WaPo: Do critics actually read the Koran? Uh, yeah

He read the Quran, called it an "accursed book" and once held it up during a session of Parliament, declaring:
"So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world."
William Ewart Gladstone (1809–1898)
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/05/accursed-book-le-livre-maudit.html

Rashid notes the need to quote whole passages of the Koran, rather than cherry-pick certain phrases: "The rest of 2:192 adds: 'and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing,'—explaining the right to reclaim rightful property."

But his completion of verse 2:192 only makes his case weaker: it would limit Islam to Mecca and Medina alone. If I remember the Moslem story correctly, Mo and his first followers were driven from Mecca, and took refuge in Medina, so Mecca was the only place that they had been "driven from" and thus had a right to re-take. So what gave them the right to invade the Eastern Roman and Persian Empires? Those countries had not "driven out" any Moslems. And what Moslems had been driven from Spain, West Africa, India, the East Indies, et al?

Qasim Rashid's piece in Wapo depends on people not having read Al Qur'an, and then believing his pack of lies without bothering to turn a page of that plagiarized hate-filled book.

However, for the curious, but the disinclined reader, here's Islam and Al Qur'an brilliantly explained in around 8 minutes and 10 seconds. Join the over 2 million people who have watched this video, so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w

"Aggression" is often defined by Islamic commentators as a refusal to accept Islam or allow for the establishment of the Islamic state.

With the mahoundian definition of innocence (and Mein Qurampf 5:32) in mind, aren't we also committing acts of "aggression" by "being guilty" of rejecting allah and its child-molesting alter-ego mahound?

The problem is not that infidels don't read the Qur'an, it's that Muslims don't.

There is a wonderful site named Islam Watch run by ex-muslims. On the site, ex-muslims share their testimony about leaving Islam. In most cases, muslims lose their faith after reading the Qur'an. Typically, the Qur'an is taught in Arabic, a language that the vast majority of Muslims do not read or speak. When the typical apostate is challenged by ayas from the Qur'an, they usually get a copy of the Qur'an translated into their native language and discover the truth. Their iman has been lying to them about Islam and (surprise, surprise) the infidels have been telling the truth.

Don't burn the Qur'an, get a Muslim to read it.

The writer says it is unfair to call the Koran violent, but then goes right on to acknowledge that it is violent, but he argues the violence is commanded honorably, so we should be appreciative of its violence. So the Koran isn’t violent, but it is. Got it. Only a Muslim could think in such a scrambled way.

At least he acknowledges that the Koran is a “book of laws.” In other words, the Koran represents a system of government, not just a religion. Sounds like a good argument in favor of the state-level anti-Sharia initiatives, not against them.

So, Sharia is the law of the koran,is it? Can't we just read Sharia law to get an accurate reflection of the koran?

oops, seems to be a small problem there... he doesn't even see the glaring contradiction; if the koran has only good words, then, where did those nasty Sharia laws come from???

Maybe Rashid needs to read Sharia law?

There are lies, damned lies and ... then there is the Koran.

The Koran, which tells you the truth. Read ALL its violent verses. You will be surprised by what they say. Do you believe what Koran apologists say, or believe your 'lyin' eyes?

Ramadan is upon us - a time of fasting, charity, prayer...and fighting off Islamophobia.
.........................

It is also the month of Jihad. That's something you won't likely hear from Qasim Rashid.

More:

But stay with me, I promise to address the criticism and not just criticize the critics. First things first, critics aside, why should non-Muslims in general even care to read the Koran?
.........................

Well, the major reason we should read it is to educate ourselves about the threat of Islam. Somehow, I doubt that's what Rashid has in mind, though...

More:

Well, consider our American leaders as an example. On the surface, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama might seem vastly different in policy. But, these presidents have each read the Koran. Jefferson, a Founding Father, valued his personal Koran. Bush, a conservative Republican, called the Koran “a very thoughtful gift.” Obama, a Democrat who is not a Muslim, studied the Koran, even as a child. Jefferson, Bush, Obama—why not follow their example?
.........................

What misleading crap. Thomas Jefferson read the Qur'an as part of his fight against the Barbary pirates—in other words, he read for the Qur'an for the *exact same reason that modern anti-Jihadists do*. While I read very widely out of general interest, this specifically is why I read the Qur'an after 9/11.

I don't know the context of the President Bush quote. In any case, though, describing a book as "a very thoughtful gift" is *not* necessarily the same thing as approving of the contents of the book itself—something any vaguely socially-competent person would realize.

As for Obama, while he *may* not be a practicing Muslim now, he *certainly was* as a child. He was registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim, and had Qur'an class *specifically on that basis*. It's not as though Obama studied the Qur'an as part of some sort of general religious studies class.

More:

But the problem runs deeper. Pew reports the American Muslim approval rating is well below 50 percent. Pew also reports that less than half of Americans surveyed even know a Muslim personally. And, at least 17 states have proposed legislation to ban Shariah Law, i.e. the law of the Koran.
.........................

The implication here is that 'Mer'cans is jist as ign'rint as dirt. This is crap. Firstly, quite a few Americans *have* read the Qur'an—certainly, most of those proposing bans on Shari'ah law have.

