zawahiri Could Not Have Perpetrated Their Atrocities Without Extensive Popular Support
"Some may object [to my arguments], asking why I take the behavior of a single individual, a handful of people, or a group, [and present it] as the behavior of entire nations. Why do I ascribe the behavior of Al-Zarqawi, bin Laden or Al-Zawahiri to all Arabs? Why do I present the sin of one cleric as the sin of all clerics?
"[But] the truth is that what happened in Algeria and what is currently happening in Iraq and in other parts of the Arab world does not result from the deviant behavior of individuals, but from general behavior that is inevitably caused by [our] culture.
"Barbaric acts of mass murder were rampant in Algeria, with the number of victims reaching a quarter of a million. School girls were murdered for not wearing the veil. The murders carried out by 'jihad fighters' in Iraq have come to symbolize [the general situation there], which is condoned by Arab societies.
"Needless to say, Al-Zarqawi, bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri could not have perpetrated all these atrocities without extensive popular support, without constant recruitment [of new jihad fighters], and without the cultural and ideological support that is [ingrained] in the [Arab] heritage and education. Surveys conducted in a number of Arab countries showed that the majority supports the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization, and that bin Laden himself enjoys great popularity, especially in the Gulf countries…"
If Arab Governments Do Not Begin to Lead Their Peoples Towards Democracy, History Will Force It on Them
"Based on the above, I believe that Arab societies… suffer from duality in their standards, their views, and their behavior, and require immediate treatment if they want to heal, to overcome their backwardness, and to live in peace with the international community…
"Obviously, it is difficult to change the people's entire outlook overnight, especially when the governments constitute an obstacle to reform. The process is difficult and will take a long time, but there is nothing to prevent it from starting today… The ball is in the court of the Arab governments, who must understand the reasons for their backwardness and the backwardness of their people.
"The problem with these governments is that they have always objected, and still object, to gradual and peaceful development… [which occurs naturally] in the course of history. Democracy is the order of the day, and if the Arab governments do not begin to gradually lead their peoples towards democracy, history will force it on them through violent [upheavals], as occurred in Iraq...
"It should be noted that over 200 years ago, the Western peoples went through what the Arab peoples are experiencing now. They managed to resolve their problems, to build an advanced civilization, and to make economic, social, scientific and technological progress - but [this happened] only after reason was liberated from [the shackles of] fairytales and lies, [and after they] separated religion and state, established regimes that were secular, liberal and democratic, and gave freedom of speech and thought to [their] intellectuals."
Never made fully explicit is the writer's recognition that Islam is the problem that underlies everything -- though in his discussion of the delusions of grandeur, and hatred felt for non-Arabs, non-Muslims, or even for those Muslim Arabs of another sect, he comes close. When, for example, he discusses how a thoroughly modern Iraq man might court a woman (love letters, etc.) but would at the same time kill his sister if she were to be engaged in a simlar courtship, he ascribes this to the "Bedouin" mentality. But what is Islam if not the source of this "Bedouin" mentality which fixes in amber, for the Believer, and for all time, a view of women taken from 7th or 8th century Arabia? The phrase "honor killing" is not described in the Qur'an but so what? The Qur'an and Hadith are instinct with attitudes toward women that lead to regarding them in the way that supports honor killings.
Note too the last paragraph where the Iraqi psychiatrist ascribes the changes in Western society, the history of which he is not sufficiently familiar with, to merely the last "200 years." The development of individualiam, surely the most important characteriistic of the West, did not develop during the last 200 years. It goes back to the Renaissance, and with that dignity-of-man, whether Leonardo's Vitruvian man who graphically displays that "man is the measure of all things" or Shakespeare's "poor forked man" wandering on the Heath with Tom-all-alone, that in those survey courses on Western Civilization are associated with the day's lecture on Pico della Mirandol and Marsilio Ficino, but of course the idea goes all the way back to Greeks, bearing real gifts with nary a Trojan horse stamping or neighing in sight.
The West created itself slowly, over several millennia. The Iraqi psychiatrist possibly mentions "200 years" because in the back of his head is the date 1798, when Europe, now obviously more powerful in the military sense, entered the Muslim consciousnesses again, this time in an unsettling and threatening way, with Napoleon's entry into Egypt.
