Wyoming: Muslims say Fort Hood jihadist misunderstood Islam

And they add that both Muslims and non-Muslims can misunderstand Islam, usually by taking verses of the Koran that mandate violence against unbelievers "out of context." This excuse is very, very tired at this point, but the obvious rejoinder from reporter Baylie Evans should have been this: Then what are you doing in your mosque here to make sure that all the local Muslims understand the Koran in context and hence do not misunderstand it in the same way that Nidal Hasan (and so many others worldwide) did?

If Baylie Evans had asked that question, the honest answer would have been, Why, nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And that in itself is revealing.

"Local Muslims condemn acts of violence in name of their religion," by Baylie Evans for the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, November 14:

CHEYENNE - One local Muslim, Mohamed Salih, is clear in his feelings toward the Muslim man who allegedly went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood last week. He deserves to be at the "bottom of the biggest hell," Salih said.
There is a misconception among many non-Muslims that Islam, the religion that Muslims follow, encourages hate and violence. Really, it teaches the opposite, he said.

How could anyone have ever gotten such a crazy idea?

"(Violence) has no place in this religion," he said. "There is no god out there that would accept killing innocent people."

Yes, but who is an innocent person? Jihadists consider no non-Muslim to be innocent. Consequently, it would have been refreshing if Salih had defined his terms, but as usual, no such luck.

And while non-Muslims can misunderstand Islam, so too can Muslims themselves.

Indeed, as we see here every day, Muslim Misunderstanders of Islam abound. And the funny thing is that they all seem to misunderstand it in the same way.

Any person who commits an act of violence in name of Islam gravely misunderstands the religion, Salih said. Terrorists have misunderstood the Islamic duty of jihad, which means struggle.
The "greater jihad" is within one's self, Salih said, against egos and evil within. The "lesser jihad" means actions to defend one's self and family.

Let's get that from an authoritative source. 'Umdat al-Salik is endorsed by the most prestigious authority in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy. It says this:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.
``We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.''

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

-1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);

-2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);

-3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

``To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.''Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) [...]

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29)

Do the Muslims in Wyoming know these doctrines? Probably. But they go on in the same vein anyway:

Even nations can blur the line between religion and politics, Arshi Nisley, another local Muslim, added.
In some Islamic countries, women are not allowed to own property, divorce or have the same rights as men. But the religion allows women equal treatment and rights.

"I don't think that's religion at all," Nisley said. "I think that's politics."

Uh huh. Rather than regarding women as human beings equal to men, the Koran likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).

The Koran also declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282).

It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3).

It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).

Worst of all, the Koran tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).

It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures "shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated" (65:4).

People who have cited passages from the Quran, the religious text of Islam, that seem to encourage violence have taken them out of context, she added.
Even some Bible passages can seem to incite violence when taken out of context.

Uh huh. Actually, while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands. The Koran, on the other hand, quite clearly does teach believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers -- see 2:190-193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc. There are no equivalents to such open-ended and universal commands, addressed to all believers to fight unbelievers, in the Bible.

And how are those teachings interpreted? In fact there is not a single traditional school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach, as the obligation of the Muslim community, warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. See here for details.

Both Salih and Nisley said they haven't encountered hostility from the local community. In fact, they've felt welcomed. Salih has worked hard to try to educate people about Islam. Violent acts by Muslims set his efforts back, he said.
The religion is already misunderstood by many, and every time a Muslim kills in the name of Islam, it undoes the work that many have done to dispel myths and misinformation. The Fort Hood shooter hurt Muslims twice, Salih said: their country and their religion.

"He is lucky he doesn't have to face Muslims for justice," Salih said.

Interesting statement on many levels.

« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

73 Comments

AbdullahMikail | November 14, 2009 9:08 AM

As usual here we go again...Robert, like a broken record, spewing the same old misinformation.

What are we doing? The best thing that can be done, teaching the faith of Islam properly. The Jummah sermon we gave at our local Masjid was based on the first verse that mentions self defense being allowed.

The point underlined however that defense is a duty of hte state not the individual, and it is illegal for any individual to claim they have the right unless they are being attacked and imminent harm must be avoided...that is the only situation where a Muslim individual has the right to self defense.

There is no way to claim an individual right to self defense in pre-emptive attacks on anyone. None.

People with a clear understanding of what Islam commands and the basis and foundation for all legislation in respect to the individual, the group, and the state know that the religion is clear and straight forward in banning any act of violence committed by an individual for any reason other than self defense in the face of imminent harm.

Spin away Robert.

Peace
Abdullah

muzammmil | November 14, 2009 9:11 AM

So Salih requires an "authorotative" statement from a medieval book produced by Robert Spencer to prove that he is wrong about Islam being peaceful. But Anjem Choudhary doesn't need that. Nor does Zarqawi. Nor Bin Laden. Nor Zawahiri. Nor Awlaki. Yet none of these are qualified Islamic scholars (ulama) trained in traditional institutes - they're lawyers, engineers, doctors and educators - i.e. they have secular education. I'm sure any sensible person can see the hypocrisy.

If anybody's fed up with Spencer's lies and clear bias, read the following article for a clear, detailed and informed response:

http://allahisalmighty.blogspot.com/2009/10/violence-in-judaism-christianity-and.html

AbdullahMikail replied to comment from muzammmil | November 14, 2009 9:33 AM

Dear Brother Muzammil,

Excellent referrence material.

Jazak Allah Khair
Abdullah

wopette | November 14, 2009 9:37 AM

Please Abdullah, we keep hearing this yet nothing changes for some reason...Could it be that you do understand full well what Islam is, yet you practice a nicer, gentler version of what you want to believe Islam is?

Or could you be yet another devoted Muslim who believes lying to the kafir is perfectly acceptable if it furthers Islam? Stating their actions are wrong, yet you sit there and offer up justifications for their actions as Muslims...Nothing but two-faced, double talk.

Islamic terrorists use the Quran to justify their actions, so who is right Abdullah? Them or you? They seem to be practicing what Mohammed preached much more so, than compared to the so called moderates like yourself who don't act, but seem to fully support their actions.

Everyone knows what happened at Fort Hood was and is Islamically motivated..Hasan's actions speak more than your words do...

pulsar182 | November 14, 2009 9:37 AM

Maybe all Muslims should immediately go to their nearest "traditional institute" for proper education of their religion...maybe this will help them from becoming "misunderstanders" of the peaceful religion of Islam...apparently their mosques are failing in the responsibility....

Hesperado | November 14, 2009 9:40 AM

Abdullah Mikail (AM) writes:

"There is no way to claim an individual right to self defense in pre-emptive attacks on anyone. None."

Of course there is a way: when the pre-emptive attack is calculated to defend Islam and any crucial aspect of Islam (including, for example, protecting Mohammed from blasphemy). Either he's an extraordinary idiot, or he thinks we are extraordinary idiots, and insults us with such blatantly illogical nonsense.

At the very least, the problem with Islam is that it tends to encourage too many Muslims to a) perceive that Islam is being attacked by enemies; and inexorably, to b) desire to thus defend it with various means of physical violence.

