Sura 5, “The Table,” dates from the Medinan period (as do suras 2-4). Verses 1-11 exhort Muslims to obey Allah’s commands regarding food, religious observances, and sexual morality. V. 5 permits Muslim men to marry not only “chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book.” However, nothing is said of Muslim women being permitted to marry non-Muslim men, and indeed, this is prohibited in Islamic law. This is part of the subjugated status of the dhimmis, the “protected people,” in Islam: since traditionally a man takes his wife into his own household, but not vice versa, the prohibition of Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men, but the allowance of Muslim men marrying non-Muslim women, means that the Islamic community will be in a position always to grow, while the non-Muslim community declines.
Verses 12-26 return to castigating the Jews and Christians. Allah, we’re told, “did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel” (v. 12), but the Jews broke it. And so they are now cursed by Allah, for they have altered the divine revelations they received, and also because they are deceitful; nonetheless, the Muslims are told here to “forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind” (v. 13). According to Allusi in his Ruhul Ma’ani, this forgiveness should be extended only to those Jews who become Muslims or agree to pay the jizya and accept subservient dhimmi status in accord with 9:29. Tabari, on the other hand, suggests that v. 13 was abrogated by the commands to wage jihad against the unbelievers that came later in Muhammad’s career.
The Christians, meanwhile, “forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished,” so Allah “stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection” (v. 14). Thus as far as the Qur’an is concerned, the divisions among Christians demonstrate the falsity of the religion – a proposition for which Jesus stated the obverse: “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). Says Ibn Kathir, “Indeed, the numerous Christian sects have always been enemies and adversaries of each other, accusing each other of heresy and cursing each other….Each sect among them will continue to accuse the other of disbelief and heresy in this life and on the Day when the Witnesses will come forth.” The Jews and Christians should accept Islam (v. 15).
The Qur’an in several places presents itself as the arbiter between these warring sects, clearing up disputed questions. Thus when asserting that Jesus was not crucified, but someone who looked like him was crucified in his stead (a position held by some Gnostic Christian sects), Allah says “those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain” (4:157). And here the Qur’an declares that those Christians who believe that “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary” are “unbelievers.” Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation says that those who believe this are “in blasphemy,” but the Arabic word used here is kafara, (كَفَرَ), is a form of kufr, unbelief. Of course, in Islam there is a fine line between unbelief and blasphemy in any case, but the passage does refer to unbelief, not blasphemy. It is noteworthy that Islamic spokesmen in the West frequently assert that the Qur’an never refers to Christians as infidels or unbelievers, when in fact this verse is quite clear that those who believe in the divinity of Christ are unbelievers indeed. To those Jews and Christians who claim to be God’s children, Muhammad is directed to retort, “Why then doth He punish you for your sins?” (v. 18).
Verses 27-34 retell the story of Cain and Abel, culminating in one of the most oft-quoted verses of the Qur’an, the one that President Bush refers to most frequently: v. 32, which contains the admonition that some who kills a human being, “unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” Sa‘id bin Jubayr explains 5:32 this way: “He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.”
Never mentioned by the President or any of the others who quote this verse as if it condemns Islamic jihadist violence are several important facts: it comes within the context of a warning to the Jews, and is not presented as a universal principle; it contains the important exception “unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land,” and it is followed by v. 33, which specifies the punishment for that mischief: “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: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
Thus this passage is explaining what must be done with Jews who reject Muhammad, not dictating lofty moral principles. Ibn Warraq sums it up: “The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. ‘Behave, or else’ is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated, and banished!”
Verses 35-40 warn again of hellfire and prescribe amputation of a hand for theft (v. 38). Said Muhammad: “Let there be the curse of Allah upon the thief who steals an egg and his hand is cut off, and steals a rope and his hand is cut off.”
In verses 41-60, Allah consoles Muhammad for the Jews’ and Christians’ rejection of him, and he and his message are again presented as the crown and completion of the messages brought to them by their prophets. But the Christians are told to “judge by what Allah hath revealed therein” (v. 47), which seems to suggest that Muhammad was assuming that the Christian Scriptures were not corrupted in his day, although today it is common Islamic teaching that the New Testament as we have it is not the original, but has been altered by wicked Christians to reflect their false doctrines. Thus Muslims are not to befriend Jews and Christians (v. 51); Ibn Kathir explains: “Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them.” Verses 52-60 continue in this vein, excoriating the hypocrites and the People of the Book (most of whom are “rebellious and disobedient” – v. 59), reminding them that some of “those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath” were “transformed into apes and swine” (v. 60).
(Here you can find links to all the earlier "Blogging the Qur'an" segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
The Dream Act is Back - Long Live the Dream Act
My God, who in their right mind who isn't Muslim has a "favorite" Koran verse! LOL!
Iman Bush cant leave office soon enough
Meaning of Mischief
In his Tafsir, As-Suddi said that Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`ud commented,
﴿وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لاَ تُفْسِدُواْ فِى الأَرْضِ قَالُواْ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ ﴾
(And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,'' they say: "We are only peacemakers.'') "They are the hypocrites. As for,
﴿لاَ تُفْسِدُواْ فِى الأَرْضِ﴾
("Do not make mischief on the earth''), that is disbelief and acts of disobedience.'' Abu Ja`far said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah said that Allah's statement,
﴿وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لاَ تُفْسِدُواْ فِى الأَرْضِ﴾
(And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,''), means, "Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth. Peace on both the earth and in the heavens is ensured (and earned) through obedience (to Allah).'' Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and Qatadah said similarly.