And there is another reason. He would like to abridge or truncate the process of the developments that took place in the West over two millennia. After all, what he is hoping for is a similar process in the "Arab" countries. He seems to recognize that there is a problem with -- how shall we put this delicately? -- with the "religion" of the Arabs, for he argues that there must be "secularism" and religion must be separated from political power. And he wants to believe that it took the West only the last 200 years, so that perhaps, just perhaps, the same thing can be accomplished in the Arab states in a few decades. Ahistorical, but appealing.
Just look at Turkey. A powerful, charismatic, self-assured, ruthless war hero, takes power and systematically throttles Islam as a politicfal and social force. He works at it in every way. After his death, the cult of Ataturk, as part of the cult of "the Turk," offers the masses an alternative to the Muhammad-figure offered for reverence and total emulation by Islam. Eighty years of Kemalism -- and what happens? It is constantly under challenge, and the failure of the beneficiaries of secularism to vigilantly maintain Kemalism and support the army in ruthlessly suppressing those who would undo it, have allowed Erbakan, and then Erdogan and company, to proceed to undo it, here and there, being checked here, managing to change things there. Little by little, they are doing what they can, and it is not Islam, but Kemalism, that neeeds constant shoring up.
A useful article -- as long as one analyzes not only what is so good about it, but its limitations, and the reason for them. The writer, admirable as he is, never does make the connection -- how can he, living where he lives, and very likely unwilling to go that final, Wafa-Sultan Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali Ibn-Warraq Ali-Sina step, the step without which little can be achieved.
Pilgrim,
I'm no expert, but have some familiarity with the issue and I just have a couple of brief comments...
Muhammad Asad's opinion sounds unorthodox, but there are others who reject abrogation. (Some have been executed for rejecting abrogation).
I think Bostom hinges too much of his argument (at least in the above piece) on the abrogation issue. Also, the specific number of 124 cancelled verses (by verse 9:5) is not, by any means, agreed upon by all.
The impression one gets from some reformers is that somehow, if abrogation was rejected, the Koran might seem more tolerant. This is not realistic. Mohammad ("Allah") threatens annihilation of disbelievers in the earlier and the later verses, and gives Muslims explicit permission to deliver Allah's punishment against the disbelievers on earth. Disbelief is the worst crime (leads to death of the soul), so it must be fought and wiped out completely. These basic principles are unaffected by abrogation.
Islamically-sanctioned deception is taqiyya.
sanctioned as in "approved"
I am aghast at how many people in the West have no backbone, to the point that you can kill their children and they still want to talk in quixotic language, hope for the best and give concession to the enemy.
In regards to Hugh's post above, we need an Ataturk-equivalent in the United States, but his goal should be to take back Washington from the rich, elitist morons that now infest it with their stench, and especially the leftist filth that are incapable of making moral choices with any real clarity of thought.
If it was up to some members of the Sentate, we'd all wear the Star and Stripes as underwear and Gay Pride parades, illegal immigration rallies and 'Build a Mosque' neighborhood events would be the norm. Am I watching my country wither and die before my very eyes?
Sometimes I wonder. Perhaps it's a test of my resolve.
The quote unquote "violent" verses in the Torah are a historical record of what was spoken to the people of that age.
The verses in the Koran do not make this chronological distinction.
It would take a casual reader only 2 days to conclude this.
Muslims are unwilling to compare the Koran to anything else because criticism of Islam is not allowed. How peaceful.
The Hadith: Mohammad would hear ringing in his ears, his heart would beat rapidly, his face turn red, his breathing laboured,
he would fall down or lay down, he would shake, his eyes would open wide, his lips tremble, spit drool from the corners of
his mouth, he would sweat profusely, he saw and heard things no one else ever saw or heard, he would sometimes make a
snorting noise like that of a camel. Vol. I No 1,2,3,4. Vol. III, No 95,438,461. Vol.V No 170,462,618,659.
The schizophrenic would have an episode and the mindless hordes were in awe of it. Talk about the dark ages...
