‘Misinterpretation of Islam — root cause of terrorism’

I think what they mean, even in the best case, is to pretend that the offensive passages of the Islamic texts and the offensive incidents from Islamic history simply don't (and never did) exist.

Just like all the people who explain that Islam is peaceful and tolerant because millions of Muslims are peaceful and tolerant--in other words, because many Muslims ignore the inconvenient aspects of their faith.

Just like Armstrong's biography of Muhammad.

That's it.

Not sufficient, but that's it.

I have come to hate the word "misinterpretation."

No, it's not. As Walid Shoebat has said, "What is it about kill the infidel you don't understand?"

Exactly.

The phrase "misinterpretation of Islam" means nothing. Those who insist, in Pakistan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Iran or Dearborn or London or Paris, that it is those who "misinterpret" Islam, and therefore help to cause terrorism, Muslims who do so (or do those who make this claim have in mind mainly non-Muslim analysts of Islam - islamologues -- who must be shut up), have to do something more.

They must tell us exactly the passages in the Qur'an, exactly those stories in the Hadith, exactly those details of the life of Muhammad, that have been "misinterpreted." Otherwise, we have nothing to discuss, nothing to go on, nothing to rectify, nothing to clear up.

Detail, only detail, will do here.

One way we could help Pakistan would be to have Roberts books translated into Urdu and then air-dropped over the countryside. Then we could start a Radio Free Pakistan, featuring commentators trained by Jihad Watch. We could also withdraw our recognition of Pakistan and claim that it's really part of India. We could bomb their nuke facilities. There are a lot of things we could do, if we wanted to.
The religion of peace brings the country of chaos.

Uh Huh - let's hear specifics. I'd like to hear how "Kill the Unbelievers" is misinterpreted - 'K?

“The government should control inflation, create internal peace boundaries, restore the judiciary, and maintain law and order in the country.”
- Memona Yousaf of the Lahore College for Women University

“The government should facilitate and bring reforms in madrassas instead of attacking them, call back the Army from Waziristan and Swat, and negotiate with the militants in order to protect the lives of other Pakistanis.”
- Sanniya Khan of the Defence Degree College

Okay, so which is it? Call back the army and negotiate with the militants who threaten their own government and endanger the lives of other Pakistanis, or maintain law and order?

"Create internal peace boundaries"?

Does that mean giving each province freedom to do as it pleases as long as Islamabad is left alone?

Misinterpretation, or just more smoke & mirrors?

Misinterpretation? On who's part? By intention, ignorance, convenience?

To recognize Islam for what it is, would require someone to do something about it. Actions that in the near and long term would be very drastic and extremely violent.

So we meander along with a 1001 Dalmatians instead of a good old nasty Guard Dog

“Misinterpretation"?

This is a code word to screen the true Taqqiya of claiming there isn’t inherent violence in the ideological system of Mohammedanism.

Members of the Multiculturalism Cult mostly use this phrase to help the citizens of Western Democracy palate the distasteful feeling of being force to be “Tolerant of the Intolerant”. Slowly a Chimera is being born before our eyes of the combined Authoritarian systems of “Progressives” seeking a return to state control of serfs, their labor, property, and thoughts. And the other part of this horrific hybrid that of Mohammedanism view of elitist (only those in the Mohammedan cult) rule and the Divine Right of Nobility (The Caliph and the Ummah).

Oh they claim differently, but slowly the Authoritarian anti-individual systems are slowly morphing into one. Marx and Mohamet, Stalin and Ummar, Mao and Hezzbolla, Pol Pot and Arafat, can any of you see any true differences? Differences between their methods and Propaganda/Taqqiya? I see none any more, both are revolting “Progressive” systems of Authoritarism.

Resistance is futile, that connotes a defensive stance. We must unmask and expose those that make these ludicrous claims of “misunderstanding” are either agents of Authoritarism, complacent stooges, or ignorant ignoramuses buried deep in the Multicultural Cult. No mercy needs to be show as we expose these traitors for the fifth column they are.

Only Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Thought will continue to bring about new discoveries, new mechanism, new philosophies, and ultimately the extraterrestrial expansion and prosperity of all of humanity. So much is at stake in this battle with the Horrid Hybrid we can not sleep, we can not allow the siren call of complacency with “Misunderstanding” the true nature of Chimera. If we do… then Orwell’s nightmare of a “Boot forever stomping on a human face” will come to pass.

The Iraqi officials quoted in the JW story just below this indicate that horse drawn carriage carts (rather than misinterpretations of Islam) are the root cause of terrorism, and must be banned from Baghdad.