This is the very least, and most generous interpretation, of the problem of Islam, which would allow plenty of wiggle room for Muslim apologists to exculpate Islam, but in return, they would be obliged to concede that there is a considerable cancer or virus that cuts deep to the bone of the body of Islam: i.e., they would have to show a degree of self-criticism and self-condemnation comparable to the profound degree that millions of Westerners have learned to cultivate about their own civilization, whereby you will find Westerners all over the West quite willing to criticize and condemn their own history and even many aspects of their own present, oftentimes sinking the blade of self-criticism to the very bone and heart of their own Western culture and institutions. Throughout the West, in every bookstore whether large chains or small used bookshops, and in every college and high school text-book curriculum, you will find books that criticize and even condemn this, that and the other aspect of Western civilization. No other culture in history has cultivated this amount of self-criticism. Indeed, the evolution of Leftism (and more recently, of that much more influential phenomenon of "Leftism Lite" called PC MC that affects people on all points of the sociopolitical spectrum) in the West is an extraordinary development of internal self-criticism that no other culture has developed. Islam seems incapable of such a development. Instead of self-criticism and self-condemnation in the interest of self-correction and progress, Islam indulges in an obsession with purity and ferreting out "traitors" guilty of takfir if not of irtidad -- this obsession tending to have an effect quite opposite that of self-criticism and corrective self-condemnation: of preventing reform, rather than encouraging it.

But we Jihad Watchers have moved beyond even allowing Muslim apologists that wiggle room, because time and time again they have shown themselves to be unwilling to offer in return that show of acknowledging the need for reform in Islam -- a need, again, that has to cut to the bone, not just be a superficial bandage decorated with nice-sounding phrases of taqiyya. So AM's denial as quoted above is characteristic of that unwillingness to meet us halfway. We've been there and done that years ago with Muslim apologists. We've moved beyond. We don't expect anything from Muslims anymore. There's no debate anymore, because we have been burned too many times expecting a rational response from Muslims, a response that shows they are human like we are, we Westerners who have undergone decades, generations, centuries of self-criticism and self-examination and corrective self-condemnation. Muslims refuse to be human, and instead zealously pursue a demonic path of obsession with what they have been misled to perceive as divine perfection and purity; and therefore they have abdicated their role as partners in any dialogue, discussion or debate. This by itself wouldn't be that much of a problem; we could just ignore them and let them lead their strangely obsessive-compulsive lives as members of some kooky cult amongst us, as we tolerate, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses in our society. But because their obsession with what they have been misled to perceive as divine perfection and purity leads all too often to violence against us, we must do more than merely ignore them: We must find a way to stop them.

The_Gentile | November 14, 2009 9:47 AM

Wow Robert, the trolls were just waiting to pounce, weren’t they?

AM and muza, Robert gave exact refutation of the “spin” by the misunderstanders of their own religion in the article. Your statements refute nothing he has said. Fundamentalism is the sickness of islam, and until this ideology is reformed be purging itself of it’s own commands to use violence to further itself, you’re theses hold no water.

Your insinuence that, in Islam, there is no institution that legitimates absolute doctrinal magisterium to obey the letter, the very word of your deity through your prophet, falls on ears deafened by every explosive set off in the name of your religion (and I see, we’ve had more of that in Pakistan today too).

It would be better for islam to open itself up to debate and discussion and rediscover the plurality of opinions. Instead there are sects hell bent on the anhilliation and/or assimilation of all those who disagree with their interpretations. Until folk like you are ready to accept that you can not singularly delimit the fundamentalisic extremism of the literal reading of the quranic letter by merely saying it is a misinterpretation. Or in your case, a complete denial.

AbdullahMikail replied to comment from Hesperado | November 14, 2009 9:56 AM

“So AM's denial as quoted above is characteristic of that unwillingness to meet us halfway.”

Hesperado, more than you know or will ever admit, I care about every person who visits this blog.

The problem is, there is no “halfway” with you people.

Rather than realizing what the true meaning is and admitting, “Yes, the person featured in this article is in violation of Sharia and thus Islam.” you allude to the religion as being at fault.

When the sign says 55mph it is not the fault of the law if a person is speeding down the freeway at 90 mph, is it? When he gets pulled over does the officer chastise the law, demand the citizen throw it out the window and abandon it because it is faulty and wrong?No, he writes a ticket or arrests the fool. Problem is there are very few “Police” and very many “speeders” in the Muslim world.

But when we discuss Islam and a Muslim who is “speeding down the freeway” when the sign clearly says “55 mph” most who come here have only condemnation, castigation, and raw seething hatred of the law, Sharia, and say the law is to blame, even though it is the fault of the Muslim who is speeding.

In a nut shell, that's the problem. There are so few who police themselves with the standard of Islam that people like you blame the religion because of what a minute group of Muslims are doing wrong, rather than blaming those Muslims for the wrong they are doing.

Self policing is what we are relying on, and, just as you and I know, self policing on American freeways leads to what? That’s right, 90 mph.

Peace
Abdullah

AbdullahMikail replied to comment from The_Gentile | November 14, 2009 10:03 AM

Kaffir,

Obviously you have not read the article referred by Muzzamil.

Give it a read then come back and comment on it.

Peace
Abdullah

sheik yer'mami | November 14, 2009 10:03 AM

I recently had a Mohammedan troll who insisted that, since there is no caliph, there is no jihad.

According to him, the last jihad was called against the crusades, and if it wasn't for the crusades, there wouldn't be no jihad at all and we would all live happily ever after.

'No caliph, no jihad', he claimed: individual Mohammedans are not 'authorized' to go on jihad, was his argument which he repeated ad nauseam.

Sorry, I don't mean to feed the trolls or offer them flares to spout taqiyya, but isn't the jihad permanent and relentless from the day Muhammad invented it because of "I been ordered to fight the people until they say there is no..... and Muhammad is his......."

???

AbdullahMikail replied to comment from sheik yer'mami | November 14, 2009 10:05 AM

Shake,

Context.

Peace
Abdullah

boneshack | November 14, 2009 10:13 AM

"Context", or "out of context" is straight from the Muslim Brotherhood manifesto/playbook:

7. Yell 'foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran' anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

Keep this mind the next time you hear or read "context" or "out of context."

(Credit to Civilus Defendus.)

boneshack | November 14, 2009 10:16 AM

"Context", or "out of context" is straight from the Muslim Brotherhood manifesto/playbook:

7. Yell 'foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran' anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

Keep this mind the next time you hear or read "context" or "out of context."

(Credit to Civilus Defendus.)

Vsch47 | November 14, 2009 10:16 AM

I would think that there is a very good case to link Islam with terrorism:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

traeh | November 14, 2009 10:18 AM

But AbdullahMikail, if Islam is really against such things, then you need to explain why there have been documented over 14,000 deadly attacks carried out in the name of Islam around the globe since after 9/11. Why do so many Muslims in the Philippines (thousands dead from attacks in the name of Islam in the last few years), in Kashmir, in Somalia, in Sudan, in the UK, in Italy, all around the globe, "misunderstand" Islam in the same way?

If we are wrong in noticing this, how much more wrong are the Muslims who do all the murdering? Why don't you explain your points to them? Do you really care what they are doing? Or do you only care about your image in the West?

Muhammad said, in Islam's most canonical texts, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

That's why all the schools of Islamic law call for the death penalty for apostates from Islam. Until you publicly denounce those statements of Muhammad, and publicly denounce the rulings of all the schools of Islamic law on that point (but that would be dangerous for you, wouldn't it, because some Muslims might threaten or even kill you, thus proving you wrong or deceptive about Islam) -- until you denounce Muhammad on apostasy, your opinions about other things should be considered merely the opinions of a murderous religious fanatic trying to sound nice for propaganda purposes.

Vsch47 | November 14, 2009 10:18 AM

I would think that there is a very good case to link Islam with terrorism:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Alarmed Pig Farmer | November 14, 2009 10:38 AM

"(Violence) has no place in this religion," Mohamed Salihsaid said. "There is no god out there that would accept killing innocent people."

