In "Removing the ‘cloak’ of religious extremism" for the Common Ground News Service (via Middle East Online), Laura McAleer, a student at Georgetown University, and Hala Ali, a student at South Valley University of Cairo, who together participated in a "Western-Arab intercultural dialogue program," spin some fanciful but familiar tales:
Washington, D.C./Cairo Egypt - In the wake of September 11th, many in the Western world have struggled to correctly identify acts of terrorism and their perpetrators. Often, people reading newspapers and watching television news reach the conclusion that such acts were committed in the name of jihad, the Islamic concept commonly, and incorrectly, defined as "holy war."
Why do they rush to such a conclusion? Could it be because of statements urging "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders"? Of course not. The primary culprit here is -- who else? -- Westerners. Oh, and "others" do it too, which is like saying "In 1933 in Germany a regime came to power consisting of some established German politicians such as Franz von Papen, along with some others."
Many Westerners (and others around the world) equate the two, developing misconceptions about Islam and the Muslim community. This misunderstanding is detrimental to relations between the U.S. and the Arab world, and it can only be mitigated by recognising the distinct definitions of both terrorism and jihad.The U.S. State Department, according to the official National Strategy for Combating Terrorism policy document, defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents," usually intended to influence an audience. It is an act condemned by all religions that aims to shake the stability of major world powers and seeks to undermine their capabilities and threaten their futures.
The events of September 11th clearly fit this description. However, the fact that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were committed by a group of people acting in the name of Islam has lead to a great deal of prejudice toward the Muslim community in the United States and around the world. This is evidenced by a March 2006 Washington Post-ABC News Poll, which reported that 33% of Americans believe Islam condones violence against non-Muslims (up from 14% in 2002). Even Americans who said they understood Islam and were more likely to see the religion overall as peaceful and respectful were no less likely to say it harbours harmful extremists, and they were also no less likely to have prejudiced feelings against Muslims.
You see that the 33% of Americans who believe that Islam condones violence against non-Muslims do not understand Islam, while those who see it as peaceful "understand it." Unfortunately, McAleer and Ali do not explain how such passages as Qur'an 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, as well as ahadith such as Sahih Muslim 4294, and innumerable other similar passages, can be understood in a way that does not somehow condone violence.
Also, does the Islamic world harbor "harmful extremists"? Even if they have "hijacked" the religion, isn't that self-evident with every day's headlines?
What is the definition of jihad that Muslims feel is accurate and want the Western world to understand?
The best way to get the Western world to understand this would be to live it out, and to rein in those who commit violent acts in the name of jihad.
The word "jihad" is derived from an Arabic root (J H D) that means to make good use of your virtues, good nature, and God's gifts to help please yourself and others. More specifically, one could say that to practice jihad is to make every effort to worship and obey God, to gain knowledge, to advise others how to be good and true believers in God, and to work hard to spread peace, freedom, love, and tolerance. Moreover, the word "Islam" is derived from the Arabic word "saalam", which means peace.
Actually no, it is not derived from "saalam"; rather, both Islam and salam are derived from the same SLM root. And "Islam," of course, means "submission."
The events of 9/11 and terrorism acts committed since then cannot, when the true meaning of 'jihad' is considered, be seen as acts of jihad. Rather, they were planned and executed by those who chose to use their religion as a sort of cloak. A comparison can be made to the Crusades: the Crusaders of Europe acted in the name of Christianity, but the tenets of Christianity (both then and now) do not allow for their horrible, even "terrorist" actions. The Islamic extremists who commit acts of terrorism are somewhat similar to the Crusaders; they have misunderstood, misinterpreted, and grown accustomed to distortions of Islam, and they have used these misrepresentations as a basis for action.
It is exceedingly odd, then, is it not, that those Muslims who hold to an undistorted, unmisrepresented version of Islam have not managed to mount any large-scale, comprehensive program to teach Muslims to reject the jihadist version of Islam. If what McAleer and Ali are saying is true, this shouldn't be difficult. Is it too much to ask for?