I think I also have learned that the root causes of terrorism also might have something to do with insufficient jizya payments to the Muslims the oil-rich Wahabis are unwilling to support.

Or was it the Jewish occupation of territory in the Mideast and refusal to return to their land of origin, which was .... I forgot.

Or was the root cause of terrorism the printing of Mohammed cartoons?

I am so confused.

I contribute to another board where Islam is discussed. A person there linked me to a website called 'Muslims Against Shariah.'

As far as I can tell, their program is radically sensible. And it will not be popular with more medievally-minded Muslims, for sure.

Is anyone familiar with them? Their manifesto is at reformislam.org. (Sorry I don't know how to make better links....)

Any info on this group would be sincerely appreciated.

Proof: a mature Obama dressed as a Muslim. And not in Muslim polluted Indonesia, but in Christian majority Kenya where his Muslim foster father comes from.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip

"Audacity of hope" my ass; audacity of deceit. You can fool some of the people some of the time...

These students would seem to have an uphill struggle in the Pakistan whose Brigadier S.K. Malik wrote “The Quranic Concept of War.” In the thesis (http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf) that got him crosswise with a Pentagon panjandrum, analyst Stephen Coughlin noted that

“As important as the Pakistani Brigadier’s work is in its own right, it was promulgated by the Chief of Staff of the Army after being endorsed by the Advocate General who invested the document with a measure of state authority. In the forward to “The Quranic Concept of War,” Army Chief of Staff Zia ul-Haq wrote:

‘This book brings out with simplicity, clarity and precision the Quranic philosophy on the application of military force, within the concept of totality that is JEHAD. The professional soldier in a Muslim army, pursuing the goals of a Muslim state, CANNOT become “professional” if in all of his activities he does not take on “the colour of Allah.”

This, from a senior army officer who would soon become Pakistan’s head of state. Moreover, Pakistani Advocate General A.K. Brohi, in a preface to Malik’s work, called it “an ‘analytic Re-Statement’ of Quranic wisdom on the subject of war and peace.” The legal import of the term “Restatement,”Coughlin notes, is that of “a description of a given area of law by experts that describes the present state of a law as well as trends and ideal paths of further evolution” – said law being Islamic law.

Malik’s “restatement of Quranic wisdom”culminates in the following pearl of wisdom:

“Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponents heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him.”

Are we to understand that such notions are a “misinterpretation of Islam,” or that Pakistan is about to refute them at the behest of a handful of mostly female college students?

PW:

I downloaded Malik's book. If you don't have it, I think you can get it by googling, "The Quranic Concept of War." If your first results don't get it, then you can search a file sharing service name ("rapidshare" is best) within results.

"It would be great for the Pakistani authorities to reform the madrassas. But what will be taught in the reformed madrassas? How will the reformed madrassas counter the jihadist claim to represent the pure, true teachings of Islam?"

It's highly unlikely you will ever see a new and reformed version of Islam. Muslims are like Alcohol or drug addicts. They refuse to admit they have a problem, so will always be blaming others for their dysfunctional lives. And with plenty of enablers in the West, ready to make excuses for their behavior, and insisting that Islam is a peaceful and beautiful religion, they will never be challenged to reflect on the root causes of their multitude of problems.

The only way Muslims might start asking some serious questions about their Islamic faith, is when Western politicians, social and religious leaders start telling them the truth about themselves and their sick religious beliefs.

Who's doing the misinterpretating - the Decider?

Beware of Taquiya.

The Koran is clear that there shall be no interpretations and that islam should be taken LITERALLY. (3:7)

Which means any "inerpretation" is a ploy to buy time till muslim population reaches a "critical mass" for belligerance.

Indians have already been fooled beyond redemption. The only hope is with the sagacity of the West.

PW:

I downloaded Malik's book. If you don't have it, I think you can get it by googling, "The Quranic Concept of War." If your first results don't get it, then you can search a file sharing service name ("rapidshare" is best) within results.
Posted by: supercargo

Educational pdf downloads available including "The Quranic Concept of War" S. K. Malik

http://www.marisaurgo.com/MSJ/Scholarship.html

The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihaad
According to the publisher's forward, this book is "a translation of a section from the chapter entitled 'Jihaad al-Kuffaar: Al-Qitaal al-Faasil' from the book 'As-siyaasah as shar'iyyah fee islah...'" of Ibn Tammiyah
Named author: "Abu Umamah"
Date: 1421, approx. 2000
File: Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihad.pdf
Uploaded: 6-4-07

Three Fundamental Principles
Named author: Muhammad Ibn 'Abd-il-Wahhaab
Publisher: Unkonwn
Document date: Unknown
File: 3FundamentalPrinciples.pdf
Uploaded: 11-27-07

Fundamental Concepts Regarding Al-Jihad
Named author: Abdul-Qadir Ibn Abdul-Aziz
Publisher: At-Tibyan (242 pages)
Date: August 2004
File: Fundamental.pdf
Uploaded: 11-27-07
Note: This document was found on a public server.