The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land
Allah said next,
﴿إِنَّمَا جَزَآءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِى الاٌّرْضِ فَسَاداً أَن يُقَتَّلُواْ أَوْ يُصَلَّبُواْ أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُم مِّنْ خِلَـفٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْاْ مِنَ الاٌّرْضِ﴾
(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) `Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil. Ibn Jarir recorded that `Ikrimah and Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that the Ayat,
﴿إِنَّمَا جَزَآءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ﴾
(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger) until,
﴿إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ﴾
(Allah is Of-Forgiving, Most Merciful,) "Were revealed about the idolators. Therefore, the Ayah decrees that, whoever among them repents before you apprehend them, then you have no right to punish them. This Ayah does not save a Muslim from punishment if he kills, causes mischief in the land or wages war against Allah and His Messenger and then joins rank with the disbelievers, before the Muslims are able to catch him. He will still be liable for punishment for the crimes he committed.'' Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i recorded that `Ikrimah said that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah,
﴿إِنَّمَا جَزَآءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِى الاٌّرْضِ فَسَاداً﴾
(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land...) "Was revealed concerning the idolators, those among them who repent before being apprehended, they will still be liable for punishment for the crimes they committed.'' The correct opinion is that this Ayah is general in meaning and includes the idolators and all others who commit the types of crimes the Ayah mentioned. Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded that Abu Qilabah `Abdullah bin Zayd Al-Jarmi, said that Anas bin Malik said, "Eight people of the `Ukl tribe came to the Messenger of Allah and gave him their pledge to follow Islam. Al-Madinah's climate did not suit them and they became sick and complained to Allah's Messenger . So he said,
«أَلَا تَخْرُجُونَ مَعَ رَاعِينَا فِي إِبِلِهِ، فَتُصِيبُوا مِنْ أَبْوَالِهَا وَأَلْبَانِهَا»
(Go with our shephard to be treated by the milk and urine of his camels.) So they went as directed, and after they drank from the camels' milk and urine, they became healthy, and they killed the shepherd and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured. He then ordered that their hands and feet be cut off (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. Next, they were put in the sun until they died.'' This is the wording of Muslim. In another narration for this Hadith, it was mentioned that these people were from the tribes of `Ukl or `Uraynah. Another narration reported that these people were put in the Harrah area (of Al-Madinah), and when they asked for water, no water was given to them. Allah said,
﴿أَن يُقَتَّلُواْ أَوْ يُصَلَّبُواْ أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُم مِّنْ خِلَـفٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْاْ مِنَ الاٌّرْضِ﴾
(they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said about this Ayah, `He who takes up arms in Muslim land and spreads fear in the fairways and is captured, the Muslim Leader has the choice to either have him killed, crucified or cut off his hands and feet.'' Similar was said by Sa`id bin Al-Musayyib, Mujahid, `Ata', Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i and Ad-Dahhak, as Abu Ja`far Ibn Jarir recorded. This view is supported by the fact that the word Aw (or), indicates a choice. As Allah said,
﴿فَجَزَآءٌ مِّثْلُ مَا قَتَلَ مِنَ النَّعَمِ يَحْكُمُ بِهِ ذَوَا عَدْلٍ مِّنْكُمْ هَدْياً بَـلِغَ الْكَعْبَةِ أَوْ كَفَّارَةٌ طَعَامُ مَسَـكِينَ أَو عَدْلُ ذلِكَ صِيَاماً﴾
(The penalty is an offering, brought to the Ka`bah, of an eatable animal equivalent to the one he killed, as adjudged by two just men among you; or, for expiation, he should feed the poor, or its equivalent in fasting.)﴿5:95﴾ Allah said,
﴿فَمَن كَانَ مِنكُم مَّرِيضًا أَوْ بِهِ أَذًى مِّن رَّأْسِهِ فَفِدْيَةٌ مِّن صِيَامٍ أَوْ صَدَقَةٍ أَوْ نُسُكٍ﴾
(And whosoever of you is ill or has an ailment in his scalp (necessitating shaving), he must pay a ransom of either fasting or giving charity or offering a sacrifice.) and,
﴿فَكَفَّارَتُهُ إِطْعَامُ عَشَرَةِ مَسَـكِينَ مِنْ أَوْسَطِ مَا تُطْعِمُونَ أَهْلِيكُمْ أَوْ كِسْوَتُهُمْ أَوْ تَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ﴾
(...for its expiation feed ten of the poor, on a scale of the average of that with which you feed your own families, or clothe them, or free a slave.) All of these Ayat offer a choice, just as the Ayah above. As for Allah's statement,
﴿أَوْ يُنفَوْاْ مِنَ الاٌّرْضِ﴾
(or be exiled from the land.) some said that it means, he is actively pursued until he is captured, and thus receives his prescribed punishment, or otherwise he escapes from the land of Islam, as Ibn Jarir recorded from Ibn `Abbas, Anas bin Malik, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Ad-Dahhak, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Az-Zuhri, Al-Layth bin Sa`d and Malik bin Anas. Some said that the Ayah means these people are expelled to another land, or to another state by the Muslims authorities. Sa`id bin Jubayr, Abu Ash-Sha`tha', Al-Hasan, Az-Zuhri, Ad-Dahhak and Muqatil bin Hayyan said that he is expelled, but not outside of the land of Islam, while others said that he is to be imprisoned. Allah's statement,
﴿ذَلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْىٌ فِى الدُّنْيَا وَلَهُمْ فِى الاٌّخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ﴾