*** 92.8 ***

To start, that's a real nice first name you have, Monsieur Salihsaid. You'd be distorting things to deny you're named after a murderer, thief, extortionist, liar, child-humping pedophile sex-jslave trader.

To finish, a few quotes from Awful Allah, the Abomination of Adoration. This god is such a rotten toothed geek that he's not only capable of accepting animalistic behavior, he demands it.

Think of this as a sampler of rotten chocalate stuck on rotten geek teeth encased in a scraggly beard:

*** 9.5 ***

Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

*** 5:41 ***

Whomever Allah wants to deceive you cannot help. Allah does not want them to know the truth because he intends to disgrace them and then torture them.

*** 8:7 ***

Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: 'Wipe the infidels out to the last.

*** 4:77 ***

Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?

*** Ishaq 5:44 ***

Hassan incited the men, reciting: "This is the time for war. Don't feel safe from us. Our swords will open the door to death."

*** Ishaq 5:86 ***

Red blood flowed because of our rage.

*** Tabari 9:69 ***

Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us.

*** Ishaq 4:89 ***

Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing.

*** Tabari 8:141 ***

The battle cry of the Companions of Mohammed that night was: "Kill! Kill! Kill!"

*** 33:21 ***

So there is such a god out there. Too bad the low-browed reporter Baylie Evans is too stupid or too much of an intellectual coward to check a damned fact.

gravenimage | November 14, 2009 10:41 AM

Indeed, as we see here every day, Muslim Misunderstanders of Islam abound. And the funny thing is that they all seem to misunderstand it in the same way.
........................

So true—the "misunderstandings" are so consistent, one might almost think they form their own orthodoxy (and indeed they do).

The "greater jihad" is within one's self, Salih said, against egos and evil within. The "lesser jihad" means actions to defend one's self and family.
........................

Just as Muslims consider "innocents" in a different manner than do Infidels, so it is with the concept of "defense". For a Muslim, it may mean fighting against anything which presents "an obstacle" to the spread of Islam—such as efforts (misguided or not) to create democratic states in the Muslim world.

The religion is already misunderstood by many, and every time a Muslim kills in the name of Islam, it undoes the work that many have done to dispel myths and misinformation. The Fort Hood shooter hurt Muslims twice, Salih said: their country and their religion.
........................

Interesting—no mention of how the Fort Hood shooter might have "hurt" almost fifty of his fellow soldiers and civilians—fourteen of them fataly—at the base itself. The only concern is with how he "hurt Muslims".

And just how did he "hurt Muslims"? Well, for those who prefer Taqiyya and the "slow Jihad", this sort of overt act of Jihad terror has the drawback of making the threat of Islam cso much learer to the Kufr.

muzammmil replied to comment from Vsch47 | November 14, 2009 10:57 AM

"I would think that there is a very good case to link Islam with terrorism"

If you wish to compare acts of violence globally in recent decades committed by Christians in the name of Christianity and Muslims in the name of Islam, you'll find more have perished at the hands of Christians fighting in the name of Christianity. The Rwanda genocide in 1994 of nearly a million Tutsis was actively supported by the church, with priests and nuns advocating it. Since Muslims stayed out of it, and saved in the lives of thousands of Tutsis in the mosques, and the head mufti of Rwanda called for a jihad to heal the racial tensions in Rwanda the Muslim population in Rwanda doubled sinse the genocide (see: Islam Attracting Many Survivors of Rwanda Genocide http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53018-2002Sep22.html ). Now, if you count the number of deaths committed by Muslims in the name of their religion worldwide since the 90s I don't think the number will equate the Rwanda genocide alone.

As a continuation of the Rwanda conflict, the Congo conflict in this decade between Christians of different racial groups has led to the death of five million people. That's more than twenty times the deaths in Darfur yet that gets more coverage in the media.

Count the number of stonings and executions in the Muslim world in recent decades and the number will probably reach a few dozen if that. Yet about a thousand children have been murdered in Nigeria in the last couple of months as a result of the churches and priests declaring them witches and many more tortured - almost 15000 are declared witches and potentially dead. [see Churches involved in torture, murder of thousands of African children denounced as witches, LA Times]

If we add the Iraq War (which had a strong religious backing, especially in the Blackwater group) to Rwanda and Congo, we end up deaths in the millions. The deaths committed by Muslims in the name of Islam in the last couple of decades comes nowhere near.

In the Muslim world, the conflict is a direct reuslt of colonialism: the decision making in the early twentieth century ensured a power struggle would remain between the powerful pro-Western governments and the Muslim majority (see David Fromkin's A Peace to End all Peace). The conflict in places like Chechnya, Bosnia (in the latter part of the twentieth century), Philippines, Palestine, Kashmir are for self-determination, not some global jihad agenda. Yet even so, Muslims kill nowhere near as much as Western governments and governments with Western support (like Israel and Congo).

The_Gentile replied to comment from AbdullahMikail | November 14, 2009 11:25 AM

AM,

Read it. More tripe. The relativistic argument of scriptually inspired violence in the Bible is false. Only islam commands violene be carried out, and that is exactly what is happening today. To say, “…it is untrue to say Islam is the more violent religion” in the face of what is occuring today is absurd.

And regardless of scriptual quotations, the fact is Christianity and Judaism does not use it as an excuse to wage war and ideological dominations TODAY. The parts of the world mostly influenced by these beliefs give that responsibility to the Government. Tell that to the thugocracy in in Iran – another prime example of sand and sodomy.

In the summary, it states Robert’s conclusions are a “fail.” However, in that very summary, my own argument is made, “In Judaism, the Bible was known to command war …” and “In Christianity, the Church was actively involved in invasion and conquest…” See both uses of “was.” Thing is the world grew up, but islam hasn’t.

In Abdelwahab Meddeb’s The Malady of Islam, he put it quite susinctly as I summerize: If you could suddenly gave freedom democracy to the new post colonial islamic nations, they would most certainly elect a fanatical party that would call to eliminat democracy and freedom. We need to look no further than the attempts to curtail women’s rights by the new government of Afghanistan. Or Iran’s revolution to excape a coloniast yoke only to be hijacked by mullah’s to impose their own limits on freedom.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, nobody is invoking the name of the Holy Trinity or just plain God before comminting acts of terror these days. Every allahu ackbar makes my argument, makes a mockary of that article’s position and reveals it for the lie that it is.

PMK | November 14, 2009 11:27 AM

This guy needs to go to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban needs a refresher course in Islam. They still think killing non-combatants is fine and dandy.

PMK | November 14, 2009 11:44 AM

gravenimage,
I had the same reaction to the statement of how the shooter had twice hurt Muslims. (What about everyone he shot?)
But maybe we have to emphasize how these attacks hurt Muslims first and foremost. They evoke in me an abject indifference to suffering and death anywhere in the Muslim world. They think they are impressing us and they are: with their total worthlessness as human beings. There is so much suffering in the Muslim world and, unless the focus is on the non-Muslims being tortured by their Muslim overlords, I couldn't care less.
Every bombing in Pakistan is met with a shrug. Why should any of us care?
THIS is what Muslims are doing. In the end they'll only hurt themselves. If they have no problem with that then why should we worry about them? All we can do is protect ourselves from them. We can't save people who don't want to be saved. We can't help people who don't want to be helped.

gravenimage replied to comment from AbdullahMikail | November 14, 2009 11:44 AM

Abdullah Mikail wrote:

No mention, of course, that in the opinion of many Muslims, an individual waging Jihad is perfectly permissible if there is no state (Caliphate) to declare Jihad on behalf of the entire Ummah.
.....