Guidance

The People of the Ditch
Named author: Rifai Surur
Publisher: At-TIbyan Publications (77 pages)
File: Ditch.pdf
Uploaded: 6-6-07

A Letter from the Imprisoned Shaykh Nasir al-Fahd
Named author: Nasir al-Fahd
Publisher: At-TIbyan Publications (77 pages)
File: FahdLetter.pdf
Uploaded: 6-6-07

Precaution, Secrecy and Concealment: Balancing Between Negligence and Paranoia
Named author: Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi
Publisher: At-Tibyan Publications
Date: 2006 (23 pages)
File: CompleteBalance.pdf
Uploaded: 6-4-07

Condemnation of the Democratic Process, Voting, and the Islamic Stances on these Issues
Named author: Abu Qatadah
Publisher: At-Tibyan Publications
Date: Unknown (29 pages)
File: CondemnationDemocractic.pdf
Uploaded: 6-27-07

The Quranic Concept of War
Named author: S. K. Malik
Publisher: Wajidalis (Lahore)
Date: 1979 (102 pages)
File: The Quranic Concept of War.pdf
Uploaded: 6-27-07

Book of Tawheed (Kitab at-Tawheed)
Named author: Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab (translation Abdul Malik Mujahid)
Publisher: Dar-us-Salam Publications
Date: 18th century (130 pages)
File: Book of Tawheed.pdf
Uploaded: 7-11-07

Defense of Muslim Lands, the First Obligation After Iman
Named author: Abdullah Azzam (translation “Brothers in RIbatt”)
Publisher: Unknown
Date: 1979 (54 pages)
File: Defense.pdf
Uploaded: 7-11-07

Muslim Conduct of State
Named author: Muhammad Hamidullah
Publisher: Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf,
Date(s): 1961 (fourth edition). Originally published in 1935 (German). First English version, 1941-42. Last known published edition, 1968.
File(s): ConductSectionIIIa.pdf; ConductSectionIIIb.pdf; ConductAppendixA.pdf;
Uploaded: 9-01-07; 11-27-07
Note: The sections reproduced here are Part III-Hostile Relations (a) and Appendix A: Instructions to Commanders. A second file completing Part III was uploaded on November 27, 2007.

In Pursuit of Freedom: A True Story
Named author: Shaykh Husayn ibn Mahmud
Publisher: At-Tibyan Publications (2007)
Date(s): Composed in 2004
File(s): Pursuit.pdf
Uploaded: 9-01-07
Note: This document was found on a public server.

The Clarification Regarding Intentionally Targetting Women and Children
Named author: At-Tibyan
Publisher: At-Tibyan
Document date: November 2004
File: Women and Children.pdf
Uploaded: 11-27-07

Key Religious Rulings (Fatawa)

A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels
Named author: Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd
Date: May 2003
File: Treatise.pdf
Uploaded: 6-4-07; 10-7-07

It seems like the "Discussion", as they say, between the anti-Islamic (or, if one must, anti-Jihadist) people and the Islam apologists is stuck on stage one.

It's getting kind of annoying to watch this inertia between the two sides (though the fault for this seems to lie wholly in the Islam apologist camp and their tactics of obfuscation and sophistry, as well as too often simply refusing to debate) -- not that I expect anything substantive from the Islam apologists upon a further unfolding of the "Discussion"; but at least it would be nice see the gears engage a little higher than the basement floor.

The bottom level at which the "Discussion" has been stalled for years now is the level of:

anti-Islamics: Islam is a major source (if not the major source) of terrorism and social injustices (those that occur in Islamic milieus), because the terrorists and their supporters and the socially unjust Sharia supporters mostly seem to be inspired by Islam and frequently cite the foundational texts and traditions of Islam to guide them.

Islam apologists: Islam is not a major source of those bad things: those few Muslims doing those bad things are perverting Islam and misunderstanding it. The vast majority of Muslims follow a healthy and peaceful Islam.

This is where it has been stuck for years. Now, the anti-Islamics, on their side, have been industriously churning out all sorts of analyses and research to buttress, and expand upon, their own basic argument -- but they continue to do so in a virtual vacuum, apart from any further engagement in "Discussion" with their dialogical opponents.