(That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.) means, the punishment We prescribed, killing these aggressors, crucifying them, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or expelling them from the land is a disgrace for them among mankind in this life, along with the tremendous torment Allah has prepared for them in the Hereafter. This view supports the opinion that these Ayat were revealed about the idolators. As for Muslims, in his Sahih, Muslim recorded that `Ubadah bin As-Samit said, "The Messenger of Allah took the same pledge from us that he also took from women: That we do not associate anything with Allah in worship, we do not steal, commit adultery, or kill our children, and that we do not spread falsehood about each other. He said that he who keeps this pledge, then his reward will be with Allah. He who falls into shortcomings and was punished, then this will be his expiation. And those whose errors were covered by Allah, then their matter is for Allah: If He wills, He will punish them and If He wills, He will pardon them.'' `Ali narrated that the Messenger of Allah said,
«مَنْ أَذْنَبَ ذَنْبًا فِي الدُّنْيَا فَعُوقِبَ بِهِ، فَاللهُ أَعْدَلُ مِنْ أَنْ يُثَنِّيَ عُقُوبَتَهُ عَلى عَبْدِهِ، وَمَنْ أَذْنَبَ ذَنْبًا فِي الدُّنْيَا فَسَتَرهُ اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَعَفَا عَنْهُ، فَاللهُ أَكْرَمُ مِنْ أَنْ يَعُودَ عَلَيْهِ فِي شَيْءٍ قَدْ عَفَا عَنْه»
(He who sins in this life and was punished for it, then Allah is far more just than to combine two punishments on His servant. He who commits an error in this life and Allah hides this error and pardons him, then Allah is far more generous than to punish the servant for something that He has already pardoned.) iRecorded by Ahmad, Ibn Majah and At-Tirmidhi who said, "Hasan Gharib.''Al-Hafiz Ad-Daraqutni was asked about this Hadith, and he said that it was related to the Prophet in some narrations, and it was related to the Companions in others, and that this narration from the Prophet is Sahih. Ibn Jarir commented on Allah's statement,
﴿ذَلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْىٌ فِى الدُّنْيَا﴾
(That is their disgrace in this world,) "Meaning, shame, humiliation, punishment, contempt and torment in this life, before the Hereafter,
﴿وَلَهُمْ فِى الاٌّخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ﴾
(and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.) if they do not repent from these errors until death overcomes them. In this case, they will be stricken by the punishment that We prescribed for them in this life and the torment that We prepared for them therein,
﴿عَذَابٌ عظِيمٌ﴾
(a great torment) in the Fire of Jahannam.''
September 10, 2006
Fitzgerald: Podsnaps all
"...Mr Podsnap settled that whatever he put behind him he put out of existence. There was a dignified conclusiveness--not to add a grand convenience--in this way of getting rid of disagreeables which had done much towards establishing Mr Podsnap in his lofty place in Mr Podsnap's satisfaction. 'I don't want to know about it; I don't choose to discuss it; I don't admit it!' Mr Podsnap had even acquired a peculiar flourish of his right arm in often clearing the world of its most difficult problems, by sweeping them behind him (and consequently sheer away) with those words and a flushed face. For they affronted him.
-- from "Our Mutual Friend" by Charles Dickens
Reading the Qur'an is one thing. Reading the Qur'an with a full understanding of how Muslims reconcile the contradictions through the long-accepted doctrine of "naskh" or abrogation, by which the later, far more sinister and aggressive verses (from the period when Muhammad, now among his followers in Medina, had no need to pretend to placate the powerful non-Muslims who had resisted him during his Meccan period) replace relatively benign ones. Reading the Qur'an with close attention to the context, so that 5.32 is read along with, 5.33 (something Bush failed to do, no doubt because someone handed him 5.32 but carefully refrained from giving him 5.33), which completely changes the meaning of the initial verse.
Reading the Qur'an requires close reading, an art no longer taught in the schools, not in the universities as it once was, not in the high schools or elementary schools. But it matters. A Qur’anic phrase such as "fi sabil Allah" -- "on the path of Allah" as in "jihad fi sabil Allah" (Jihad for the sake of Allah) could well be taken to mean by an English-speaking reader, for an innocuous phrase analogous to the Christian phrase "walk in the ways of the Lord," so different from the warfare, the razzias and conquest and loot and seized women that Jihad "in the way of Allah" actually implies. And even the very nature of the English and French languages ensures that the translation of the Qur'an into those languages does not convey the full violence of the original Arabic.
And reading the Qur'an is not enough. One must read, as well, some of the Hadith -- a few hundred of those deemed "most authentic" by the most authoritative muhaddithin, especially Bukhari and Muslim. This would give one a sense of what Muslims know, what Muslims take as a guide, a guide that helps to provide a gloss on the Qur'an itself. For it is both Qur'an and Sunnah, the latter being a word that roughly means the customs, behavior, attitudes of Muhammad and his companions as revealed in the Hadith, the writings which preserve Muhammad's sayings and his acts, and even note the occasions on which he remained silent (and those silences are interpreted), and the Sira, the biography or biographies of Muhammad that further flesh out the full meaning of the Qur'an, of the revealed will of Allah. For who better to express that will than the Perfect Man, Muhammad?
Yes, the public should be much better informed about the tenets of Islam, and not only the tenets, but the way in which societies suffused with Islam encourage certain attitudes toward Infidels, toward the use of force, toward the use of reason.
Finally, non-Muslims have a responsibility to find out about the past 1350 years of Muslim Jihad-conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims. What did happen to the Hindus of India? What happened to the Buddhist temples, and those of the Jains, under Muslim rule? What does Ibn Battuta say? What happened to the Christians and Jews of the Middle East and North Africa? Was Islamic Spain really, as Maria Rosa Menocal would have us believe, a place of happy and peaceful "convivencia," or do historians who specialize in the field of Islamic Spain, such as Evariste Levi-Provencal, tell us a different tale?