I'm sure that many readers here have noticed that the Muslim trolls who regularly post at this site sat out the immediate aftermath of the Ft. Hood massacre. Abdullah Mikail weighed in when the shootings were first reported, grotesquely accusing Marisol of being perversely avid over the thought that this might be a Jihad attack.

After that, we didn't hear from him for some time. Now he and his fellow apologists and Taqiyya artists are back, subjecting us to more lies, obfuscations, and general crap.

We didn't buy this stuff before, and are even less inclined to do so now.

mgoldberg | November 14, 2009 11:54 AM

The problem with Abdullah and the other deniers is that.... there is no 'right' and 'wrong'.
There is no way for them to distinguish except as they perceive in the Qu'ran and sira and hadiths... the world for them is believers and infidels.

And submission or death. Enough editorializing... here's a nice article today from Dr A Bostom germane to the discussion.

November 14, 2009
'Islamism or Islam? Islamist or Islamic?'
By Andrew G. Bostom
During the autumn of 1843, in the heart of Istanbul, Turkey, Sir Henry Layard, the British archeologist, writer, and diplomat, witnessed the punishment mandated by Sharia (i.e., Islamic) Law for apostasy from Islam. He described this abhorrent spectacle as follows:

An Armenian who had embraced Islamism [emphasis added] had returned to his former faith. For his apostasy he was condemned to death according to the Mohammedan [Islamic] law. His execution took place, accompanied by details of studied insult and indignity directed against Christianity and Europeans in general. The corpse was exposed in one of the most public and frequented places in Stamboul [Istanbul], and the head, which had been severed from the body, was placed upon it, covered by a European hat.

Layard's narrative demonstrates how in mid-19th century parlance, "Islamism" and "Islam" were synonymous, meant to be equivalent to "Catholicism," "Protestantism," and "Judaism" -- not to radical or fundamentalist sects of any of these religions. Moreover, through at least the mid-1950s, scholars devoted to the formal study of Islamic doctrine and history were still referred to as "Islamists."

Turkey's current Prime Minister Erdogan, commenting in August 2007 on the term "moderate Islam" (frequently used in the West to describe his ruling political party, the AKP) stated, "These descriptions are very ugly. It is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it." Erdogan's displeasure is ironic, even somewhat humorous, given the contemporary Western apologetic obsession to recast the terms "Islamism" and "Islamist" to exclusively denote radical or immoderate Islam and its adherents. But the irony of Erdogan's ire aside, artificial distinctions between Islamism and Islam, Islamist and Islamic are logically incoherent, obfuscating irrefragable truths about living Islamic dogma and its modern manifestations.

The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or "Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam"-- not "Islamism" -- was drafted and ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic-- not "Islamist" -- Conference (OIC), a 57-state collective including every Islamic nation on earth. The OIC, currently headed by Turkey's Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, thus represents the entire Muslim ummah (or global community) and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations.

Its preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC's Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights. The preamble repeats a Quranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Quran 3:110): "Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation ..." The gravely negative implications of this Islamic Law (Sharia)-based document ("There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia") are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, while articles 19 and 22 reiterate Sharia principles stated throughout the document which clearly apply to the "punishment" -- death for so-called "apostates" -- from Islam.

The Cairo Declaration -- entirely consistent with Islamic law -- also introduces unacceptable discrimination against non-Muslims and women while sanctioning the legitimacy of dehumanizing, Sharia-compliant punishments, from flogging to mutilation and stoning.

And polling data from a rigorously conducted WorldPublicOpinion.org survey released April 2007 demonstrate that the Cairo Declaration's Islamic law principles -- antithetical to Western formulations of human rights -- are embraced by the preponderance of the world's Muslims. Fully two-thirds of a representative sample of 4,400 Muslims from Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia desired the ultimate jihad conquest imperatives: to recreate a unified supranational Islamic state, or Caliphate, ruled by "strict application of Sharia."

These quintessential goals of jihad were reiterated by the mass-murdering jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hasan as part of an erstwhile "medical grand rounds" given on June 27, 2007. Although Hasan merely reiterates salient aspects of classical jihad theory (see slides 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 49), this reality is understandably "shocking" to our willfully uninformed elites in the media, military, and government. Nidal Hasan's presentation concludes, in full accord with classical Islamic doctrine regarding jihad war, (slide 49), "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please Allah, even by force is condoned by (sic) Islam."

Unapologetic observations from 1950 by G.H. Bousquet, a great 20th-century "Islamist" scholar of the Sharia, contextualize these ominous trends. Bousquet described Islam itself as "as a doubly totalitarian system," which "claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law ... to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer."

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/islamism_or_islam_islamist_or.html at November 14, 2009 - 02:45:38 PM EST

The_Gentile replied to comment from muzammmil | November 14, 2009 11:58 AM

Muzammmil,

Again, you LIE…lie like a prayer rug. The genocide was not perpetrated by the Church, nor were there any calls of “…the power of Christ compels me (to kill you)…” as a war chant. That war was perpetrated by militants along ethnic lines. If anything, it was the Tutsis who were predominantly Christian. The fact that the hapless unarmed clergy were made defacto co-conspirators by giving over Tutsis who seeked sanctuary is a far cry from ideologically motivated genocide. It was the Hutus who slaughtered the inocent, not in the name of God, but by the likes of the Akazu and other Hutu extremists who, completely along ethnic lines, just didn’t like the Tutsis.

Had you seen the bodies floating in the Kagera like so many starfish from a UN relief C-130, you might comprehend the scope of the crime committed, and not off-handedly LIE about who was responsible.

Question_Everything! | November 14, 2009 12:15 PM

There is a misconception among many non-Muslims that Islam, the religion that Muslims follow, encourages hate and violence. Really, it teaches the opposite, he said.

Yet we rarely see any examples of 'the opposite' but so many examples of the hatred and violence.

A question for the ummah: Do you believe in jinn? Do you think that mohammed flew on a white horse made of fire? Is it ok to be a pedophile like mohammed was?

I'm interested in your answers because I'm not in the slightest bit superstitious and wonder how educated people can believe such nonsense.

Thanks!

champ | November 14, 2009 12:16 PM

"The best thing that can be done, teaching the faith of Islam properly." -- AM

First and foremost ..."teaching the faith of islam" would include teaching the foundations of islam and what it means to be a good and faithful motard, and we all know what THAT entails: lying, steeling, sexual perversion and murder. Every good and faithful muslim must follow their shitty false prophet moturd's evil example.

KrazyKafir | November 14, 2009 12:42 PM

Why would anyone halfway decent want to learn the death cult's vile ideology that was started by a old, sick, sack of garbage whom at 50 years of age married a 6 year old child, and then raped the child at the age of 9?

Why was it that allah/Satan banned alcohol (also a common practice of the day) as haram, but somehow forgot to mention to his spawn of evil that marrying and having sex with a 9 year old children was also haram. Or, at least in anyone’ mind with a scintilla of decency should have been.

muzammmil replied to comment from The_Gentile | November 14, 2009 12:49 PM

"Human rights groups have documented several incidents in which Christian clerics allowed Tutsis to seek refuge in churches, then surrendered them to Hutu death squads, as well as instances of Hutu priests and ministers encouraging their congregations to kill Tutsis. Today some churches serve as memorials to the many people slaughtered among their pews.

Four clergymen are facing genocide charges at the U.N.-created International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and last year in Belgium, the former colonial power, two Rwandan nuns were convicted of murder for their roles in the massacre of 7,000 Tutsis who sought protection at a Benedictine convent."

Ministers preached murder from the pulpits. Is that a lie?