Judea Pearl, Michael Berg, Ken MacKenzie (uncle who blames Bush for the recent torture and decapitation of his nephew Kristian Menchaca) -- with each beheading, we seem to see Leftist loved ones showing they lost their heads a long time ago.
The scary passages of the Old Testament are the Word of God, not "cultural baggage." The command to exterminate the Canaanites and the frightening conclusion to Psalm 137 are a warning that certain nations can become so infected with sin that they deserve annihilation. Of course, part of the ban on the 7 nations was that if Israel went the same way, the same punishment would be meted out. If you read the whole OT history, you will see how that worked out, and in the end, the Assyrians and Babylonians were sent as God's rod against a rebellious nation.
Our last word from God is, however, not to massacre enemies, but a command to make disciples (see the end of Matthew)and an invitation: "The Spirit and the Bride say 'Come'." (end of Revelation).
Pilgrim,
"Sacralized islamic Sources" would presumably refer to the koran, the ahadith and the sunnah.
The capitalized "Tradition" is probably a reference to the ahadith (singular: hadith), or narrative traditions related to the words and exploits of the so-called mohamed, the so-called prophet of islam (mohamed was an honorific name; the name this character was actually called, prior to his supposed prophethood, is lost to time). Various collections of the hadith exist. In each collection (e.g. "Bukhari", or "Muslim"), each particular narrative is graded for supposed authenticity, or "reliability".
The sunnah are the "islamic scholar's" consensus of the ways and deeds of the so-called prophet, often exemplified, and based upon the stories in the ahadith.
Abrogation is a general principle of islamic "jurisprudence". It is not unlikely that CAIR, in their freely distributed korans, is aiming to mislead the naive.
Tawheed ("tawqeed" ?), from arabic, is the muslim idea of monotheism.
Perhaps it would be helpful for you to explore some of the books listed in the top bar link, under "Jihad Watch", above.
Pilgrim,
I see the issue of abrogation as one that deals more in semantics, a technicality issue if you will, than anything else. Islam has a 14 century history of acting and applying the more violent parts of the Qu'ran, and the current Islamists are simply doing more of the same. It is these later, intolerant verses that are quoted by Jihadis from Algeria to Thailand and all around the world. It's these verses that inspire them in the madrassas and wherever they congragate to rant and rave and plot Jihad against unbelievers.
If their sayings and actions are any indication, the peaceful tolerant verses have been abrogated in their eyes. But they still have a good use as far as they are concerned: to confuse and deceive Infidels.
What a strange family, the Pearls...
When Daniel was murdered his widow's appearance on tv exhibited neither rage nor grief -I'm not suggesting that she didnt feel those emotions - its just that what we heard from her was multicultural pieties...
And now Judea - who lost his beloved son - thinks it important to alibi for Islam...he can do that because he's not choking on rage...
I wouldnt suggest that any of this is wrong - its just so far from the way I experience the world that it makes me think that the Pearls are somewhat weird...
We saw the same kind of alibi-for-Islam from Nick Bergs dad, too...
Compare Torah and Koran?
I would guess the man has little itimate knowledge of either...
Archimedes
Do you have a breakdown of the total number of verses that advocate violence, intolerance, cruelty, absurdities, sexism, et al vs. good deeds? The skeptics annotated Quran that I normally cite has some, but not all versus are annotated; as a result, the numbers one would see would at best be a partial list. Similar exercises on the ahadith and the sira would be useful as well.
A statistical breakdown of the classification of all verses in the Quran would nonetheless be revealing in terms of the character of this "holy book". Obviously, it wouldn't be the last word, since as has been pointed out by TV and others, even if a minority of verses advocated evil deeds, that would be worthy of condemnation. But it would be one more way of quantifying the overall trend and message of Islam.
As Hugh implies above, the reason why that "baggage" continues to weigh on the collective Muslim psyche and determine its inexorable caravan unto jihad until the end of history is the flip side of the coin of why the vaguely similar "baggage" in Western religious history (certain passages in the Old Testament) does not have the same effect in modern Western societies.