Yes, the more one knows about Islam, its doctrine and practice, the better off one will be. Those who viewed over the past twenty years the Arab Muslim attacks on Christians and animists in the southern Sudan, attacks never objected to by any Muslim or Arab group, and who over the past three years have viewed the attacks by Arab Muslims on the non-Arab Muslims of Darfur, may find their explanation for such behavior in Islam. Those who remember the Biafra War and the massacres of Christians that preceded the declaration of Biafran independence, and Col. Ojukwu's Ahiara Declaration of 1969 in which he denounced the "Jihad" by the Muslims of the north, aided by those Egyptian pilots who strafed Ibo villagers at will, will now find the explanation for the Muslim behavior in that war -- and possibly an explanation as well for the abandonment of the Nigerian Christians by the Western powers. And one will be able to make sense of the Muslims who attack and kill Buddhist monks and farmers and schoolteachers in southern Thailand. One will be able to make sense of the killings by Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines. One will be able to make sense of the Taliban, and will be able to figure out why they made Hindus were identifying garb during their reign, and why the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas was not different in kind from all the previous destruction wrought on the artifacts of the Greco-Bactrian civilization of Afghanistan, or the Buddhist or Hindu artifacts there, and in India itself, over many centuries. One would no longer be puzzled by the attacks on those who dare to criticize Islam, the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, the death threats against two Dutch parliamentarians (forced to sleep at army bases, forced to be surrounded by armed guards), or the similar threats made against publishers and cartoonists in Denmark, or against a leading journalist, Magdi Allam, in Italy. One would begin to understand the ways in which Muslim threats and Muslim attacks in Madrid, the plots aborted as well, from that against the Strasbourg Christmas Fair, to those many averted and only vaguely alluded to, if ever, so as not to scare the Western publics.
One would begin to puzzle out, to figure out, that everywhere, in every Infidel country, the Muslim population has presented similar difficulties, similar worries, similar behavior intent on changing the legal, political, social, and moral institutions of the host country. Nowhere does this population fully accept those institutions or the very ideas that so distinguish the Western world from the Islamic one -- whether it be one of those that prides itself on its tolerance, makes a fetish of it, and makes a fetish as well of the welfare-state benefits it provides (such countries as Holland and Denmark and Sweden), or a country that prides itself on its "knowledge" of the Arabs and of Islam, such as France, or even has at times flattered itself that because of its own history it has some special insight, as Spain, or whether that country is Italy or Germany or Canada or Australia or the United States -- everywhere.
And if the behavior of Muslims, living now in many different Infidel countries, varying widely in their economic and social arrangements (compare Denmark with the United States, or Holland with Australia), turns out to everywhere cause problems, everywhere to provoke unsettlement, everywhere lead to great expense to monitor and protect against Muslim attacks, everywhere to lead to a situation where many feel greater physical insecurity as a result of such a presence, then surely the problem must be with Islam, and with those who are its adherents.
And if, furthermore, we not only have presented to us the same problems with Muslim communities in quite different Infidel lands, there is another way to compare, and that is to see if this is a general problem with immigrants, or not. But it turns out that no other group -- not Buddhists from Vietnam or Cambodia, not Hindus from India, not Bolivian peasants or black African non-Muslims, whether Christian or animist, not any other immigrant group, presents the same kind of problems. No other group bears not merely an alien creed -- alien creeds can sometimes be accommodated -- but rather an alien and a hostile creed, which remains hostile. For the basis of Islam, as a warring and militant faith, is that Islam must dominate, that the war between Believers and Infidels must go on forever, until such time as the latter finally yield to the former and Islam dominates everywhere, and everywhere Muslims rule. It is not hard to find the extensive textual support for this in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira. It is not hard to find, in the 1350-year history of Islam, historical evidence that demonstrates, through the activities and behavior of Muslims, that this doctrine is taken seriously and, whenever deemed necessary and possible, will be acted upon.
Of course, for centuries, those simple souls who lived deep within Dar al-Islam, illiterate and largely aware of the Infidels only as a remote possibility, would not be Jihad-minded as Muslims today, who because of three things -- the oil wealth (ten trillion dollars since 1973), and the migration (tens of millions of Muslims permitted to settle deep behind what they have been taught to regard as enemy lines, the lines delineating the Dar al-Harb, that is Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels), and finally, the new technologies that make the dissemination of Islam, to the remotest peasant, not only the Five Pillars of ritual worship (shehada, zakat, salat, ramadan, hajj) but the passages that preach, as so much of Qur'an does, and as the Hadith reinforce, Jihad -- understood to allow for the employment of non-combat means as well to spread Islam, through the "wealth" weapon, through campaigns of Da'wa, through demographic conquest that is openly discussed, openly seen as the best means of subverting the Infidels, and not only in Western Europe.
Yes, Infidel publics should learn all they can about Islam. But not from the likes of any group with the word "dialogue" in its title, not from those "Mosque Outreach Nights," not from the army of apologists who are everywhere, not least having infiltrated into some church groups, into the bureaucracies of the E.U. and the U.N., and who are present to reinforce the idea that Islam is merely a "religion" and those who dare to question its tenets are, of course, to be summarily dismissed as "hatemongers." And when any attempt is made to present the evidence -- the evidence from the texts of Islam, the evidence provided by history, evidence accumulated over many centuries, or even just that from the last few decades, or few years, or few months, or few weeks, or few days, of unyielding Muslim hostility to Infidels, and to the entire civilizational legacy of those Infidels -- it is not examined, not looked at.
For like Mr. Podsnap, much of the Western world does not wish to know about these Disagreeables. It wishes, like Mr. Podsnap, to snap its fingers, and put those Disagreeables out of sight, out of mind. They will not be noticed, and therefore, they will not exist.