Clearly, those Muslims who have been involved in terrorism have been acting on their own personal beliefs which do not accurately represent the tenets of the faith or the convictions of the majority of the world's Muslim population. Rather, the Qur'an teaches that "anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all people…"
This is the oft-quoted verse 5:32, which is followed by 5:33, which says: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land..." What's more, in condemning "anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes," the Qur'an leaves a huge loophole for someone who believes that he is killing someone who has committed horrendous crimes and thus deserves his fate. And that's just what Osama bin Laden thinks.
The basic truths about the concept of jihad have not been widely disseminated in the West.
I couldn't agree more!
The resulting dearth of information is not only a disappointing disconnect between two cultures, but also a major cause of further terrorist acts.
So are McAleer and Ali saying that Americans' alleged "ignorance" about jihad causes terrorism? I can't begin to figure out how the reasoning behind that one goes, unless they're making a D'Souza-like point -- something like, our thinking jihad can be violent so enrages Muslims that they turn to...jihad violence.
And yes, that is what is going on:
The fact that many Americans and other Westerners fail to make an effort to understand Islam and, as revealed by the polling described above, are suspicious of all Muslims they meet, can only serve to drive more and more Muslims under the "cloak" of Islamic extremism. This cycle of misperception leading to further violence can only be stopped through education. With proper definitions and through mutual understanding, the "cloak" can be removed from those who have engaged in acts of terrorism in the past, and future acts can be prevented.
So we are to believe that Westerners' suspicion of Muslims, arising from 9/11, drives Muslims to become "extremists." So put yourself in that position: imagine yourself as a Muslim who "understands" Islam, and is aware that jihad is a peaceful interior struggle, and that those who commit violence in the name of jihad lack any justification whatsoever within Islam itself. Then 9/11 happens, and some Americans start being unkind to you. This so enrages you that you begin to misunderstand Islam, and join a group that promotes violent jihad. Anger toward being unjustly suspected has led you to throw the truth of your religion overboard and to join a gang you had hitherto regarded as heretics and criminals.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza theory of one of the causes of jihad violence. I think its absurdity is self-evident.
Sounds like two imbeciles start cooking a stew with chickens*#t...
They do not want us to understand true Islam; they want us to understand their version of Islam,the whitewashed, varnished version of the Religion of Peace. Why do supposedly intellegent people do this? The hell if I know. I have become so cynical that I cn only conclude that they are being influenced by oil money and have sold their souls to the devil in Mecca.
"The resulting dearth of information is not only a disappointing disconnect between two cultures, but also a major cause of further terrorist acts."
Mmmmm. If only more European Jews had read Mein Kampf and really understood Hitler, no harm would have come to them.
What twaddle.
Why does a news service expect us to believe instruction from College Students? What next, Kindergarteners?
Remember when Boston was shut down due to an advertising stunt? The low level of common sense that has been flowing from our universities for some time now is so evident in how people use their brains at work today.
Last week Another stunt was pulled. Dr. Pepper's advertising agengcy hid coins in a treasure hunt where one coin was worth a million dollars.
The graveyard in Boston where many of our founding fathers are buried had to be protected and locked up to defend it against treasure hunters searching for the coin. It was actually found in Houston at guess who's famous burial site!
I am so sick of these Volvo driving, tofu eating, pseudo-intellectuals.
Aunt Bea
How probable is it that thousands of people, practising the Islamic faith and reading its holy texts independently around the world, would accidentally misinterpret it in the same way as advocating violence?
Reminds me of all those monkeys in space randomly typing out the complete works of Shakespeare.
Guys like bin Laden and Zawahiri may be a bad sort,but I bet they don't have problems with their reading comprehension.
"33% of Americans believe Islam condones violence against non-Muslims "
...Well, at least 33% of Americans know the truth....
This whole "Islam is peace" idea confuses me. If these guys and Karen Armstrong and the rest are so wrong, so utterly wrong.... why (at some point) don't they say, "Oh, we were wrong." The sources are public (no, I've not read Muslim et al.; but haven't they?).
Where is the integrity? Do they respond to Spencer and the rest, from knowledge? If not, why not; and if so, what do they say?
"anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all people…"
What exactly does this tell us with regards to Mohammed's acts, like extinguishing the Quraish tribe, silencing critics by having them killed, leading and organizing raids onto trading caravans etc.??
Isn't he considered to be the perfect man by muslims and striving to live by his guidance their ultimate and only goal??
Maybe I am just too dhimmi to understand but I can't
see how Mohammed himself possibly could have lived up to this phrase..
Recall that the incentive for this deceitful propaganda, Saudi Gives $20 Million to Georgetown was delivered just last year. Imagine, if you will, this report is a result of that Saudi funded $50M campaign to clean up the growing negative perception of islam?
Ah, the game of percentages . . .can I play? What percentage of terror in the last 5 years was perpetrated by a muslim against anyone - including muslims?
* major al Qaeda attacks since the creation of the International Islamic Front and their subsequent declaration of war in February of 1998.Click this link to view the presentation [Flash presentation v1.2, includes London & Sharm-el-Sheikh, 1.8 MB].
* History of Jihad (use left toolbar to begin at years 622-634)
* Jihad du Jour (scroll down about a third of the page to see list of most recent 3 mos. of global jihad)
* JIHÃD,THE ISLAMIC DOCTRINE OF PERMANENT WAR
* 164 Jihad verses - violent? You decide
* – Oct. 21, 1996: Speaking at a rally near Bethlehem, Arafat said "We know only one word - jihad. jihad, jihad, jihad. Whoever does not like it can drink from the Dead Sea or from the Sea of Gaza." (Yediot Ahronot, October 23, 1996) American victims of jihad
* Islam 101 (graphic video)
* Cruelty in the koran
* UK Channel 4 programme, Dispatches: Undercover Mosque in 6 parts and I, A Muslim 3 parts, 27 min 57 sec or or view via Google video in one link 27 min 57 sec.Documentary about Islam in Czech Republic and Europe.
* Islam does not have an equivalent to "The Golden Rule"
* The Qur’an on Jihad: Offensive and Defensive Verses
* A Profile of Terror
* Nutshell
* Bill Roggio flash presentation "al Qaeda attacks 1998-2005"
* Understanding Islam
Let's be perfectly clear and upfront . . . Here's my response to this hogwash/whitewash propaganda
On war against Islamic reign of terror
1528 AD - Martin Luther
http://www.lutherdansk.dk/On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror/On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror1.htm
Not much has changed as far as Islam is concerned since 1528. The world has changed beyond recognition since then, but Islam stays the same in its never ending war on the civilised people of the world. Thus Martin Luther's analysis, just as Churchill's or John Wesley's view of Islam is the same.
It is time our politicians realised that they hav'nt discovered something remarkably new in Islam that the greatest thinkers of Western civilisation somehow missed.
George town University Student Laura McAleer presents a vision to me that she somehow has a ring in her nose with a rope tied to it that is being pulled by Cairo Student Hala Ali.
I can't help wondering how much indepedent research McAleer did before participating in the "Western-Arab intercultural dialogue.
I would assume since this was a dialogue between to ideologies, what misconceptions where explained to the Arab/Muslim culture that they had about the West?
On war against Islamic reign of terror
1528 AD - Martin Luther
http://www.lutherdansk.dk/On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror/On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror1.htm
Not much has changed since 1528 as far as Islam is concerned. The world has changed beyond recognition since then, but Islam stays the same in its never ending war on the civilised people of the world. Thus Martin Luther's analysis, just as Churchill's or John Wesley's view of Islam is the same.
In this essay, Martin Luther admonishes the rulers that it is their duty, as appointed leaders to keep safe the lives and property of their subjects, and not to invite the "Turk" in. Almost every criticism he makes of the leaders in Europe at the time of their deadly peril from Islam, can be applied equally to the leaders of the Western world in the present. In fact the peril is greater, as we have foolishly allowed in millions of "Turks" to legally reside in the West.