What Hugh alluded to is just one important glimpse into the vast, rich, and complex history of the West not only since the Renaissance but rooted earlier in the High Middle Ages -- a history of free inquiry, healthy skepticism, philosophical explorations, scientific experimentation, political and legal evolution of parliamentary representation and worker's unions, an amazing and complicated (and sometimes violent) process of theological disintegration and reappraisal, and an astonishingly vibrant and healthy and improvisational and often irreverent career of artistic and literary developments.
Some historian should write an accessible book that examines just one object in this rich history of the modern West: the Bible over the past 500 years. What the modern West has done with its Bible would be unthinkable in any Islamic culture, no matter how many centuries they had to evolve. And even with all that the modern West has done with its Bible, millions of Christians and Jews are perfectly free to continue to revere and follow the Bible with little or no deference to the centuries of "demythologization" it has suffered -- while millions more have adjusted their faith in various ways to this long and complex process of deconstruction of the Bible; while still yet millions of others have become disenchanted altogether and opted for various styles of agnostic floundering.
This overall process described above (including with respect to the Bible) of course has had its flaws and unfortunate -- sometimes even tragic -- features. But the only alternative is a system that in its fear of change and in its arrogant claim to know what God wants for us would try to suppress the bad that comes with the good -- inevitably oppressing both. All living organisms must not only eat and grow into health; they must also shit and sweat. In trying to stamp out the latter, the totalitarianism of Islam ends up producing the arrested development of infantile robots who shit, but don't grow up.
Islam's 14 Centuries of jihad warfare renders its claims of 'peacefulness' fiction....
Notice too that Shia and Sunni Muslims are constantly slaughtering each other. There's probably a Shia and/or Sunni mosque somewhere being prepped for a terror attack as I write this memo.
I think they must mean Islam is pieces...
Abrogation:
Some argue 2.106, 13.39, and 16.101 in the Qur'an abrogate the earlier suras.
There is no clear answer, like almost any question about the book. Look at any typical passage on chopping up the infidel. Usually it's a "merciful" beheading or some such rot.
The key answer to the question is that many modern Muslims justify any sick and demented act of violence, especially against the unbelievers or another sect of Muslims, by citing the Qur'an. These theological and textual arguments are nice to have, peacefully, behind the monitor, sitting in a free country.
One can use sheer weight to realize the violence outweighs the peaceful passages.
Then there's 1,350+ years of head-chopping and infidel slaying which has been upheld by every leading Muslim scholar.
Intellectually speaking - doesn't keep your filthy infidel body parts connected to your body - abrogation is debatable.
Why would a "rabbi" knowingly play as taqiya spewing dhimmi. Is he really a rabbi? If so, what type of manipulation/pressure might be causing this? Any ideas?
Rabbi Stein wrote of Wafa Sultan:
It appears Rabbi Stein is not well-tuned with the rules of Quran-reading. This "odd" rule was not set up by Ms. Sultan. It is traditionally held by most Muslims worldwide....
Pilgram
Muhammed Asad (Leipold Weis) was an educated Polish Jew that coverted. He tried hard to rationalize alot of Islamic sillines to jive with logic. Read his treament of jinns in autobiography, "The Road To Mecca," and his other books. His idea are hetrodox and informed from his formal european education. His Quran translation is all together unrealiable and misleading. The perfect thing to lure unsuspecting westreners to Islam. A more orthodox is the Quran published by the Dar ul Salam publishing house in Saudi Arabia, by Mushin Khan. This one has the approval of the Whahhabi othodoxy. I has a section dealing with aboragation. The is a Quranic verse that mentions revelations replacing other ones, and it deals with missing verses, like those related to stoning. As far as i know all schools embrace the doctrince. Don't be fooled by the translation of a westren convert used for deceptive dawa purposes.
The more I learn about Islam the better I can refute the apparent blindness to the truth of the local leftist loonies. My arguments with them are getting much better as my arguments are laced with fact. I get a terrific amount of fact here (the msm provides no fact-only stories which only occasionally have tidbets of hidden fact).
to one and all ---keep up the good work and maintain vigilence.