KrazyKafir | November 14, 2009 12:53 PM

What does that have to do with your sack of garbage prophet Molsem? I am not a Christian. Do you have other supposed stories of bad behaviour that have nothing to do with your child raping monster?

undaunted replied to comment from AbdullahMikail | November 14, 2009 1:05 PM

Oh, Slave... you care about even me? I'm touched in the core of my soul. I'm getting a bit misty... bitch.

Robert offered the perfect, entire response to the MT crap sandwich and you brush it off, dismissing it as spin. And why is it spin? Simply because you say it's so.

You are a liar. A known liar, a proven liar, a reliable liar, a perpetual liar. You care about everyone at this blog ~ take me off your care list, boy-lover ~ but, when Robert and Hugh and Raymond and Marisol and Eastview and Dumbles and Wellington and so many others here yank your little undies up into your crotch in a JW wedgie, you've fumed and raged and threatened to flatten us ~ or was it just me? ~ in your gentle magnanimity.

You are wretched and obscene and you can take your version of peace and shove it.

War against your kind
Undaunted

undaunted | November 14, 2009 1:08 PM

Dang. Change MT to WY.

All else stands in situ.

muzammmil | November 14, 2009 1:16 PM

"And regardless of scriptual quotations, the fact is Christianity and Judaism does not use it as an excuse to wage war and ideological dominations TODAY"

Rabbis preach the indiscriminate murder of children, babies and women: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=79947§ionid=351020202 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126890.html

This makes sense based on the teachings of Joshua and Deuteronomy (where the murder of women and children is encouraged, in contrast to Islam in which the hadiths emphatically forbit killing women and children), and why nearly five hundred children were brutally murdered earlier this year in Gaza without a care in the world from Israel. The article you supposedly read clearly mentions IDF Rabbis justify war for Israel in the name of Judaism and Biblical teachings and the "War mitzvah" (milhemet mitzvah).

Christian views of the rapture, apocolypse and the armageddon breed such powerful ideas as Russia being Gog (during the Cold War) and Iraq being the evil Babylon (before the Iraq War) which need to be destroyed. Jerry Falwell wrote supporting the Iraq War "We continue to live in violent times. The Bible tells us war will be a reality until Christ returns. And when the time is right, Jesus will indeed come again, ending all wars. Until that time, however, Christians must live as Galatians 6:2 instructs: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."" Bush's inspirational reading before the war was a book that taugh Biblical apocalypticism. The American army is heavily influenced by Christianity. In Afghanistan they distributed the New Testament translated in the native language to the conquered people. In Baghdad within a couple of years a number of churches were built, and Evangelists boasted that would be the centre from which the Muslim world is Christianised.

You are quite wrong: Christianity and Judaism does use scripture as an excuse to wage war.

The_Gentile replied to comment from muzammmil | November 14, 2009 1:28 PM

These so call men of the cloth may have hijacked the propeties which were churches, but again, this was part of an ethnically motivated crime againts humanity, and NOT a call for congregants to do this in the Name of God, or for any heavenly reward after. And even if a few did wrongly invoke Christian edicts to qualify these murderous actions, it was an aboration, along ethnic lines, and rejoiced in by those outside the region (see the dancing in the streets of Gaza and Lebanon after 9/11). This was an ethnically motived crime first and foremost. The fact that people of faith partook does not prove the faith demanded or sanctioned it, as is repeated every TODAY by islam.

Don’t you think it strange that this is the only recent aboration you can find, and a weak one at that. And some of the clergy and ministers are being brought to justice. Good. Let them be prosecuted for the criminals they are. Lets see if you can find any Christians outside of Rawanda who would agree with their actions, again unlike crimes committed by muslims in one part of the world which are routinely praised in other parts.

By comparison, when the Protestants and the Catholics were killing each other in Ireland, no other Christians outside of Ireland rejoiced, and routinely condemned it. No Christian government smuggled weapons to one side or the other, unlike what Iran and Syria are doing for Hizbollah and Hamas.

KrazyKafir | November 14, 2009 1:38 PM

Moslems: Just look at thier vile prophet, to see them.

champ | November 14, 2009 1:39 PM

"Jesus will indeed come again, ending all wars" -- muzz

The Bible does say that Christ will put a stop to all the madness and to wars at his second coming ...brought on in large part by muhammad and his ilk.

Jesus is a true man of peace, whereas muhammad was not.

The_Gentile replied to comment from muzammmil | November 14, 2009 1:46 PM

West, islam is. Jews and Christians aren’t strapping bombs to their bodies, blowing themseleves up and planting IEDs. And if they did, again I need to say this ‘cause you ignore it everytime, you won’t see the same type of rejoicing in the streets that so oft happens when muslims commit attrocities. That’s it, I’m done. Time for you to go crawl back under your bridge.

ebonystone | November 14, 2009 2:10 PM

Here we go again; a Moslem shooting people by the dozen, another Moslem running down people with his car, etc. while shouting "Allah is great" or handing out Islamic tracts. And we hear the refrain from the apologists: Islam is a "religion of peace"; these people misunderstood Islam.

Yet how strange it is that only Moslems seem to mis-understand their religion in a manner that results in such mayhem and violence. Christians, Jews, and others almost never seem to mis-understand their religions in such fashion. Christians out-number Moslems 100 to 1 in this country, yet there are far fewer such attacks by Christians than by Moslems. As far as Jews, I can't recall a single such event.

PersonOfTheBook | November 14, 2009 2:22 PM

If so many muslims worldwide misunderstand islam, the obvious question is: how can so many misunderstand islam? They ALL believe that the koran is their god's book. And they won't even accept it in any language but the original Arabic.

Isabellathecrusader | November 14, 2009 2:22 PM

"There is a misconception among many non-Muslims that Islam, the religion that Muslims follow, encourages hate and violence. Really, it teaches the opposite, he said.

He deserves to be at the 'bottom of the biggest hell, Salih said."

Yep. No hate or violence here.

Remember, Muslims lie. A lot.

duh_swami | November 14, 2009 3:51 PM

Quran 8:039 (Pickthal)... And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do...

'Fight them 'until'...'Until' can never be achieved, kufrs will never cease, but the order stands...The result...perpetual warfare...

lkeevy1 | November 14, 2009 3:54 PM

the trolls cannot accept the truth about their cult, here we have documented videos of immans preaching hatred towards Christins and Jews and after their bending ass over these islamists cowads leave their mosque and kill the first non-Muslim that happens to have the bad luck to cross their paths. They cannot explain why in the first place the words of mohammud wanting to kill non-Muslims and apposates. how in the world can you take that out of context? no sane educated human being could ever remain a muslim when trying to live a moral life.

undaunted replied to comment from muzammmil | November 14, 2009 4:06 PM

Sure, there are times when the true God commanded the Israelites to destroy certain other tribes, including women and children.

But those wars were always against tribes who had totally turned from God. They were against only that tribe and only for a specific time and place, not a war meant to be waged forever, nor all over the world.

Your historically ignorant attempt at justifying Muslim savagery is stupid. And so are you, Muz-dork.

sheik yer'mami | November 14, 2009 6:00 PM

Garbage by the truckload, from Sheila Musaji @ the American Muslim:

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/islamophobia_laying_the_groundwork_us_vs_them/0016128

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/anti_muslim_rhetoric_reaching_a_dangerous_level/0017729

Im.mad.as.HELL! | November 14, 2009 6:19 PM

Trolls like AM & Muzz only want to argue and engage. This legitimizes them. It also helps them develop their argumentative power. Most of the people on the forum know better and have them figured out. There maybe a few new readers that may buy their argument but most have common sense and will quickly see the deceit and falsehoods that are presented. Why, because they have not been exposed to this cult teaching from there childhood.