That is how those whose duty it is to protect and instruct us have behaved, and are behaving. For one-third of a century little has been done, almost nothing, to limit the Muslim, chiefly Arab, oil revenues that have made possible the acquisition of major arms (hundreds of billions of dollars worth) and funded arms projects, has provided the "money" weapon that, through bribery and boycotts and a network of Western businessmen eager to curry favor, has been so important to preserving Saudi Arabia's image as a "staunch ally" even as it becomes, with the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of the most malevolent and powerful enemies of the West.
Mr. Podsnap put aside all "disagreeables" for they "offended him."
For decades now, and still today, those Engagers-in-"Dialogue," those three-abrahamic-faith boys, those we-all-have-so-much-to-learn-from-one-another enthusiasts --
Podsnaps All.
[Posted by Hugh at September 10, 2006]
November 8, 2006
Fitzgerald: This "context" business
Whenever an Infidel quotes the Qur’an, Muslim apologists say he is quoting it “out of context.” This "context" business was early identified by Ibn Warraq as one of the rhetorical smokescreens put up by those Muslim apologists. Indeed, it is almost as much a favorite as that "if you don't know Arabic, you can't comment on the Qur'an" argument, which would read out of Islamic orthodoxy, on the grounds that they can't possibly understand the texts, the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs and do not know Arabic. Of course, that doesn't keep them, in the madrasas, from being forced to memorize entire chunks of the Qur'an in a language they do not understand.
There are two kinds of context. One is the actual text itself: that is, when a movie reviewer writes that the movie in question is "quite possibly the best example of movie-making out of Hollywood at its most characteristically idiotic" then becomes, in the subsequent ads, a blurb that reads "quite possibly the best example of movie-making out of Hollywood..."
And that is exactly what Muslims do, and people like Bush, when they quote Qur'an 5.32 but never quote it in the obvious and necessary and indispensable context of 5.33.
Another kind of context is the historical one. That is, is what is in Qur'an and Hadith to be taken and applied to this age? Or is it to be understood by Muslims as needing to be re-interpreted, just the way American constitutional jurisprudence is all about intelligently interpreting the original Constitutional text, as well as phrases in the Amendments? (What is "due process of law" in the Fourteenth Amendment? What might be included in that phrase? And how, in what way, would such rights as are found to be included in that phrase apply as against the Federal government -- hint: see the Fifth Amendment, and go from there.)
But the Constitution, blissfully, is a document created in time, by humans -- though possibly the most wonderful and intelligent set of statesmen ever to gather in one place. And therefore we are willing to add amendments from time to time. Therefore we are willing, from time to time, to subject things to new interpretations, or to relate them to what we may see as the intent, or what we think or argue would be the intent today, of the Framers.
Not so with the Qur'an. It is deemed by Believers the literal and uncreated Word of God. It is good for all time. True, in the first few centuries of Islam there was a certain leeway, when texts were still being established, and jurisconsults were deciding what the Qur'an must mean and how to reconcile its obvious internal contradictions. The interpretive doctrine of "naskh" or abrogation then became fixed, and the Qur'an became even more harsh for Infidels as a result. Then, too, the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of so-called Hadith had to be collected, studied, winnowed, and ranked through analysis of the isnad-chain, according to what the most authoritative and learned muhaddithin deemed to be their authenticity. Finally, since the first biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq, was only known through the work of others, and himself wrote 150 years after the death of Muhammad, it was in those first centuries that the official biography was established.
And all this happened. And then the gates of ijtihad swung shut with a thud.
But here's the point: the Qur'an is uncreated and immutable and not-to-be-tampered with. The Hadith, as ranked by Bukhari and Muslim, are not to be changed in their rankings. The details of the life of Muhammad -- the killing of the Banu Qurayza prisoners, the assassinations of Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan, the attack on the inoffensive farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, the justification of killing all those who did not submit to Islam and seizing their property and their women, and even setting out rules for the proper distribution of the loot -- all that is set down, all that cannot be changed, and all that, as with everything else to do with Muhammad, is taught to Muslims as something admirable, and not to be deplored. For everything the Perfect Man, Muhammad, did, is to be emulated.
And so when the subject of little Aisha comes up, it may be that your Muslim interlocutor, who up to that point had managed to pretend to be a Western man, more or less, capable of sweet reason and mastering his passions, will suddenly go into a rage. He may first try to deny that Aisha was six when betrothed to Muhammad and nine when that marriage was consummated (what a demure word, how it puts us in mind of having tiny cress and cucumber sandwiches at, say, high tea at The Dorchester or Claridge's, and since it is midwinter, asking for a little dish of consomme as well), and then when you cite chapter and verse will retreat into the argument of Context, because back in the Seventh Century everyone married young, Everyone Was Doing It.
And at that point you can partly concede that yes, twelve-year-olds were betrothed to one another in some places, and royal alliances were thus fashioned. But in this case it was a nine-year-old girl and a man in his fifties. And furthermore, if it was merely a matter of "context," then why is it that almost the first act of the Ayatollah Khomeini was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine? We know why. If it was good enough for Muhammad, it is good enough for everyone, for all time.
And that is the problem. It is regarding the Qur'an as outside of time, instead of as a product of humans, produced in time and space and seen in its historical context. That is why the work of scholars of early Islam, if heeded, can do much to help the genuine "moderate" Muslims -- those who comprehend the nightmare, and who out of fear or filial piety cannot declare themselves to be apostates, but continue bravely to tell themselves that something can be done: perhaps we can eliminate the Hadith, perhaps somehow we can claim that the biography of Muhammad was tampered with or begin to diminish his role, perhaps perhaps perhaps.
But Ahmed Bedier is not one of those who finds anything worrisome about Islam. He is out to defend every last bit of it, to protect it from critical scrutiny. Only the most treacly of treatments, the kind of thing we now expect and indeed would be amazed not to find from the likes of Esposito and Armstrong, will satisfy most Muslims.
