Washington Post prints soothing lies about Islamic law's treatment of non-Muslims

In the light of these considerations, Dr Khan's example of St Catherine's letter is misleading and unfortunate. Dr Khan must surely be aware that scholarly opinion does not regard this document as genuine. It is almost certainly a forgery, created to bolster the security of the Christian monks of the Mount Sinai Monastry.
......................

And now, this desperate dhimmi forgery is being used, not to bolster the security of Christians or any other non-Muslims, but rather to lull them into a false sense of security regarding Islam.

The *best* one can hope in this situation is that Dr. Khan is a lax and shoddy scholar, and believes his own falsehoods.

That the *Washington Post* would print such a piece may point to their own shoddy journalism, to a vain hope that any Muslims reading the column may believe that Mohammed may indeed have had peaceful intentions toward Infidels, and act accordingly, or—worse yet—that any whitewashing of Islam is acceptable, and desirable, no matter what its source.

It certainly sounds like Dr. Khan's piece certainly has its problems and lapses. While his heart may be in the right place, it sounds like he does need to brush up on facts and provide a more thorough presentation of this subject matter.

But I fail to see how Dr. Khan's lapses allow for and excuse the lapses of Dr. Durie and Jihad Watch.

Pacts and treaties - such as the Pact of Omar - are not in and of themselves a juridical basis for immutable, eternally binding sharia law. Either Durie knows this or he should. He seems to fail to carefully, incisively outline this, and what parameters this understanding enables for greater possibile freedom and rights for non-Muslims within the scope of sharia law. For that matter, I have never noticed Jihad Watch properly note this, which it should be doing as well.

Speaking of JW, you seem to have this nasty habit of throwing out terms like 'liar' and 'lies' without ever providing solid proof in support of the charge. There is nothing principled about this, and anybody who feels free to do so has no basis for claiming to be any kind of defender of Western truth.

So here's a New Year's resolution for JW: no more claims about liars or lies unless it is accompanied by solid, clear proof. And that doesn't just mean that you can prove the information was untrue, but must also show that the interlocutor knew it was false and deliberately stated it in order to deceive.

'Muhammad's promise to Christians'

This doucment's lack of authenticity is shown clearly by the fact that not a single Moslem government has ever followed its guidelines on dealing with Christians. Surely, if it was truly the word of Mohammed (the perfect man, and a model for all believers, doncha know?) it would have been followed by most, if not all, Moslem governments.

Finally ! There are solid arguments saying this document, which is so totally out of character, is actually a forgery. This actually could also be a reason why this document, which states clearly and ambiguously that christians are to be treated with respect, is used so rarely by Islam's apologists in defence of the violent cult and it's depraved, cruel founder.

Fairuzfan, You would do well to remember that serious readers of this site are studying primary texts of Islam themselves. I have myself read the Sira written by Ibn Ishaq. So, don't try dissimulation here. We all know (and can quote YOUR sources) what all Mohammed ordered and did against non muslims !

'tell and retell positive stories' about each other, and 'abstain from mutual demonization'.

'Can't we just all get along'? That's Rodney Kingism...
It's Rasool Obama-ism...It's PC ism...It's doomed to failure...

The answer to the question is ...NO...Dar al-Islam is not supposed to 'get along' with dar al-harb...Dar al-Islam is not supposed to 'get along' with kufr...Dar al-Islam is supposed to fight, kill, and beat dar al-harb and the najis kufr that go's with it...Until the entire world worships Allah Q 8:39...The above quote sounds good, lasts a long time, and does nothing...

Dissimulation, huh? That's quite a charge, Sanjay. How about actually trying to back it up by showing what I stated in my post that isn't true.

And what exactly are my sources? If you know them, then how about quoting Quanta Cura, Immortale Dei, Quas Primas, and Dignitatis Humanae, and inform me as to what you have learned about Muhammed through your careful examiniation and reading of those texts?

Over the years muslims have concocted absurdly false stories
about islam and mohammad; this is one of those stories.
1John2:22
Who is the LIAR ------- this is the antichrist that DENIES
the Father and the Son i.e.allah,islam,mohammad,muslims.

fairuzfan wrote:
"Pacts and treaties - such as the Pact of Omar - are not in and of themselves a juridical basis for immutable, eternally binding sharia law."

So what? Supposedly 9:29 is immutable and eternal.

fairuzfanwrote:
"Either Durie knows this or he should. He seems to fail to carefully, incisively outline this, and what parameters this understanding enables for greater possibile freedom and rights for non-Muslims within the scope of sharia law."

Why should he have to? The fact of the matter is that this "greater possible freedom" isn't in practice or accepted in theory within any mainstram dominant movement in any Islamic Republic, where Shariah is employed. Why should Durie point out that although it really sucks now for non-Christians, that it might get better? That is a job for Islam apologists.

"For that matter, I have never noticed Jihad Watch properly note this, which it should be doing as well."

Why, because you say so? JW, just to be fair, should engage in Islam apologia because reform may possibly come in Islam regarding dhimmi status because the pact of Umar is not immutable and eternal?

That's absurd. Next you'll tell us that Robert shouldn't comment on anything Muslims do or say that are supported by the Hadith because that is not divine either and subject to interpretation and possible change, even though it hasn't changed in almost a thousand years.

Nonsense.

This would be unfair to Muslims, because they could not quote from the core texts of Islam--the Koran, Hadith and Sira--which offer much colorful inspiration for the slaughter of Christians, Jews and "pagans."