The Islam apologists seem to refuse to engage the question Spencer keeps asking (which he asks yet again up above), which would begin to take the "Discussion" from Level 1 to Level 2: Can they "actually point to [the putative peaceful and tolerant Islam] and explain its contents in contradistinction to the Islamic arguments of the jihadists?"

If the "Discussion" did move to the next level, it would go something like this:

anti-Islamics point out all the passages from the Koran that are ostensibly bellicose and intolerant.

Islam apologists initiate next phase, which involves:

a) you need to understand the "context" of those disturbing passages -- it was mostly recounting battles of self-defense as Mohammed and his followers tried to bring this new "Truth" to the peoples around him

b) some of those passages are not literal but figurative

c) whatever bellicosity and intolerance seems to remain after (a) and (b) are applied, are historical relics that the vast majority of Muslims don't think to apply concretely to their lives today.

Now, if the Islam apologists really marshalled this kind of argument -- and the above only touches on the bare bones of what it would entail -- to initiate moving to Level 2 of the "Discussion", then Spencer et al. could have something to sink their teeth into and develop counter-arguments.

Once the "Discussion" would start getting moving like this, be forewarned: it would become much more complex and require much more and rhetorical skills as well as research of many different radiating points and sub-points, including complexities of textual exegesis, Muslim histories, secondary sources, and the filling in and fleshing out of modern Islamic sources from the 20th and 21st centuries throughout the Muslim world than Spencer et al. have had to muster so far in the contextual terms of a living debate as opposed to a relatively stagnant building up of facts and arguments with no one to engage.

(There have been some paltry attempts now and then to expand upward from Level 1 by a couple of Islam apologist amateurs who have popped into JW now and then, but those contributions were pathetically insufficient exercises in tap-dancing obfuscation, and at the end of the day advanced nothing.)

At some point, after some number of horrors, one must cease to believe in the reformability of Islam. For me that point came some time ago.

Quarantine them to the Muslim Middle East. Nothing else can possibly work.

Yes, exactly misinterpretation of islam is the root cause of terrorism. We non muslims have misinterpreted islam to be peaceful and therefore allowed and ensured its continued existence, thereby allowing the root cause of terrorism to live.

Example of Mujahideen of Afghanistan is in front of us. In early Eighties the devout Muslim ‘Ummah’ from the entire world of Islam were lead to believe that Soviet Forces had occupied a Muslim Country Afghanistan and it was their duty to dislodge the infidel and free the their Muslim Brethren. Although this was US covert operation to dismantle Soviet Union and these Mujahideen were totally kept aloof. These Mujahideen were scramble from all the Muslim countries in thousands; trained and made to fight for supposedly a Just Cause. They were able to dislodge and defeat the Soviet Union which ultimately resulted into crumbling down of Soviet Empire. The top beneficiary of the game; the United States was able to declare her self the sole Super power.

The Mujahideen had come to know about all this covert operation very late; that they were covertly used for the vested interests of some. Although it was too late for them to rebut but we can see that what could be the consequences of this deceit.

Today USA is a biggest enemy of Mujahideen, now called as Taliban, Al –Qaeda etc. The Muslim countries like Pakistan; the US abettor and the sole conductor of Afghan war, who pocketed billions of dollars in exchange; the Saudi Arabia who partially funded this scheme… they all are in peril and engulfed in the menace of unending turmoil and anarchy plaguing their societies.

Above has got nothing to do with Religion of a particular denomination. This is the out come when you don’t deliver a ‘Just Cause’ or a right manifesto to your forces and only think that soldiers are merely a fodder for the war; an enabling agent to full fill malicious desires.
----------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for none

No doubt Ms Memona Yousaf of Lahore College for Women means well. In her confused and self-contradictory ramblings I think I do detect an element of recognition of the link between terrorism and Islam, but it also seems that it's killing her to admit it. Although it's a first step, it's hard to see any revolution in Islam being fomented by their women. (No offense to any lady readers here. But you only have to look at the culture of Islamic countries to understand my point.)

Although there are, no doubt, some people in Pakistan who "get it" one might question just how much difference they will make resisting the larger tide of increasing radicalization within the country.

I would not be surprised to learn one day that some of Ms Yousaf's co-religionists decide that it is she, not they, who misunderstands Islam and in need of "re-educaation."

Someone who knows how to do this should establish a watch on this lady. It would be good to learn if anything untoward happens to her.

Crap, of course. Muhammad himself boasted, on many occassions, that he had been made "victorious with terror".

It's in the hadith. Those who claim otherwise should step down from their fine positions and drive cabs at night instead.

No one can reform Islam as long as it followers believe that it is the best religion and the world was made for Mohammed. If we look at all hadiths, we should know that Islam can't be reformed.