Luther admonishes the rulers for interfering with the morals of society, which was not why they were appointed or elected. The same can be said now, as our PM and other ministers meddle in matters that is not theirs to consider or meddle with, while ignoring their prime duty to keep safe the people who have entrusted them with that duty. The news that MI5 is monitoring some 1600 muslim fanatics in Britain alone, is just the tip of the iceberg. The security agencies can be aware of no more then 1 in 100 at most. I would think that there are around 100,000 Muslim fanatics who wish to wage war on the UK. And it is in this, that this government or any government, whose prime duty is defence of the realm and to safeguard the lives of its loyal but helpless and disarmed citizens, that it has wilfully and shamelessly betrayed.
It is time our politicians realised that they hav'nt discovered something remarkably new in Islam that the greatest thinkers of Western civilisation somehow missed.
This essay has to be read at leisure and needs to be thought on.
Apologies for the double posting. I wish I could delete a post.
As usual I ask the $64 question:if Islam is being perverted by a "mere handful" of misguided fools then why doesn't the vast majority of the ummah employ jihad against THEM?
We just have to keep working tirelessly to bring the facts about Islam to the American people and the world in ways that are more accessible.
I'm thinking YouTube might save the world, and that's exactly why the Muslims on there keep getting people banned.
Islam should fear the Truth. The more I dig, the more right I'm proven -- the entire cult is a concoction of lies, twisted facts and convenient adaptations of animist and polytheist belief systems.
But, if I was a Muslim and stated that, I'd be in a dungeon somewhere awaiting my execution.
Again, research is out there, theories and facts and hypothesis that not only will make you wonder about Islam, they will make you sit up and shout. And we're supposed to protect this mythology under our own Constitution. That's like sharpening the blade and sticking it under our own ribs.
Very nice videos
from justamomof4
more of this for contemporary american educational purposes
well done
Most americans can see through the reasoning that Islamists are mad because we did something to make them that way. This is a definition of Co-Dependency. This is a fortunate situation.
Walt Whitman said, "Common sense is Genius in overalls."
The pudding headed intellectuals think that if they hang around universities they will get smart and get paid for it. Actually they wind up being isolated from people that use common sense to deal with the rest of the world. The very fact that 33% of all americans feel that Islam condones violence against non-muslims is probably way up from the numbers of say 15-20 years past.
"Islamsforloosers" posted the question correctly. If the violence is done by a twisted few, why haven't the rest of the Islamic world corrected the situation.
I was listening to a talk show recently that had this very subject. A caller to the show idendified himself as a Muslim. He said that from what he had seen in the Islamic world, he was afraid that eventually worship of Islam would be wiped out of the western world or at least contained to a few countries.
Islamist are mad because deep in their souls they know they are part of a lie and it's too late to get out.
But, you'll never hear any of them [Muslim men being the majority of the "terrorists"] admit that -- the very idea would put into question their grand patriarchal scheme for the world and their individual "manhood", and we know that misogynists and terrorists aren't very good as saying "sorry, I was wrong."
:P
I have a question if jihad means "inner spiritual
struggle" than why did Moe exempt the blind from it?
As well other physical ailments.
Well, if we're posting links to videos on the topic, bookmark this:
http://foehammer.net/multimedia/
It's only going to get bigger and more appalling...unfortunately. In fact, I'm having to re-read the Quran this week while I make my own video, and I'm not having fun.
The things I do for my country....
Flibustier.
"anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all people…"
That wasn't a general rule for all people. It was a warning issued to Jews about how they should behave towards Muzbots. It didn't apply to how Muzbots should behave towards Jews, or indeed anyone else. Only Muzbots are persons - everyone else is an infidel.
That's roughly right; I'm sure bMr Spencer will correct me if I'm wrong.
Why is it always Westerners who need to be 'educated' and to 'understand'? If anyone needs some education its the muslims, who try to follow 7th century theocratic laws in a 21st century democracy.
Islamofascist Islam just did not happen. It was deliberately funded by elements in Saudi Arabia who built indoctrination schools across the globe which taught pure Islam of hate and murder.
Whether this was a deliberate globalist project or not, they certainly seized upon it to implement a terror of power campaign.