The plural of 'hadith' in English is 'hadiths', not 'ahadith'. When I'm writing the plural of a German word in an English context, I don't conjugate the word with respect to the subject and apply the German suffix (-e, -st, ,-en, etc.). In English, one forms the plural by adding -s (pig, pigs) or -es (potato, potatoes), or by changing the form of the word (mouse, mice).
If you want a free koran, you can get one here. This is the order form on the website of the Islamic Affairs Department of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington D.C.
You can also get a free copy of the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation at FreeQuran.org.
This "rabbi" is a useful idiot.
Look at this:
"Here's another: As I experienced the fervor sparked by Sultan's anti-Muslim tirade and stoked by a roomful of apparently unsuspecting Jews, I thought: What if down the street there was a roomful of Muslims listening to a self-loathing Jew, cheering her on as she spoke of the evils inherent in the Torah, in which it is commanded that a child must be stoned to death if he insults his parents, in which Israelites are ordered by God to conquer cities and, in so doing, to kill all women and children — and this imagined Jew completely ignored all of what Judaism teaches afterward?"
He's basically making the case that her argument is akin to antisemitism and that defining Islam as dangerous to our culture is like saying Jews are bad for our culture. This reminds me of the hatchet job review of Falacci's book in the NYSun which made pretty much the same arguments against Falacci's observations of Muslim practices. They dismissed her because the same arguments could be made about Jewish practices like kosher butchery, etc. It's not the same thing. Muslims force their culture down our throats and expect everyone to accomodate them or even adopt their cultural practices. Jews (and I'm talking Orthodox here) don't and they keep to themselves. Whether Falacci thinks kosher butchery is savage is really beside the point, she's an athiest, I kind of imagine she would have found it unpleasant.
Stein needs to stop connecting criticism of Islam (not Islamism, radical Islam, or fundamentalism) to antisemitism. Criticism of Islam as a religion is justified whereas antisemitism is not. He is not helping Jews by starting a "dialogue" with Muslims, no matter how "progressive" they are. He needs to get it through his head that Muslims as a whole will never accept the existence of Israel and that they will never stop calling Jews apes and pigs. Islam, and letting Muslims into America is bad for the Jews. How can I support a "rabbi" that is willing to risk the safety of Jews for some liberal-multiculturalist imperative and a romanticized view of this mythical "progressive" Muslim (whatever the hell that is)? I can't.
Why can't we have more rabbis that are more dedicated to the Torah instead of liberalism?
Eisenhund
Good point. I'll use 'hadiths' going forward.
Pilgrim, let me attempt to provide an explanation thusly:
What would you do if you saw a "One Way" street sign pointing in two opposite directions? Well that's the Quran. If the US constitution contained a clause guaranteeing freedom of speech and another that denied freedom of speech, where would we be now? Whether abrogation is an Islamic tradition or not is unimportant, the people who preach Islam can preach whatever they want.
Yes, the Judaeo-Christian bible has contradictions, primarily due to the revisions brought by Jesus Christ. However Islam has no messiah; it is the work of one man, who seems to have changed his mind as time went on. I say that because it is inconceivable to me that a god (any god) could have possibly sent such a confusing set of rules.
Basically the Quran can be interpreted any way a Mullah or Imam wants to and he possibly has some justification based on his ability to pick and choose from 1400 years of tradition. Whether abrogation is a fact or not is irrelevant based on the vast number of practitioners who are using the Gunpowder Jihad interpretation.
Someone give us the name of a leading Imam or Mullah who could stop this madness with a fatwa declaring the ugly parts of the Quran null and void. Don't hold your breath, Pilgrim.
"Good point."
Thank you, sahpaathi.
Eisenhund, If one uses a foreign word, then one should use the correct plural or singular form. With Latin use data and datum, fungus and fungi, bacteria and bacterium. Ad nauseum.
I think we should start using English words for Arabic words anyway.