But it will no longer satisfy us. There has been, even in the regular -- that is, even in the uncomprehending -- popular press, too much of what we may call Jihad News. And the pressure of that news, which is added to day after day all around the world, is building up so that even the most willfully religion-of-peace Infidel is having trouble ignoring the evidence. Those Infidels will soon begin to find the "context" argument, and all the other rhetorical tricks employed by Bedier and others, not merely unsatisfactory, but positively alarming.
"War is deception," said Muhammad. Once that is understood, and once one has been deceived, and has come to realize the depth and breadth of that deception, one will not easily go back to the mixture as before.
[Posted by Hugh at November 8, 2006]
Bush Holds Iftar Dinner, Says Muslim Leaders Must Denounce Terrorism
Bush again referred to Qur'an 5:32, "which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all of humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity," indicating that he still hasn’t considered the implications of the fact that jihadists contend that no Americans or Israelis are innocent, and thus the verse doesn’t apply to their actions.
Nor did the President apparently read on to Qur’an 5:33, which stipulates that "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: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter" – a mandate for mayhem that jihadists have skillfully deployed the world over, and an indication that Bush’s reading of 5:32 may be a trifle superficial. Bush has not confronted the deep roots that the jihad ideology has within both Islamic tradition and the contemporary Islamic world. This could lead and has led to policy misjudgments.
From the Muslim American Society website, with thanks to Scaramouche:
WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (MASNET & News Agencies) - President George W. Bush told Muslim leaders and diplomats at an Iftar dinner that "all responsible Islamic leaders" must denounce terrorists who claim to act according to Islam.
"I believe the time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to denounce an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends and defiles your noble faith," he said at the White House, reports Agence France-Presse (AFP).
The remarks came as he hosted diplomats from Islamic nations and leaders of the U.S. Muslim community to dinner to mark Iftaar, the first day of the holy Muslim holiday Ramadan.
"Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing chapter 5, verse 32 of the Quran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all of humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity," Bush said.
"I appreciate those of you here who have joined these scholars in rejecting violent extremists,” he said....
"We must be very clear about the enemies we face: The killers who take the lives of innocent men, women and children, are followers of a violent ideology, very different from the religion of Islam," said Bush.
"The killers who take the lives of innocent men, women and children are followers of a violent ideology very different from the religion of Islam," he said. “These extremists distort the idea of jihad into the call for terrorist murder against anyone who does not share their radical vision, including Muslims from other traditions who they regard as heretics."
"Their strategy will fail."...
The group interrupted Bush's brief remarks once, when he said a Quran has been added to the White House library for the first time in history, the news agency reports.
Good. I hope he reads the whole thing, and consults the mainstream tafasir (commentaries) to discover how traditional Islam has understood passages such as 9:5 and 9:29, and 8:39, which reads: "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah." Tafasir-i-Husaini, to take just one example, explains: "Fight them till all strife be at an end," that is, until "no polytheists remain of the pagans or Jews or Christians." (vol. i, p. 239). That is, until the "polytheistic" features of Judaism and Christianity are eradicated, which means, until the Jews and Christians have become Muslims.
[Posted by Robert at October 20, 2005]
February 27, 2006
Fitzgerald: There is no need to curry favor
There is no need to curry favor with those whose immutable holy text contains Quran 9.29, or indeed all of Sura 9, received as the last in time, and therefore the most authoritative Sura, nor a book which contains Quran 8.12, or 33.61, or 47.4 or 5.51, or 9.30, or 3.110. And of course there are hundreds of Hadith to quote, and the details of Muhammad's life.
Are the political leaders of the Western world going to continue to tip-toe around these texts? Are they going, by remaining silent about them, to let Muslims think that they never need address them, or that it is sufficient to reply that some texts of other religions are disturbing? To that transparent bit of Tu-Quoque one has to answer: 1) any passages that are to be found, say, in Leviticus, in which bloody battles are described, have no relevance and no authority today; they are historical or pseudo-historical descriptions and not considered to be models or tenets which have been faithfully followed. There is nothing like Jihad in Leviticus or elsewhere in the Jewish or Christian Scriptures -- that is, nothing like jihad in its truthful main meaning, not the meaning dragged up by apologists, relying in the main on a single "unauthentic" Hadith not even to be found in the collections of Al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Western leaders should take every occasion to ask Muslims to explain not only these texts, but the entire worldview that requires loyalty to the umma al-islamiyya alone. They should take every occasion to quote all of the many statements by Muslims expressing such solidarity, and denying the possibility of true (as opposed to feigned) loyalty to the Infidel nation-state, and to Infidels in that state. They should raise the issue of how one can be fully loyal to a Complete System that is far more than what we in the modern world mean when we use the word "religion" -- a religio-political system, in which the rituals of worship (the Five Pillars) do not begin to exhaust the duties of Believers in the task of spreading Islam everywhere. This is because "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated."
Does Alexander Downer know the Quran and Sunnah? Does George Bush? Does Condoleeza Rice? Have they thoroughly studied the history of Islam, and not with apologists who have managed to infiltrate in so many places (from the down-market aarmstrongs, to the espositos and, at only a slightly higher level, the olivier-roys of Europe)? The scholarly work exists, the testimony of people born into Islam exists, the clear meaning of the texts can be found on Muslim websites, in Muslim literature and propaganda. Start with the texts, as offered in Spencer's books, and with those texts, a history of the treatment of non-Muslims (several books by Bat Ye'or), and then the history of Jihad as a doctrine, set out by the most celebrated Muslim commentators and scholars, collected in The Legacy of Jihad. In that book can also be found a selection of Western scholars -- the real, pre-esposito, pre-MESA-Nostra thing -- on Jihad in practice as well as in theory.