Just remember one simple thing.
They are LIARS, LIARS, LIARS just like their father.

traeh | November 14, 2009 6:24 PM

From Sahih Bukhari, the most trusted and canonical hadith collection:

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them...

In other words, if you didn't become Muslim, your blood and property were not sacred to Muhammad. This, along with much else in core Islamic documents, shows that Muhammad's ideology and practice were dictatorial.

And the signing of the totalitarian Cairo Declaration of Human Rights by the 57 majority-Muslim nations in the world (the Organization of the Islamic Conference) shows that Muslims in the aggregate choose, unsurprisingly, to follow in Muhammad's totalitarian path.

Briars | November 14, 2009 6:43 PM

AM:
Why do you waste your time and your theological arguments here when it is quite obvious that there are millions who hold the Muslim supremacist faction of your religion and do more to defame your religion than anyone could on this site?

Here we have talk but your coreligionists act in violence against non Muslims and offer texts and examples from Islam as inspiration for their actions. Don't you think it would be better convincing them then we at Jihadwatch? If you and Muz and all your brainy theological Islamic experts took guys like Nidal Husan to task, then there would be no need for this site.

Your words are falling on more and more deaf ears who are seeking to defend themselves from the misunderstanders of Islam that are defining Islam as a religion of violence by their actions.

Palamas | November 14, 2009 6:51 PM

traeh,

I love how this post right above, as well as the original regarding death for apostasy (you beat me to it) will NEVER be answered by these deceiving clowns. Why? They have no answer and it is such an anti-human practice/politic/proposition, that it is indeed embarrassing.

Muzzamil and Abdullah,

It is due to the above reasoning that no one can take you seriously. You claim to call jihad and the innocents, women, and unbelievers as being treated the opposite as islam teaches (when treated as the koran and hadith say) yet you can't answer the simplest of questions! How perverse is the death for apostasy!? How unholy is the punishment of women, unbelievers, and even your own offspring in honor killings!?

All of these are firmly supported, quranic ideas AKA Shari'a law. And this has been pointed out above, and you know the teachings very well, yet you are ashamed of them. You should be.

Your silence betrays you. Your lies will be eradicated, as they can twist and deform in this world, ultimately their filth will pass away and only goodness will fill its sick void. As I am a man of peace, I pray that all human beings treat one another respectfully and equally and that they discern good from evil, truth from falsehood. Then they will be set free from deception and slander, which means they will look at their fellow human being and see God in him.

Your prophet did the opposite of this, his goals were all self centered, and he rejoiced and taught in this manner. Perhaps you will see the error of this way. We can only hope.

walt | November 14, 2009 7:21 PM

When Muslims talk of peace and love they invariably mean peace of the grave and love of death.

darcy replied to comment from muzammmil | November 14, 2009 8:12 PM

Are you any relation to Metamucil?

veteranoutrage | November 15, 2009 12:41 AM

www.veteranoutrage.com

Statistics dont lie..
Data points dont lie..

and after 12 - 15 thousand Islamic terrorist attacks
all reported and verified by the news media
and many times the Islamic nazis themselves..

I ahve to ask this one question

If all of the 15 thousand terrorist attackers
were just misunderstanders of islam

DONT YOU FRIGGIN ISLAMIC MORONS THINK
YOU BETTER START ON A RE-EDUCATION CAMPAING..

Before a whole shitload of us americans who are TIRED of this
Islamic bullshit begin to defend outselves against your
koran toating muslim TERRORISTS..

Because if one shows up where i work..
i wont call the police ohh hell no
i will grab some bacon i got in small bits size form
throw them at the muslims sorry ass
then blow his ass away,...

ensuring his sorry islamic ass goes right to hell..

So perhaps you islamic nazi idiots aught to start on a re-educatuon campaing..

Morons..
www.veteranoutrage.com

Kinana of Khaybar replied to comment from sheik yer'mami | November 15, 2009 1:16 AM

sheik yer'mami,

“I recently had a Mohammedan troll who insisted that, since there is no caliph, there is no jihad.”

Present them with this:

"Result 3 from 6
The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 - By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK O: JUSTICE >> Chapter O-9.0: Jihad
O-9.6
It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o-25), no permission is required)."

[End of quote]
emphasis added.

These apologetics about "the caliph is needed for this, and the caliph is needed for that" are not relevant--unless there is in fact a recognized caliph. If there's no caliph, Muslims are still obliged by the Quran and Muhammad's example (as described in the Hadith and Sira) to "command the right and forbid the wrong."

Also,

"Result 5 from 6
The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 - By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK Q: [Imaam Ghazali's] COMMANDING THE RIGHT AND FORBIDDING THE WRONG >> Chapter Q-2.0: WHO MAY COMMAND THE RIGHT AND FORBID THE WRONG LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY

Q-2.3: Having the Caliph's Permission
Some scholars stipulate that the person delivering the censure must have permission to do so from the caliph (def: o-25) or his regional appointee, and do not grant that private individuals may censure others. This is untrue, for the Koranic verses and hadiths all indicate that whoever sees something wrong and does nothing has sinned. Stipulating that there must be permission from the caliph is mere arbitrary opinion. One should realize that there are five levels of censure: explaining the wrong nature of the act, admonishing the person politely, reviling him and harshness, forcibly stopping the act (such as by breaking musical instruments or pouring out wine), and finally, intimidation and threatening to strike the person or actually hitting him to stop what he is doing. It is the latter level, not the first four, that requires the caliph, because it may lead to civil disorder. The early Muslims' invariable practice of reprimanding those in authority decisively proves by their consensus (def: b-7) that there is no need for a superior's authorization. If it be wondered whether a child is entitled to reprove his father, or a wife her husband, or for private citizens to reprove their ruler, the answer is that all are fundamentally entitled to.
We have distinguished the five levels: the child is entitled to explain the nature of the act, to admonish and advise his parents politely, and finally may censure at the fourth level by such things as breaking a lute, pouring out wine, and so forth. This is also the sequence that should be observed by a wife. As for private citizens with their ruler, the matter is much graver than a child's reproving his father, and citizens are only entitled to explain the matter and advise."

[End of quote] emphasis added

Note that violent intervention is mentioned above in the 9.6 section on jihad, i.e., no caliph, the issue of permission is moot/academic/irrelevant. Muslims are obliged to seek knowledgeable Muslims for advice, but ultimately must rely on their interpretation of the Quran, Hadith, and Sira. Indeed, if the caliph is un-Islamic or "unjust," Muslims have to overthrow him.

Lastly, consider this quote from the Reliance of the Traveller, in light of Nidal Hasan's beliefs, claims, and actions:

"There is no disagreement among scholars that it is permissible for a single Muslim to attack battlelines of unbelievers headlong and fight them even if he knows he will be killed."

sheik yer'mami | November 15, 2009 3:49 AM

Thanks, Kinana.

I am of course aware of the central command to wage jihad until the people submit and say the shahada or are killed.

I also have the 'Reliance of the Traveler' - which enables us infidels to get a much better understanding of Moe's killing cult than any Mohammedan headbanger in the land.

Just wondering: how many of us Jihad watchers will be in the future US government?

Thanks again!

Battle_of_Tours | November 15, 2009 9:28 AM

And they add that both Muslims and non-Muslims can misunderstand Islam, usually by taking verses of the Koran that mandate violence against unbelievers "out of context."