Quran - Muzzie Bible
hadith - Islamic Code
jihad - Islamic war
jizya - Jim Crow tax
etc etc
-Pelayo,
I agree in the case of Latin, only because it has contributed significantly to the greater English language in its unmodified form for as long as "English" has been around as well as to the scientific lexicon. Arabic? No. If you want to accurately conjugate every French, German, Italian, Gaelic, Russian, even Arabic word you use, you're free to do so and, for what it's worth, I wouldn't think any less of you for taking the time and making the effort to do so. But for me, in the context of a piece written in English, I won't bother. Subjecting a foreign word to English rules for form doesn't generally change the meaning of the word and often eliminates confusion. "Haddiths" or "ahaddith", they refer to the same thing, most people know that, and I can't see wringing my hands, crawling on the net trying to find how an Arabic speaker would indicate more than one if he was scribbling it down.
I have enough trouble concentrating my efforts on utilizing my own language properly (not always successfully). Most other languages use their own conjugation conventions with modified and unmodified foreign loan words written in their own native tongue and I don't see any problem reciprocating in mine.
Another thing on which I agree is using correct translations. Much easier to properly pluralize and understand. Your list, for example.
In any case, while I don't completely agree with you, it's no big deal for me as this is just a small matter of semantics (despite how much I've written about it). Only reason I posted, was in response to a question I've seen more than once regarding the name of that particular piece of...ahem..."literature".
PS - Isn't a mohammedan terrorist a "mujahid", not a "jihadi"? I don't really care. Call it a spade, entrenching tool, or a dirt-digger thingy, it's still a shovel (this last thing was just a rhetorical question, directed at the general audience).
Infidel Pride,
Re Breakdown of verses into different categories.
No; I don't have totals. In terms of estimation, the skepticannotated* quran probably has a reasonable estimate of the proportion of the good verses to the various kinds of bad verses, even though the annotation is not complete.
*http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
The author of that site had, as of May 2, 2006, annotated 537 verses showing injustice, 410 showing intolerance, 333 showing cruelty-violence, 88 verses containing absurdities, 51 containing negative statements about women, and 13 verses attacking family values, and several verses showing contradictions, scientific and historical inaccuracies, and prejudice against homosexuals.
I have reservations about those classifications, and the scoring system. For example, why are the verses that tell believers to pay the zakat considered "good"? As far as I'm concerned, the number of good verses quickly approaches zero once we uncover the Islamic meaning of terms like "oppression", "defence", "aggression", "justice/injustice", "mischief/corruption", "pious", "truth", "proof", etc.
I also think it is misleading to use those numbers (e.g., relative numbers of verses in each category) as an estimate of the proportion of good stuff versus X Y Z bad stuff, because each verse is contained in a passage. So if a verse talking about frying disbelievers occurs in a context of a passage of 10 verses, only one verse is counted as bad (even though 10 or more verses may be needed to set up the meaning and context of the one bad verse). Note that many (actually, most) verses cannot be classified according to that author's scheme.
Re Hadith
Silas at Answering Islam has posted an extensive Hadith index.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/indexintro.htm
I've posted some verses and hadiths under different categories. This is not intended to be a complete compilation (the Sahih Muslim collection already does a good job of categorizing, and Ibn Kathir's tafsir links the verses to the appropriate hadiths), but has (or has links to) most of the important bad stuff in those categories.
http://islamwatch.forumup.in/forum-5-islamwatch.html
Verses of imperialism and jihad are categorized here
http://islamwatch.forumup.in/about252-islamwatch.html
A muslim site has the Riyad-us-Saliheen (see the Jihad chapter) http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/riyad/default.htm
hadiths vs ahadith. I've seen that either one is used in writing by experts.
Oh yeah, "hadith", not "haddith". I'll try to at least spell it correctly in it's transliterated form.
But nope, still gonna call 'em "hadiths".
nyah...so, there!
sonnyboy-
I think that Daniel Pearl's father and Nick Berg's father have simply lost their minds with grief.
Whatever their previous beliefs, the slaughters of their sons have driven them over the edge.
I only wish they would go mad in silence.
Instead of naively abetting more jihad.