To make a distinction between "Islam" and the "war on terror" appears to make a disconnect between what prompts Muslims all over either to participate, or to support in ways other than active participation, the "terror" which is conducted by others. And of course, it is not always and everywhere a collective requirement to participate in aggressive Jihad. It depends on the circumstances. But even those who are not active participants (i.e. running off to join Al Qaeda, setting off bombs) are expected in their own way to support Jihad to spread Islam, to strike fear into the hearts of Infidels, so as to force them to remove any obstacles to the spread of Islam. This is a duty that all Muslims have. That some may be bad Muslims and not entirely agree does not change this fact. And we Infidels have no way of knowing how many do not agree, or for how many that disagreement is stated but not felt, or perhaps felt at the moment but will no longer be felt in a week or a year or five years.
A few weeks ago Bush quoted, quite misleadingly, Quran 5.32. It was one of the two passages that Muslim apologists always like to quote. (The other, the real meaning of which they know Infidels will not comprehend, is that phrase which does not mean what Infidels take it to mean: "There is no compulsion in religion," Quran 2:256). This verse comes from a Jewish source: "He who kills a person, it is as if he has killed the whole world." Sounds good. Sounds very good. What Bush did not recite, did not tell us, perhaps did not even know himself, was Quran 5.33, which follows and clearly modifies, and changes entirely, the meaning of 5.32.
Why didn't Bush do this? There are two possible explanations. One is: he doesn't read, or doesn't read closely, or cannot make sense of the Qur'an. It is not easy to make sense of, and it takes time and much re-reading. The second is: he was handed that passage by advisers, perhaps an "adviser on Islam," who either did not understand the passage himself, or thought no one would notice. He thought that Bush could slip it in, and who would be the spoilsport in the press, in this collective atmosphere of not wanting ever to quote truthfully, or have the public confront the actual texts of Qur'an and Hadith, or what Muhammad did? Have you seen, once, in major newspapers or on television ever, a single mention of Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, the Khaybar Oasis, the Banu Qurayza, little Aisha? You haven't? Of course you haven't.
The excellent French website www.france-echos.com records the slow, day-by-day assault on French liberties, French laws, customs, manners, and the slow day-by-day nonsense and lies that are offered not only by official Muslim spokesmen, but by successive French governments. These liars are manipulating, and in some cases suppressing, the reality of daily life in France (including reports from all over the country about attacks on Christians and Jews). There was posted there yesterday a furious denunciation of Boubakeur, the Algerian-connected imam of the main Paris mosque. He is regarded by the French government as okay, a "moderate." His "moderation" presumably comes from that Algerian connection, for everyone knows the government of Algeria faces its own fight with so-called Muslim "extremists." And the fury expressed by visitors to www.france-echos.com was that Boubakeur, on television, had quoted that Qur'anic verse 5.32, but had failed to add 5.33, leaving an entirely false impression on viewers.
In this way did the imam of Paris, a sinister figure, do exactly what George Bush, not sinister but sly, had done a few weeks before. Highly selective and misleading quotation.
And when Alexander Downer and so many others tell us that there is no connection between the "war on terror" and Islam, they are wrong. They are quite wrong. It is the instrument of "terror" that is given far too much attention, as if it stood alone. In fact, it is merely one instrument, and not the most effective, of all the instruments of Jihad. One can find all of these weapons of Jihad discussed endlessly by Muslims themselves, in their newspapers, in the sermons of clerics, in the radio and television, at Muslim websites you are all capable of visiting. What do Muslims say are the instruments of Jihad? They talk and write and point with great satisfaction to the "money" weapon. That is, to the use of the trillions in OPEC revenue, or some of it, to bully and cudgel and buy favor in the West. Arab oil wealth gives force to their economic boycotts of countries or companies. The continued misunderstanding in the West of Arab and Muslim reliance on oil revenues has also led some, no matter how often things are explained, to believe in an "oil weapon" that does not exist. There is the use of money for bribery. After 1967, bribes were paid to certain black African diplomats and government officials to compel them to completely turn away from Israel, and to shut down Israel's extensive and effective aid program in sub-Saharan Africa. There is money that can pay for "academic centers" for the study of "Muslim-Christian Understanding," or Islamic studies, or "Contemporary Arab Studies" -- at Exeter, at Durham, at Georgetown. There is money for the setting up of King Abdul Aziz Professorships here and there. When Reagan was President, a California school received the honor. When Clinton was president, it was suddenly the turn the University or Arkansas.
Money can buy a stake, and has bought stakes, in major media. It can buy public relations efforts -- remember Fred Dutton? It can buy a host ex-diplomats to the Arab countries, all now dutifully offering their unsolicited and "disinterested" advice to governments about how important it is to "keep the Saudis on our side" and in other ways do nothing to offend either Saudi Arabia, or the world's Muslims (google "Jihad Watch" and "financial dhimmitude" for more). Not merely ex-diplomats, but ex-intelligence agents (google "Raymond Close" and "Jihad Watch"). Not merely ex-diplomats and ex-intelligence agents, but all sorts of former government officials, back in their law firms or "consulting" operations, know that Arab money is there for those who exhibit good behavior, or are careful what they say. So many of both parties are involved, that perhaps this explains why the 9/11 Commission never made the study of Arab, and especially Saudi, propaganda which helped create the climate in which dangers were not foreseen, visa policies not changed. And for all I know, a variant of that pollyannish view helps to explain the lack of any official alarm about the U.A.E. ports deal.