Isn't it amazing how many Muslims can take their Koran "out of context" and commit violent crimes in its name, while we non-Muslims read the same "out of context" and understand the texts for what they say -- to commit these jihad crimes against us. When so many things are "out of context" do they fall inversely "into context" for the True Believers? Non-Mulsims beware of their "out of context" deceits, for "war is deceit" seth Mohammed. In final context, it is violence against reason, and against all humanity.

bigcatgirl13106 | November 15, 2009 12:08 PM

THANK-YOU Robert Spencer for SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER!

One of the best things about this website is that it gets the word out about Islam and violent jihad against non-Muslims. Keep up the good work Robert and God Bless.

bigcatgirl13106 | November 15, 2009 12:22 PM

Ignore the trolls when the come to here, because they just want to spin lies themselves.

ThinkThrice | November 15, 2009 4:58 PM

The very fact that there are Muslims in CHEYENNE WYOMING is disturbing enough. Does Dodge City Kansas have a mosque also? Santa Fe New Mexico, Tombstone Arizona? If having Muslims and mosques in the old west towns doesn't seem strange to you then consider yourself culturally cleansed, multiculturally brainwashed, dead of spirit.

Wintergreen000 replied to comment from AbdullahMikail | November 15, 2009 10:37 PM

As usual here we go again...(Abdullah Mikhail), like a broken record, spewing the same old misinformation.

Yes, that phrase really does describe you pretty well.

proxywar | November 15, 2009 11:38 PM

Salih made two interesting statements...

1.) "bottom of the biggest hell."
2.) "He is lucky he doesn't have to face Muslims for justice."

1a.)If I'm not mistaken Major Hasan also made a reference to people belonging in Hell? Ironic, how Salih tells us Hasan misunderstands islam yet he also talked about someone belonging in hell. Are they both misunderstanders of islam?

2a.) We all know what Sharia Law proscribes as justice, what is interesting though about that quote is what did Hasan do wrong to warrent Islamic Justice? Salih's pretense? Most-likely.

proxywar replied to comment from Wintergreen000 | November 16, 2009 12:45 AM

"Rwanda genocide in 1994 of nearly a million Tutsis was actively supported by the church, with priests and nuns advocating it. Since Muslims stayed out of it, and saved in the lives of thousands of Tutsis in the mosques, and the head mufti of Rwanda called for a jihad to heal the racial tensions in Rwanda the Muslim population in Rwanda doubled sinse the genocide."

You produced some evidence now let's talk about it.

Let me get this straight. You are comparing todays global jihad to a retrospective local ethnic conflict supported by a christian church at the time? However, Jihad is perpetual and it is global today. It's supported by the Qu'ran,ulema,madrassas,mosques and the mainstream Ummah. You can't be selective with your jihad, buddy. Therefore, You aslo have to admit like you did about Rwanda's jihad that you agree with Osama bin laden's jihad against the West. You have to admit Osama is doing the right thing according to islam.

Moreover, Muslims have killed 2 million people in durfur. Including other muslims they consider Apostates. How many died in rwanda? Between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Can you count?

You just admitted that your sham of a religion has a pretext for waging war. The argument I submit to you is; any religion that preaches violence or Wages War for whatever reason can not be considered a religion at all.
It has to be consider a threat to humanity. Side note: Interesting how Muslims doubled in size in Rwanda post-jihad.

The argument wasn't about who killed more of who it was about the number of GLOBAL ATTACKS against Governments going on today. A majority of which belong to Muslims.

When the christians and jews declear war on America
I will consider what you have to say. However, they have not done this. They are not looking to replace my president with a calphate. So until then, stop with the lying and double talk.

AbdullahMikail replied to comment from traeh | November 16, 2009 9:57 AM

Traeh,

Again, you people always disregard context. Yes, in your attempts to dismiss that valid claim you almost always blurt out “Oh, yeah, here again the “context” apologist!”

It is true, though, and that’s the part that irks the most. Every time one of you pulls up a hadith it is out of context because the true meaning and context of the issue being dealt with by the hadith is never what you intend when you convey it. You pretend there is a universal application to every hadith you dig up.

Let’s test you on this one and see if you can tell us the proper context:

You wrote, “Muhammad said, in Islam's most canonical texts, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Okay, lets see if you can put it into context, shall we?

What was the scene and setting and to whom did Mohammad speak and about which person who apostatized was it spoken and what was the political and military position of the Muslims at that time and, the most important, what was the period of the revelation, basically, at what stage was the Quran revealed to at the time of the hadith?

Is it safe to say that you know none of the above?

If you can answer these then you would not have pulled it out of context and quoted it the way you did.

Context, it isn’t everything, but it ranks up there with oxygen.

Peace
Abdullah

P.S. Responses from people who can put it into proper context:

#1) Responding to the question, Dr. Jamal Badawi, Member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research and the Fiqh Council of North America, states the following:

There are scholars who distinguish between apostasy on a personal level, which is not punishable by death, and apostasy that is accompanied by what we call today high treason, in which case the punishment is for high treason, not for apostasy.

However, some scholars do not distinguish between the two types. The issue pertains to the way of interpreting texts in the Qur’an and the Hadith that deal with that subject. A detailed answer to this question requires many more pages and Allah willing it will be made available in the future.

As for the second question, minority rights under Muslim rule is summed up in the rule “for them (minorities) are rights like ours and on them are responsibilities like ours.”

Furthermore, the Qur’an clearly protects the freedom of belief (Al-Baqarah: 256). It also protects the right of worship and respects all places of worship (Al-Hajj: 40).

#2) Moreover, Sheikh Muhammad Nur Abdullah, ISNA President and Member of the Fiqh Council of North America, adds:
In brief, Islam believes in freedom of choice. Faith itself is a choice in Islam. The Qur’an states: [No compulsion in religion…] (Al-Baqarah 2: 256). All have the freedom to practice their own faith without harassment or any kind of threat.

The history of Islam proves this very well when Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in dominant Islamic societies. We can contrast this to the Muslims who lived in Christian Spain when they were persecuted and prejudiced against on account of their faith.

Second, anyone has the right to choose to convert to Islam or keep practicing his faith. But once a person converts to Islam, he should practice his faith and never change it. If he changes it, it is a major sin. Whether it is punishable by Islamic law is a debatable matter among Muslim scholars. Some believe he should be punished because they count this crime as betrayal, while others say that if someone changes his faith and does not challenge the Islamic society, they consider it a private matter between him and Allah and it is not punishable by the Islamic faith according to their view. However, both opinions agree that it is a sin punishable by Allah and that it is the worst form of sin.

AbdullahMikail replied to comment from The_Gentile | November 16, 2009 11:00 AM

Kaffir Kanuck,
You wrote: “AM and muza, Robert gave exact refutation of the “spin” by the misunderstanders of their own religion in the article. Your statements refute nothing he has said.”

It would be a waste of time to explain the uselessness of addressing each misrepresentation Robert makes to you, because what we have here is a tactic Robert often uses, when he cannot overcome with quality, and he is unable to do this, he will try to overwhelm with quantity.

He throws out a big smoke screen of out of context references and snippets that seem to agree with his radical opinion, and when called out on it he hides behind dissembled media reports with the ever handy, “The Jihadists say this themselves, not I!” and yet one must trust him on this as there is never a reference for the article and individual “jihadist” who “says this themselves” posted to back up every out of context quote he makes.

In the end, if her were to do this, each radical he referred to could be directly addressed and their actions proven as not supported by Islam in any way…which is most of what I see posted here.