The Russian GRU and FSB soon enough caught Zawahiri in Chenchnya, converted him to be a communist agent and as American weakened bin Laden, the Russians via Iran which is Islamocommunist gained control over most of al Qaeda as a weapon against the Jewish state and America.
Islam is a perfect dupe in this in they have emotional dolts with grudges and low self esteem running it which advocate violence. Hence Islam will get the blame. Get the nuclear bombs and get the mideast oil supply blown to a sea of glass.
This leaves Russia, China and central Europe in temporary control of the world shipping, money supply and oil for blackmail. Sounds like a planned world coup which it is by the communist elite.
I have advocated for almost a year to our government and to all who would listen that pointing these facts out to Islam, that America has been the buffer allowing them to flourish and an asset to be protected. If they could see the point that when America withdraws, the elitists of Eurasia will come in and butcher them as they always do to "lesser peoples".
Islam's real enemy is Russia, central Europe and China. These are the peoples who carried out genocide throughout all history and will accomplish it with nuclear and chemical poisons once they gain control to end the "Muslim problem".
Putin butchered the people of Chechnya to cement his power. Poisoned defector Litvinko as an FSB KGB agent revealed that the "Muslim uprising" in Russia was state sponsored for Putin to gain dictator control.
He was murdered for revealing that.
The US State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents," usually intended to influence an audience.
Sub-national GROUPS or CLANDESTINE agents. This is why we will never see the many acts of jihad committed against Americans classified as terrorism. They are committed by individuals who are "deranged" or "mentally ill" or "under stress" of one type or another, like losing a job or going through a divorce.
It seems to be why we can say with a straight face that no more attacks have been committed on American soil since 9/11. Even the anthrax attacks were attributed to a "lone scientist". The teenager who flew his small plane into a building in Seattle(?) in an apparent attempt to mimic 9/11 was just a lost soul. Jihad? Never.
Then there's always the false comparison with the Crusades. No mention is made of the slaughter and devastation which preceded them, all committed by conquering Muslims who wiped out communities that had been there for a millenia.
Start history on June 6, 1944 and D-Day was a terrible assault on Europe by evil Britons and Americans led by that great satan, Dwight Eisenhower, who wiped out the German government and destroyed its cities.
If jihad is a peaceful endeavor then why does Ayman Al-Zawahiri call on all Musims to wage jihad on America for the sake of Allah? Why do Islamist websites refer to jihad fighters who are blowing up Eritrea and threatening corporations that do business there?
What's with the Washington Post? Does Bob Woodward think he'll be able to work or even live in retirement after the takeover? Do those reporters and editors who go along with this nonsense think they can just keep going no matter who is in charge? Do they think the WP will even survive any attack on Washington by Iran? Fools, the lot of them.
Like diamonds, clear thinking is rare. Robert, you are a diamond. A thousand thank yous.
"This is evidenced by a March 2006 Washington Post-ABC News Poll, which reported that 33% of Americans believe Islam condones violence against non-Muslims (up from 14% in 2002). Even Americans who said they understood Islam and were more likely to see the religion overall as peaceful and respectful were no less likely to say it harbours harmful extremists..."
2002: 14%
2006: 33%
So much for the 'knee-jerk reaction theory of Islamophobia' after 9/11/01. As Americans are learning about Islam, the connection between violence and Muhammad is becoming even more clear.
Islamists and their apologists should really stop daring us to learn about Islam.
"It is an act condemned by all religions ...
They lost me with that one statement.
"As usual I ask the $64 question:if Islam is being perverted by a "mere handful" of misguided fools then why doesn't the vast majority of the ummah employ jihad against THEM?
Bingo, ISLAMSFORLOSERS! I've been asking this question for five long years and have yet to receive a reasonable answer. Islam's only hope for survival lies in the hands of Radical Reformationists who are willing to stack up dead jihadis like cordwood behind each and every mosque. Barring that, all I can foresee is smoking glass.
"Ousamah bin Laden isn't hijacking Islam. He's practicing it." --Ayan Hirsi Ali.