I have no way of establishing this as verifiable, but here goes. My guess is that the Pearls and the Bergs are not practicing or devout Jews, since they seem to have little grounding in Judaism and scant knowledge of Islam, aside from some very superficial impressions. Now, I am not a Jew; I'm Roman Catholic. Many years ago, when I was on the Left, I met many, many secular, non-practicing Jews who were, like me, Gramscian Marxists. Unlike me, they were generally hostile towards religion, which I found astounding, since a lot of my inspiration came from the Bible. I did not hate Christianity and I did not hate my country. I did not even hate Western culture. I had some problems with the economic system and saw value in proposing some ways to tinker with it to humanize it. Even as a Leftist back then, if something like 9/11 had happened back then in the early Eighties I would have defended my country, not the Islamists. Thus, I find people like the Bergs and the Pearls to be entirely bereft of a true mooring in anything but cultural nihilism.
And since consider Islam to be a form of totalitarianism, those who make common cause with it have entirely repugnant instincts.
Why Americans have a cushy feeling about Islam ?
(I am aghast to see Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg's fathers suffer from the Stockholm syndrome.)
Isn't this the characteristic sophomoric naivety of Americans anyway: "I cannot see beyond the well-topped cheeseburger anyway" ! So, nothing beyond that cheeseburger exists for the moment for me !"
Regarding Islam and Peace one might try reading the spine-chilling monograph (33 pages): Jihaad in Islam by Maulana Syed Abul Ala Maudoodi and verify what Islam means in terms of peace.
My own two cents: Islam means Submission to the Supreme Will (of Allah). Whatever Allah has revealed in Quran, accept it unquestioned. That is submit - convert to Islam. The peace that follows after submission (conversion) is Islam.
Peace on earth shall descend (the Islamic way) when everybody has converted to Islam. As long as there is a single non-Muslkm, it is war. (That's what the book says.)
Why Americans have a cushy feeling about Islam ?
(I am aghast to see Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg's fathers suffer from the Stockholm syndrome.)
Isn't this the characteristic sophomoric naivety of Americans anyway: "I cannot see beyond the well-topped cheeseburger anyway" ! So, nothing beyond that cheeseburger exists for the moment for me !"
Regarding Islam and Peace one might try reading the spine-chilling monograph (33 pages): Jihaad in Islam by Maulana Syed Abul Ala Maudoodi and verify what Islam means in terms of peace.
My own two cents: Islam means Submission to the Supreme Will (of Allah). Whatever Allah has revealed in Quran, accept it unquestioned. That is submit - convert to Islam. The peace that follows after submission (conversion) is Islam.
Peace on earth shall descend (the Islamic way) when everybody has converted to Islam. As long as there is a single non-Muslkm, it is war. (That's what the book says.)
Could anybody tell me if the manuel entitled Jihad in Islam is on line for free? I would like to read and share the information with friends who want to know about Islam.
Christian,
for _Jihad in Islam_ by Maududi (if that's what you're looking for), google this:
"jihad in Islam" + "muhammadanism" and then select the html format
If you have a pdf viewer, use this link:
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Terrorism/jihah_in_islam/jihad_in_islam.pdf
"Hadiths" presents that final "ths" problem that makes the plural "months" such a hard word for many non-native speakers of English to pronounce, "ahadith" is disturbing to native speakers of English and draws too much attention it itself in its self-conscious correctness.
"Hadith" as an immutable form for both one and many, may suffice for some. It does for me.
I wouldn't compare Pearl with the elder Berg. Berg is Ross Perot after a bad batch of PCP. Pearl is something different. He's trying to find something worthwhile in his son's beheading. Something redeeming--like interfaith talks. He so wants to believe the pap is true.
Isn't there a psychiatric disorder--I think it's projection or something like that. He trying to put lip stick on the pig. Surely his son's butchers are just a tiny minority. They couldn't be supported. His son's video death could not be revered in the Arab world? I get him. I don't agree, but my son wasn't beheaded. I see the world for what it is. He, the elder Pearl, is no Berg the elder or cindy sheehan. It's just kind of sad and pathetic to see him 'search' that one a hidden level he cannot find. Pathetic.
I wouldn't compare Pearl with the elder Berg. Berg is Ross Perot after a bad batch of PCP. Pearl is something different. He's trying to find something worthwhile in his son's beheading. Something redeeming--like interfaith talks. He so wants to believe the pap is true.