Along with "terror" and conventional military combat ("qital" mentioned dozens of times in the Qur'an) and the "wealth" weapon, there is Da'wa, or rather, all the kinds of activities, the propaganda, to spread Islam. In the Western world, targeted populations of those deemed ready for conversion ("reversion") are to be found among the alienated, those who might be seeking a vehicle of protest -- and Islam is a vehicle of protest against everything that is not Islam. Prisoners -- truly, a captive audience -- have been targeted by busy Muslim missionaries. And all over the Western world, Infidel governments have noted this but done nothing. They justify this inaction because they say "What can we do? It's freedom of religion." They fail, that is, to see into the heart of the thing, to view Islam clearly, and to accept, or pretend to accept, in order not to make waves, that Islam really is just one more "religion" like all the others. It isn't.
And then there is the newest instrument of Jihad. Of course this is not in the Qur'an or Hadith. No one thought in such terms in 630 or 660 or 720 A.D. Indeed, Muslims for years were taught never to live under the rule of non-Muslims, for it would be impossible. But now there are millions of Muslims living in the Lands of the Infidels. They are quite unlike the other immigrants -- from Indian Hindus, to Vietnamese Buddhists, to Ecuadorians or Tibetans, Christians from Nigeria or Uganda, who may be living in the Western world, and who do not carry in their mental baggage not merely non-Western ways, or perhaps what might once have been called an alien creed. Islam is not a religion that calls for genuine, Western-style pluralism. It calls for Muslims to rule. And in that Western world, behind what are regarded as enemy lines by Muslims themselves, it is not possible to offer support to the Infidel nation-state, its laws, customs, manners, if one is to remain a fully believing Muslim. A bad Muslim, one who has jettisoned much or all of Islam, can adapt -- can offer real, as opposed to feigned, loyalty -- but only to the extent that he loses his loyalty to Islam.
Demographic conquest is discussed everywhere in the Muslim world, on Muslim websites, within Muslim communities smack in France, or Belgium, or England. Yet the West continues to ignore these plans, these comments. It continues to ignore even the anecdotal evidence of individual Infidels who have been startled to be told by a Muslim in France, as one lady testifies at www.france-echos.com, pointing to her own swollen belly, that "this is why we will take over." And why not? It is all a question of numbers, and of doing the math. Do the math. Extrapolate. In Holland in 1970 there were 15,000 Muslims. There are 1,000,000 today. Many live on the dole supplied by the Infidel taxpayers. Many families have ten or more children. In Holland, as in Italy and France, the non-Muslim population is at or below the level of reproducing itself. What will be the percentage of the French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian populations if things continue in the future this way, with no one allowed to worry, much less to change immigration and naturalization policies, because the "only" thing to worry about is that "war on terror"?
Bernard Lewis, among many others, has predicted the complete islamization of Europe by the end of the century. He was wrong -- he was wrong to place it so far ahead. Long before that, long before there is an absolute majority, aggressive Muslim tactics will force the issue and cause "Islam to dominate" and "not to be dominated." Look at what Muslims do now, in countries where they have the rest of us tied in knots to avoid offending them or taking reasonable actions. The lack of common sense, of foreseeing the foreseeable, the willingness to engage in ostrich-avoidance, is common. It has happened with environmental degradation, and atmospheric changes that may become irreversible. But few ruling anywhere can face up to this. And it is the same with Islam.
Appeasement will simply confuse the Infidels, and make the mujahedin more determined and heartened then ever -- when one wishes them to be disheartened, demoralized, and perhaps even to come to the melancholy conclusion that they will have to fully accept Infidel laws, customs, and manners, and give up their campaign to slowly undermine them and to islamize, through demographic conquest, the Infidel lands -- or remove themselves from those lands altogether.
All speeches that would reduce the defense by Infidels against the Jihad in all of its instruments merely to this "war on terror," simply mimic the awful and dangerous confusion that we have seen elsewhere -- not least from official, tongue-tied, confused members of the current Administration, and all those others, so silent on the subject, of both parties, within Congress, and without.
[Posted by Hugh on February 27, 2006]
An excerpt from “A Battle For Global Values”
that appeared, not in 2001 or 2002 or 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or 2006, but this very year – in the issue of January/February 2007 – of Foreign Affairs.
Who wrote it? Tony Blair, until just a few months ago the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and now in charge of negotiating that "two-state-solution" to the (unrecognized by Blair, certainly) Lesser Jihad conducted by Arabs and other Muslims, world without end, against tiny Israel.
“The roots of the current wave of global terrorism and extremism are deep. They reach down through decades of alienation, victimhood, and political oppression in the Arab and Muslim world. Yet such terrorism is not and never has been inevitable.
To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance.
Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking. Over centuries, Islam founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture. The standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones.”
In Great Britain Blair was fond, on the BBC, of endlessly quotiing 5.32 -- "he who kills a single person, it is as if he killed etc." -- but never of quoting 5.33.
Well-spoken. Smooth. Quick-witted at times. But essentially, not up to the matter at hand. Way out of his intellectual and moral depth. And he was one of the bettter ones.
But, but, but that context is taken out of context, and the context was cherry picked out of a whole Quran full of context. What are you, some kind of . . . ?
stupid is what stupid does - President Bush and his entire administration and previous Presidents and their administrations for their willful ignorance to the ideological foundation of the Enemy to this country and the West.
Hosting an iftar dinner at the White House during War with an islamic enemy. What's next - sacrificing animals in the Rose Garden?
In case yoo missed it,from above
(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) `Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways.
How touching. The Prez, and supposed leader of the free world reading and quoting passages from the book of Beelzebub.
So what's the deal with Grover Norquist?? His wife is Muslim. Is he????
V.32 is part of the Oath Of A Muslim Physician.
See v.32 in action at www.WhoKilledJA.com