And that from a woman who is a former Muslim. Who would know better than a person such as her? One thing I can say for certain: Ms. Ali would certainly have a much better idea of what Islam and jihad are about than the Georgetown University bimbo. She is also far likelier to tell us the truth about Islamic terrorism than McAleer's Islamic partner in Cairo, Ali, who claims to be "educating" us.
As far as jihad is concerned we'd better stick to listening to people who 1-)know something, and 2-)have no politically-based agenda to keep them lying to us about Islam's inherent malignance.
I've been to India on numerous occasions as part of a Catholic NGO and I've found that most Christians in India, like D'Souza, generally do not interact with Muslims, but nonetheless are sympathetic towards Muslims and Islamic fundamentalists. I think its because most Christians in India believe that, as a minority, they should ally themselves with Musims, another minority.
D.I. Matthews
Zenster-
The vast majority of the ummah will never be able
to answer the $64 question because we know that they know the ugly truth-that the "tiny minority" of jihadists is in fact practicing Islam more faithfully than the vast majority. They will never purge Islam of that minority because to do so would make them no different than infidels and that would ultimately ruin Islam. Take out the violence and Islam would be something totally different and alien to its followers-sort of like removing the anti-Semitism from Nazism.
What is funniest about Muslims who quote Surah 5:32? They NEVER quote the whole Surah! They selectively quote the part that says "whoever slays a soul . . . it is as though he slew all men". But Allah didn't prescribe this for Muslims - this was for ISRAEL!
The relevant portion of 5:32 reads:
"For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men . . ."
Now, of course, Muslims can claim this for Islam if they want, but Mo clearly said it was meant for Israel.
It's also inconvenient for Palis that Mo says that Israel existed historically - kind of sucks for Palis that they are committing blasphemy against Allah when they say Israel never existed (because the Qur'an clearly says, 43 times, that Israel existed).
D.I. Mathews,
Yeah, I've noticed that. My cousins in India (they're Christians) say they have more Muslim friends than Hindus and they never have anything good to say about Hindus.
"Laura McAleer, a student at Georgetown University.."
-- from the article above
Student of Esposito, Haddad, Voll? Internship at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding?
Surely.
And surely not anyone who has, on her own, studied Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, or looked into such a work as "The Dhimmi" or "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance" or "Islam and Dhimmitude" or "The Legacy of Jihad" or "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam."
No, that's for the fuddy-duddies who study with someone like Professor James V. Schall, S.J. And what does he know? "Professor Esposito says otherwise."
"In "Removing the ‘cloak’ of religious extremism" for the Common Ground News Service (via Middle East Online), Laura McAleer, a student at Georgetown University, and Hala Ali, a student at South Valley University of Cairo, who together participated in a "Western-Arab intercultural dialogue program," spin some fanciful but familiar tales"
It should be pretty abvious that Laura McAleer was duped by her friend Hala Ali. If Laura had been fortified with a couple dozen murderous quotes from the Koran and Hadieth, she might have been able to put some really difficult questions to her hosts about the "peaceful" nature of Islam, instead of the whole issue being reduced to som claptrap about the meaning of Jihad.
I suspect though that the duping of Laura began long before she hooked up with Hala Ali. No doubt Georgetown University ensured that she, along with other students, got a heavy dose of duping in the ideologies of Multiculturalism and Diversity to immunize them against asking questions that might be "hurtful" or "offensive" to peoples of other cultures.
If Laura had been taught real Western notions of critical thinking, she wouldn't have been so easily lead to the slaughter by her Muslim colleagues. As it was, they put lipstick on a pig, and called it beautiful. now she thinks it's beautiful.
Ansar Al-Kuffir,
"Allah didn't prescribe this for Muslims - this was for ISRAEL!"
I think it's more complicated than that, because the Muslim understanding as set out in the Koran is that Muslims collectively are the "true Israel", who rightfully heed the commands of Yahweh/Allah (unlike those perverse and wicked Jews who kept disobeying, and continue to disobey, God). So I think it's better just to concentrate on the linchpin of 5:32 -- namely, how Muslims expediently interpret the part of the verse that says "wickedness in the land" (sometimes translated as "horrendous crimes"), which often has been interpreted by Muslims to be any exertion by Infidels of their Infidel ways, including refusing to submit to Islamic domination.