But back to Robert and his game, in order to address each and every misperception, and misquote Robert throws out would take more time than you people have because there is a knowledge base missing in your minds…Robert does not have it himself, has no formal training whatsoever in Islam, hadith sciences, etc. None. So he himself is unable to properly frame what he is attempting to “teach” others…he is a charlatan who profits from his ventures and has a cash incentive to see hi points “proven” and lend himself false credence by referencing texts that he cherry picks out of context and presents in order to make it seem as though they agree with his radical postion.

And thus his loyal followers state, “You can’t refute him!”

To which I reply, “You don’t have the patience to bear the lesson, and are unable or unwilling to learn enough about Islam in order to understand how wrong Robert is and how wrong many people are when they agree with him.”

Peace
Abdullah

JeffS | November 16, 2009 11:17 AM

Do you know why it's illogical to say the Robert and other posters here have taken the quotes above out of context?

AbdullahMikail replied to comment from JeffS | November 16, 2009 2:06 PM

Jeffs,

Okay, I'll take the bait.

Why?

Peace
Abdullah

dumbledoresarmy | November 16, 2009 8:35 PM

I see no reason to assume, from his answers here, that 'Abdullah Mikail' would not cheerfully and with an absolutely clear Muslim conscience murder out of hand (were he to have the means and the opportunity) Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Canon Patrick Sookhdeo, Magdi Cristiano Allam and little Rifqa Bary, etc., all for their having committed (in his opinion) the capital crime of Treason by having publicly and noisily defected from the Muslim Mob, or Ummah, and joined the Non-Muslims (whether as Christians or as atheists).

And that, my friends, tells us all that we need to know about the Slave of Allah, formerly Michael Mackay.

I don't think you'll find *him* outside the courthouse in Ohio, defending Rifqa Bary's right to life and her right to freedom of conscience.

proxywar replied to comment from AbdullahMikail | November 16, 2009 11:00 PM

@Abdullah

My favorite muslim who is guilty of shirk. Who still will not renounce the Hadith I see. Let's be honest you aren't here to debate anyone. You're only here to slap your propaganda down and ask loaded questions. Spencer ignores your nonsensical scribbling for a reason.

You seem to live in a theological only-world. So, let me help you understand the reality of Isalms theology in action.

The late Sudanese theologian Mahmud Muhammad Taha tried to reform Islam by attempting to minimize the role of the Qur’an as a source of law in Sudan. He wanted to devise new laws to better accommodate the Sudanese people of the twentieth century. Needless to say that the religious authorities in Khartoum did not take kindly to his attempts. He was declared an apostate in 1968. Under Islamic law, his punishment was the death penalty. His writings were burned and he managed to escape execution for seventeen years. When he was seventy six years old, he was tried again and was hanged publicly in Khartoum in January of 1985. In Conclusion, The grim reality for a modern Muslim regarding apostasy is that its death penalty is rooted in the Qur’an and in the Hadith. Such a punishment for a behavior that is not a crime at all, but a right that any human being of our time should enjoy, cannot be a morally justified punishment. One should be able to change religious beliefs if one wants to without the threat of being killed.

I could post up all the theological evidence in it's correct context but that wouldn't make a bit of dam difference to you. Nor does it matter because the fact is these lawful-verses are carried out. You are an immaterial slave of the Islamic religion and as such we must psychologically dissect you. Think of yourself as a psychological case study from here on out.

Now Abdullah, deny this reality like you deny the Qu'ran, Muhammad, and Omar. Tell us with a straight face that all these muslims misunderstand Islam. Which begs the question,
If Islam can be so misunderstood (as you claim) then there is no point in trying to follow it. Of course, you are illogical and will disagree, but that is the nature of Muslims. After all, like any other religion Islam was built on illogical claims and unproveable assertions.

proxywar | November 16, 2009 11:16 PM

"Some believe he should be punished because they count this crime as betrayal, while others say that if someone changes his faith and does not challenge the Islamic society, they consider it a private matter between him and Allah and it is not punishable by the Islamic faith according to their view. However, both opinions agree that it is a sin punishable by Allah and that it is the worst form of sin."

Ie. Robert is not lying.

AbdullahMikail replied to comment from proxywar | November 17, 2009 5:32 AM

proxy,

"I could post up all the theological evidence in it's correct context but that wouldn't make a bit of dam difference to you."

You were asked to frame a single hadith in proper context and verify its meaning and failed to do so.

Recall:

You wrote, “Muhammad said, in Islam's most canonical texts, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Okay, lets see if you can put it into context, shall we?

Is it safe to say that you know none of the above?"

You can not even prove your salt with this one simple request.

"Ie. Robert is not lying."

True. Robert hides behind many veils, and is able to string together many "truths" that lead to one big lie.

Peace
Abdullah

AbdullahMikail replied to comment from dumbledoresarmy | November 17, 2009 5:40 AM

DDA,

I have nothing but pity for the people you listed.

That you arrive at and express this opinion, despite the volume of evidence against it as expressed in my own personal comments about these people, you have proven to me that you are hysterical, you have lost your mind, you have no ability to review evidence and arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

“I don't think you'll find *him* outside the courthouse in Ohio, defending Rifqa Bary's right to life and her right to freedom of conscience.”

She is a child who was deceived by people from outside of her family who have insidious designs against them. Once she is 18 she is free to do what she wants.

Peace
Abdullah

proxywar replied to comment from AbdullahMikail | November 17, 2009 7:28 AM

Oh abdullah you keep ignoring my arguments.

This will be the fouth or fifth time I've refuted you.
None of the Hadiths are relible sources. Thus, their imput isn't relevant. However, you still provide my point with or without it. Now listen, you just admited above "Some believe he should be punished because they count this crime as betrayal. Both opinions agree that it is a sin punishable by Allah and that it is the worst form of sin." I'm skipping through your nonsense to get right at the heart of the matter. In this case you zealously revealed your hand. You admitted the above exists in Islam. I presented modern facts to back up your claim you made in the quotation marks above, of which you clearly ignored just like I claimed you would. Hence, the Hadith redherring.

Are you only capable of thinking theologically? Even you just proved you can't do that correctly. When are you going to learn everything you say is contradictory?

Salaam, Abdullah the Shirk.

proxywar | November 17, 2009 7:41 AM

"True. Robert hides behind many veils, and is able to string together many "truths" that lead to one big lie."

Sort of like how you hide behind the Hadiths which came 250 years after Muhammad?

Perhaps, robert and youself are one in the same? Perhaps, according to your own logic you're both misunderstanders of Islam? Which leads us all to one huge lie?

undaunted | November 17, 2009 8:15 AM

Slave; you are still a delusional liar if only because of your claim to be a boxer of some repute, and the threats to us, which you attached to your silly claim.

You are lower than whale shit.

Foolster41 | November 17, 2009 5:29 PM

"She is a child who was deceived by people from outside of her family who have insidious designs against them. Once she is 18 she is free to do what she wants."

You believe she was "decieved", could it be only because they are Christians? she was a Christian before she met these people she ran to.

If this was the other way around, a Christian girl who turned to Islam and ran away and then made to return home when she said she didn't want to (and claimed her father was going to kill her for changing her religion) would you feel the same way? Would you say she was "decieved" by these Muslims?

Do you beleive she is lying when she said her parents threatened her? Do you beleive this claim should be excused out of hand or investigated?

FrontPageMag.com

Books by Robert Spencer

The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert Spencer

Islamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian Future

Muslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer

The Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks

“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
— Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
— Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
— Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
— Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
— Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
— Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
— Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
— Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
— Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
— Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
— Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
— Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
— Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
— Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
— Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
— Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
— New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
— Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
— New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
— Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
— Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
— Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
— Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
— Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
— Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
— Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
— Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”