According to Mohammed it is known that he met all prophets and prayed with them and he was in charge. Moreover, he went to see Allah too. According to Islam the whole universe is made for Mohammed. If Mohammed does not exist, there is no universe

These are all nonsenses he talked about and all muslims believe in these stories. So how can you reform the mind of muslims. If we want to reform Islam, destroy half of Quran and Hadiths. Finally, expose the truth and do bring more cartoons.

Utterly ridiculous all this claims of misinterpretation. Like some American muslim who translated the Koran claimed claimed to have found another interpretation of the word/text that says you can beat your wife. This was touted by a moderate euromuslim to be a big achievement and changing the nature of Islam. So they beat there wife’s for 1400 years supported by the religion and then Islam is suddenly a completely different religion cause someone made another interpretation. So if someone come around and interprets that you shall kill disobedient wife’s Muslims have to do that?

What is the problem to say that you are enough grown up and responsible to decide how things got to be governed without have to be verified by 1200 year old scriptures? What is the problem to decide that parts that don’t fit in to modern society is void, most other religions have no serious problem doing that. It’s utterly ridicules to relay on interpretation of 1200 year old scriptures if woman can be beaten or not. It’s retarded.

BTW
The decedents of the spoiled and blasé Saudi brats going to fool around as holy warrior in Afghanistan do really believe they did drive the soviet from Afghanistan. Ridiculous, the prime warriors was the Afghans. And it didn’t go very well until USA decided to let them have portable Stinger missiles so they could challenge the central government and Soviet air supremacy.

There's one sensible way to change the minds of Muslims:

Teach them Christianity.

A real, healthy religion that has spawned freedom, prosperity and democracy.

Creating a wave of apostacy would be the ultimate insult of Muhammad and his mockery of a religion.

Misunderstanding what islam is..not misinterpretation..that is the problem.

“ The government should facilitate and bring reforms in madrassas instead of attacking them, call back the Army from Waziristan and Swat, and negotiate with the militants in order to protect the lives of other Pakistanis.”

Ahah!

The real priority shows itself, as usual.

=============

The one thing that has to be avoided is actually fighting against the damned jihaddis.

I don't know...

Our top Leader, our very Decider, tells us Islam is Peace. Why would he lie?

The same thing goes for the actions of Muslims today then. "And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you. But do not transgress limits. Truly Allah loves not the transgressors." Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqarah (2:190)

As you can see, the Qur'an is against "extremism." Jihad can only be declared when the security of an Islamic state is threatened- extremists declare it anyway (on the justification of pointing a finger at Israel).

"O ye who believe! do not kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire..." (Qur'an 4:29-30).

Islam is against suicide- they get around it by calling it martyrdom.

The taking of life is allowed only by way of justice (i.e. the death penalty for murder), but even then, forgiveness is better.

"Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause..." (17:33).

Suicide bombing kills innocent bystanders (which Islam is against)- they get around it by saying that innocent victims will forgive the "martyrs" which has absolutely no Qur'anic basis. As you can see, bin Laden and Co. are as Muslim as Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army (which is know to commit brutal atrocities in Northern Uganda) are Christian. They are basically using Islam to further their cause.

The Oxford-based Malayist jurist, Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti, issued his landmark fatwa on suicide bombing titled 'Defending the Transgressed, by Censuring the Reckless against the Killing of Civilians'. Also, one of Shia Islam's highest ranking marja clerics, Ayatollah al-Udhma Yousof al-Sanei also decreed a fatwa against suicide bombing, declaring it as a "terrorist act" (jeez, you just realized?)

There are many scholastic refutations of suicide bombings. Ihsanic Intelligence, an Islamic think-tank, published their 2-year study into suicide bombings, titled 'The Hijacked Caravan', which concluded that, "The technique of suicide bombing is anathema, antithetical and abhorrent to Islam. It is considered forbidden... a reprehensible innovation in the Islamic ... an enormity of sin combining suicide and murder and theologically an act which has consequences of eternal damnation."

According to Professor Charles Kimball, chair of the Department of Religion at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, "There is only one verse in the Qur'an that contains a phrase related to suicide", 4:29 of the Qur'an. It reads O ye who believe! Do not consume your wealth in the wrong way-rather through trade mutually agreed to, and do not kill yourselves. Surely God is Merciful toward you.

"I HAVE BEEN MADE VICTORIOUS THROUGH TERROR." Al-lah to Muhammad, the Kuran.

So now Muslim apologists are telling us al-lah himself doesn't understand the religion he (allegedly) sent the angel Gabriel to Muhammad to set up???