" This is evidenced by a March 2006 Washington Post-ABC News Poll, which reported that 33% of Americans believe Islam condones violence against non-Muslims (up from 14% in 2002)"
Good news. We are starting to wake-up. Bad news for Islamists. Good for America.
"This is the Dinesh D'Souza theory of one of the causes of jihad violence. I think its absurdity is self-evident."
I can 100% concur to that. I think he was paid by some goat abusers to write that book.
Laura McAleer is a student that does not mean she is an authority on the subject.
You have a long way to go Laura to understand Islam and its evil design. You will think like us once you've opened your eyes a tedd bit wider.
I will try to address a few of the salient myths in the above from (Saudi-funded) Georgetown University.
Terrorism
Georgetown says Islam doesn't promote terror.
Koran says:
7:4. How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.
7:152. Lo! Those who chose the calf (for worship), terror from their Lord and humiliation will come upon them in the life of the world. Thus do We requite those who invent a lie.
3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.
8:12. Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
33:26. And those of the People of the Book who aided them - God did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.
59:2. It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from God! But the (Wrath of) God came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!
59:13. Of a truth ye are stronger (than they) because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by God. This is because they are men devoid of understanding.
Muhammad says:
"I have been made victorious with terror" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)
Islam means peace.
Rebuttal to the popular lie that “Islam means peace” here
Meaning of Jihad
Inner jihad primarily means programming oneself to hate disbelief and disbelievers (as one hates falling into a fire—Sahih Bukhari)
Jihad means struggle, specifically striving in the cause of Allah. That includes manipulating oneself psychologically to hate disbelief and disbelievers, but also includes jihad in the outside world, including jihad of the tongue, pen, hand, and sword. Saying that jihad means “struggle” doesn’t tell us much, though, unless we know what Muslims are supposed to be struggling toward. The goal of Islam for the individual Muslim is to vanguish disbelief within, psychologically, and to destroy all manifestations of disbelief that exist in the outside world, the ultimate goal of which is to bring the whole world under Islam rule. Jihad by the sword (i.e., fighting and killing by whatever available means) is considered permissible wherever the spread of Islamic Da’wa and Islamic law is obstructed. Evidence documenting that the ultimate goal of Islam is to establish Islamic rule over the whole world can be found here
Verse 5:32.
5:32. (Hilali & Khan). “Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!” (Parentheses in Hilali & Khan)
Here is a lengthy discussion of this verse and how it is interpreted in canonical Islam.
The salient point about this verse for the concerned non-Muslim is what constitutes mischief/corruption (fasad) in Islam. The Koran states repeatedly that disbelief is the worst possible crime in Islam (see linked article for refs.). Although fasad can include normal crimes like murder, theft, etc., (i.e., committed against Muslims), the concept is much broader and includes various forms of disbelief and sin-crimes. The following are some of the examples of fasad that constitute grounds for legally killing someone in Islamic law:
-Sedition against the Islamic state
-Insulting prophet Muhammad or Islam
-A Muslim man getting married or otherwise engaging in (mutually) consensual sexual intercourse with a Muslim woman.
-Apostatizing from Islam publicly
-Adultery
-Homosexual acts
Note that Islamic states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc. execute people for many of the above “crimes” which fall under the category “corruption on earth” mentioned in 5:32 (the penalties for which are given in 5:33).
It is also interesting to note that the famous part of this verse has almost certainly been plagiarized from the (earlier-written) commentary in the Mishnah.
Islam condones violence against non-Muslims/disbelievers, of course (8:17, 8:39, 9:12-14, 9:123, 33:60-62).
Close your ears to what Moslems say. Read what they are taught--koran and ahadith. Open your eyes to see what they (Moslems) do.
Jesus said it this way, "...you will know them by their fruits."
"A Muslim man getting married or otherwise engaging in (mutually) consensual sexual intercourse with a Muslim woman."