Isn't there a psychiatric disorder--I think it's projection or something like that. He trying to put lip stick on the pig. Surely his son's butchers are just a tiny minority. They couldn't be supported. His son's video death could not be revered in the Arab world? I get him. I don't agree, but my son wasn't beheaded. I see the world for what it is. He, the elder Pearl, is no Berg the elder or cindy sheehan. It's just kind of sad and pathetic to see him 'search' that one a hidden level he cannot find. Pathetic.
Archimedes
Thanks for the response. Yeah, I did assume that in terms of the proportion of the good verses versus evil, the numbers were consistent, but I wanted to see whether absolute rolled up totals existed. If they don't, no problem - a statistical analysis, though somewhat useful in quantifying the threat that exists, is still largely peripheral to this discussion.
About the 'good' verses, they do question some of the 67 that they list (I'm assuming that that's the maximum tops on the good stuff in the Quran, and that none is left out, since the authors did list 537 verses for injustice, etc.), such as 2:111, 2:190, 2:256, 4:29, 5:32, 9:18 and so on. I agree with you that just as they did with 2:256, 5:32 and 9:18, they should have qualified all the verses -- 2:190, 2:42, 2:83,... -- that they listed here with the respective Medinan verse that abrogated them, so that only unabrogated verses are then listed. It would then be interesting to see whether this number even enters double figures.
Archimedes
I glossed over your comment about contextualizing the passages as well. Of course, once one did that, the number of bad verses that are counted would then drop exponentially faster. Nonetheless, point taken. I'll go over some of the articles you've cited.
"Isn't this the characteristic sophomoric naivety of Americans anyway: "I cannot see beyond the well-topped cheeseburger anyway" ! So, nothing beyond that cheeseburger exists for the moment for me !" - Mohammed bin Kafir Abu Jahal
Hey, Mohammed! As an American who has been reading up on Islam for several years, I agree with your characterization of the "peaceful" aspect of Islam.
However, as an American, I have to *dis*agree with your characterization of Americans as only interested in their cheeseburgers plus toppings. I've heard similar characterizations of Americans before, but I do not think it applies to us any more or less than to inhabitants of other nations.
Some of us are extremely interested in knowing what's what in the world beyond our borders. Some are not. I've been living in Australia for three years, and in regard to interest in other cultures and - specifically - in learning about Islam, people here seem to be exactly as interested and not interested, as savvy and as naive, as in the USA.
I suspect that the *average* person everywhere on the planet is pretty tied up just trying to make ends meet, solving family problems, and repairing all the things that need repairing, and when they get some free time they use it to refresh themselves so that they can meet daily requirements of life with good cheer.
But in regard to the WESTERN tendency - among those whose *job* it is to know better - to give credit to Islam that it doesn't deserve, this is a more complicated topic that has to do with philosophies, with recent history, and also, perhaps, with fear.
I don't have time to write, right now, about what I mean by the "philosophies" and "history" part, but about the fear: I think Mr. Berg and Mr. Perl and many journos and intellectuals are afraid to find out that Islam itself is the problem, because they're afraid that if the truth is nasty and the truth comes out that the "masses" will begin to persecute the Muslims in their midst.
Intellectuals tend to believe that the average Joe will do things like that.
Or maybe the problem is simpler even than that. Maybe it's that, in this era of PC, some people bend over backwards to stick their heads in the sand because they don't want to be seen as "intolerant". It's a terrifying thing to be seen as intolerant. It's as if you were a Nazi or a Ku Klux Klanner. Some people are so afraid of being perceived as bigots by fools, they are willing to become fools themselves rather than risk finding out an unpopular truth.
Ignore this post...I'm just testing something
[url=http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/indexintro.htm]Silas' Index of Hadith[/url]
Ignore this post...I'm just [b]testing[/b] something
Silas Index of Hadith
I'm not very computer savvy...if anyone knows how to hide urls as regular text on this site, please let me know.
Above, I tried [url=html...]insert text here[/url] , and then the same thing with instead of [ ] , which didn't work.
BendGovt
Answering-Islam
text
text