Since the Christian canon was written centuries before Muhammad lived, it has nothing to say about Muslims. Christians would merely need to refrain from quoting from various texts written by Christians living under the oppression and frequently genocidal conditions imposed by Muslims following sharia law.

Obviously, this Muslim writer is being unfair to himself! But what sacrifice in the name of peace! Or does he simply prefer to keep Islam's Final Solution quiet, as did the Nazis with theirs?

Your 'so what' attitude, Awake, does not seem to do meaningful justice to the complexities and particulars under discussion here.

I am no Quran expert, but I fail to see how 9:29 in any meaningful way covers anywhere near the entire scope of the contents of the Pact of Omar.

No, I have not and will not be telling Mr. Spencer anything regarding the treatment of Hadith as subject matter, if for no other reason than my understanding is that authentic hadith nabawiya are immutable and eternally binding.

And no, my key central point isn't simply a function of fairuzfan saying so.

It is a function of ethical and professional propriety directed at both JW and Dr. Durie that any campaign to highlight and address problematic features in a major world religion's traditional teachings and/or the present-day behavior of some of its adherents should be properly placed within a responsible context that carefully discerns between various teachings, various levels of authority, distinctions between immutable teaching and transistory interpretive applications, as well as furnishes proper comprehensive balance, refrains from flitting between the empiricial and theoretical for the apparent purpose of gratuitous bashing, and carefully treats the subject matter by intricately establishing distinguishing criteria between a crime intrinsically rooted in normative theology versus one that happens to be committed by an adherent.

If you have any questions, Awake, let me know. And if you can conclusively prove that JW is fully adhering to all of the above, I will graciously give my assent.

Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, pp. 194-5:

"The above is not the only version [of the Covenant of Umar]; others are cited in varying degrees of length, although all agreeing on the general terms. It is hardly necessary to prove that the text of 'Umar's covenant was not the product of 'Umar's time, but the work of later generations; for, it will be observed, several of its restrictive provisions are not in accord with 'Umar's instructions to his commanders. For several of these clauses are the product of intolerance and oppression, not of toleration.

The Covenant, however, has juridical significance, because it provides us with a law as codified by the classical jurists and was regarded by all (i.e., by ijma') as the definitive law governing the relations of the dhimmis with Islam. The juridical validity of this law superceded any possible doubt that might by cast as to its historicity."

Khadduri, pp. 199-200:

"The caliph al-Mansur removed all the dhimmis from the administration, and al-Mutawakkil, reputed for his hostile attitude towards them, ordered all the churches and synagogues built after the Islamic conquest to be pulled down. The dhimmis, in order to obtain more concessions, made unfounded claims. A case in point is that of Mount Sinai. A false document is alleged to have been made between the Prophet Muhammad and the monks in the year A.H. 2 for the purpose of keeping possession of a church. Some of the Muslim governors, on the other hand, went so far as to declare that the early compacts with the dhimmis had become obsolete and should be cancelled; and some jurists-theologicans, including al-Ghazzali, advocated a humiliating treatment of the dhimmis for persistence in disbelief."
[And Robert D. Crane calls al-Ghazzali "probably the greatest Islamic thinker of all time", see here: http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/part_3/0014839]

Muslims are allowed to lie with impugnity whenever necessary to confuse and lull kafirs. Islam's Koran, Hadith and Sira tell the truth. Islam is a political doctrine of sociopathic hatred of non-Muslims.

Only ignorant fools today refuse to learn the truth, simply by reading Mohammed's words in the Koran, Hadith and Sira. It is Written! Inshallah.

Dr Khan's intellectual Jihad is using weapons much more dangerous than the swords, spears, arrows and armies of the 7th century.

His choice of weapons in his mental Jihad for the submission of the infidel's mind are allegedly, misrepresentation, forgery, deception, human psychology, platitude, positive advertising, marketing and crafty salesmanship.

At some point the kufr will get trapped in one of the many well hidden snares which he lay open in the battlefield of the mind to make things appear as though they are, but in reality they are the exact opposite. Once the infidel is effectively fooled, his will to search for the truth is turned off by deceptive "niceties" and taqqiya has taken deep root. Now the infidel is mentally asleep or defenseless. His virus protection is off and soon will be outdated. It will take much more evidence and education to reawaken his defenses to "sense" a lie and to be convinced of the real dangers that Islam poses to the west.

The Koran says "war is deception", lest we forget!

Fairuzfan, I read your comments now and it seems a number of others have already answered you. So I will avoid repetition.

I have studied the Sira of Ibn Ishaq. I come across tales of cruelty by Mohammed regularly in the Sira. The specific ones have already been treated extensively on this site and others and really the onus should be on you to bring something new to the debate.

I will mention only one for sampler - Koran clearly says that not believing in the prophet and continuing to follow the path of paganism, as well as attempting to seduce Muslims from their religion to paganism are crimes worse than slaughter even in sabbath. The stock reply of Islam's apologists to all such quotes is: Read the context. I read the context in Sira. The clear implication of the whole episode and Koran's relevant verses is - if someone does not follow Islam and / or attempts to convert Muslims to non - Muslim religions, his crime is so bad that he should be killed !

How do you reconcile this to freedom of religion and equality of humans ?

Obvious;y Dr Khan can't!

fairuzfan - a lie is a lie, no matter what the motive. Unfortunately, the greatest lie is when you lie to yourself because you can't stand the truth. Know, this day, that you stand for a lie, even if you have the greatest motive of peace, you propagate the lie.