Typo. That should say "Non-Muslim man...with...Muslim woman."
Hello,
It upsets me that Robert refered to verse 9:5 in his article, since this verse has only a crude meaning if taken out of context. He has done this with his book called "Disturbing Facts About Islam" as well. Here is the explanation to the verse. I quote from the site www.p-ifacts.com on the forum:
At first glance, 9:5 appears to be commanding Muslims to kill atheists. Many use this to justify 09/11/2001. However, those who do, such as the "radical
Islamists" in the Middle East, fail to notice verse 9:1, which reads as follows:
[YUSUFALI]: A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-
According to this verse, what follows were terms laid out in an agreement between Muslims and polytheists. The exact nature of this agreement is not known;
however, some Islamic texts point to a possibility that the agreement was a peace treaty between the prophet and the polytheistic population of the area.
Islam teaches Muslims the following: to show someone the way of Islam -- surrender to God -- is highly encouraged; if a person does not wish to accept
the Faith, though, Muslims should not use force and should let him/her be on his/her way. For this reason, after the Muslims attempted to convert the
polytheists into Muslims, they were commanded to leave them, and a peace treaty was signed. Naturally, when a treaty is broken, both sides experience
high degrees of tension; this happened with the treaty sighned between the prophet and the polytheists.
When the treaty was broken, the question was raised as to whether or not Muslims should meet force with force. Obviously, God's response was similar
to the following (I have put this in my own words): meet force with force if your enemy is going to kill you. Notice that the message is not simply kill
whoever is a polytheist. Only when a Muslim is threatened is he permitted to fight back. I realize that your inquiry has nothing to do with 09/11/2001,
but while I am on this topic, I will explain the big misconception about this verse as well.
What happened on 09/11 was not justified by this verse, even if one does consider it to command Muslims to kill polytheists. Recall that there were
people from varying religious backgrounds working in the Trade Center that day. The terrorists actually made a massive mistake: they killed hundreds of
people from their own religion.
In addition, verse 9:29 is explained as well. The direct link to the forum topic is as follows:
http://forum.p-ifacts.com/viewtopic.php?id=3
A poster recently wrote that "A Muslim man getting married or otherwise engaging in (mutually) consensual sexual intercourse with a Muslim woman" is ground by which the man or woman should be killed. I present to you some verses from chapter 2 of the Quran which deem this "law" as false:
Successful indeed are the believers,
...
And who guard their private parts,
Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond.
Islam does not condemn sex. I think you should stop taking verses out of context before making any assumptions.
"Only when a Muslim is threatened is he permitted to fight back."
The problem is, the Muslims who perpetrated 911 felt that Islam is being threatened. It's all in the perception; and too many Muslims around the world are perceiving Islam as being "threatened" and therefore warranting meeting this supposed "force" against them with force. And we Infidels are not going to stand for this wanton slaughter of innocent people.
Hello,
I do agree with your post. In addition, it is sad that more Muslims aren't doing something about it as a previous poster pointed out. Too many of them have let Islam be branded as terrorism, but have made no efforts to correct the problem--they simply sit in prayers of worship and preech to each other--other Muslims, but fail to preech outside the places of worship. Inshal Allah this will start to change if my plans do follow through. I think that we need to teach the Middle East real Islam before considering the West. I used to hate the West for thinking how they do about Muslims until I looked at it from an outsider's perspective (and yes, I am Muslim myself.) Muslims need to counter this stuff--not here in the US, but in the East. At the same time, however, too much merit is being given to those who hold doctoral degrees--they seem to be infalible at being mistaken in their theses. I have known Robert Spensor for doing this (taking verses from context and writing entire papers on them when another verse can invalidate his arguments.) In the end, there are several problems--not just one--that need to be considered, but there is a definite starting ground for the several problems, and that is that Muslims here in the US need to gather missionary groups like Christians do instead of just saying that they condemn the Middle East and then cursing Americans for bashing Islam. This is why I often times point to http://www.p-ifacts.com--it shows me great promise in what I am out to do. Immediately after a program aired on Fox News, they already had an article up explaining the misconceptions in the video.