Secondly, those that haven't can still see the fruits of Islam—Jihad terror attacks, oppression of Infidels, the stoning of women...one need not be a Qur'anic scholar to see how vicious the Muslim world is, and that such savagery is—in the words of the Jihadists themselves—perpetrated *in the name of Islam*.

More:

In a time of soaring unemployment, international strife, and plummeting public education, and a debt-ceiling crisis from...a very hot place, one out of every three states is spending tax dollars on what basically amounts to a Koran ban.
.........................

So—Rashid is admitting that banning the horror of Shari'ah law is tanatmount to banning the Qur'an? Is this something he really wants to do? Despite the well-known freedom of religion in the United States, many Muslims do indeed believe that they cannot fully practice Islam freely until they can by law oppress Infidels and women, practice polygamy and forced child marriage, amputate the limbs of petty thieves, and stone "adulterers" to death in the streets.

Seems that even in these times of dire fiscal crisis, that it might be worth spending a few bucks to ensure that such horrors never become law here.

More:

I wonder, then, how many have bothered to read the Koran to learn about Islam firsthand? The optimist in me believes this is due to a lack of access, not promotion of malice. But the realist in me asks, ever heard of Google? In fact, here’s a free pdf copy.
.........................

Thanks for the copy, Rashid. I checked—this does not appear to be a bowdlerized copy—it has the passage lauding "striving in the path of Allah" (waging violent Jihad), passages about "slaying and being slain" (waging suicide attacks), and the Sura of the Sword. Some of the commentary does attempt a whitewashing of the verses, but still—is Rashid *sure* he wants Infidels to read these verses?

Or does he just hope liberal guilt will kick in reflexively, and his readers won't actually bother to download the handy text?

More:

And if nothing else, long live the Golden Rule. Muslims read the Bible and the Torah and Islam proudly testifies that previous scriptures contain truth. (I personally own—and study—a copy of each). Let us do unto Muslims…
.........................

More crap. There *is no Golden Rule in Islam*. In addition, of course Muslims believe that "previous scriptures" contain "some truth"—the Qur'an is in large part a bastardized version of those scriptures. Rashid does not mention that where those scriptures differ from Islam, that Muslims believe that Jews and Christians deliberately falsified their own texts to thwart Islam.

*That* would put a rather different spin on his implications of "Kumbaya" interfaith harmony, no?

"And if nothing else, long live the Golden Rule"

I can not believe that this guy is talking about the Golden Rule and islam in the same breath. The Golden Rule does not exist in islam. Anything that comes close ultimately only refers to fellow muslims. This should be a damning indictment of islam. This is not a Christian vs. Islam debate either. This is a Christian, Hindu, Baha'i, Taoist, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Buddhist and just keep going vs Islam debate. But I do agree with the sentence,

"And if nothing else, long live the Golden Rule"

"Then, 22:41 commands Muslims to protect all houses of worship—cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques—to secure universal religious freedom. Such intolerable hatred, no?..."

I notice he didn't mention Hindu or Buddhist Temples in there. (Because they don't even have the choice of submission and tribute, vile as it is.)

Oh I hope more and more do read the Koran. And really take an interest in learning about just who this Muhammed was and the things he did.

I've read the Ko-Ran, and, given the plain language it's written in, I understood it.

*** 2:191 ***

And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.

Maybe old Dubya was right when he said Islam is a religion of peace, you know Salaam and all that. Never mind the fact that the religion took the word Submit! as its name, that's just a matter of style.

What we've learned here is that a billion Moslems are mistakenly forgetting the key phrase in bold black above, they've screwed it up the part about defending their land and are instead invading lands.

*** 33:21 ***

Besides that, like a president's children, the Ko-Ran is strictly off-limits. When you question a religion's book you become a rank amateur impersonating an esteemed theologian. If you say that Moslems are a disaster cuz of the Ko-Ran, you don't know what in the hell you are talking about, you are just stirring up trouble.

Proof: there are violent passages in the Old Testament, especially Leviticus. So it's the same. If you can understand and appreciate the beauty and wisdom of the Bible or the Avesta or whatever, you have no choice but to see the wisdom and beauty of the Ko-Ran.

Simple as that.

White skullcap alight in the noon day sun as I lay my prayer rug onto the dirt next to a hog pen, I kneel on it and prostrate myself, going up and down holding my arms out like Superman does when flying, and intone:

Salami. Salami. Baloney.

*** 33:21 ***

(Ed., not all salami is made from beef; much of it is made from pork product or a mix of beef and pork product.)

I have read the book several times. I'm struck by the difference between what the Bible says about God and what the Koran says about God. A few years ago CAIR advertised an offer for a free copy of the Koran so I wrote and they sent me a copy. They sent me "The Message of the Quran" translated and with notes by Muhammed Assad. It's a very expensive, beautiful volume. I have read it about 4 times and pondered the explanations Assad wrote. Islam teaches that the book cannot be rightly understood by someone who is not very well versed in Arabic. Even as I read it and the notes, I was struck by the absolute brutality of it. No, that doesn't mean there are no beautiful passages in it, there are, but it doesn't take away what it says about Christians, Jews, women and warfare. As we look at our world I'm struck by what Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruit. The fruit of Islam is rotten. Even if only 20% of it is rotten, its still rotten. There are those of us who read it, look at it's prophet, observe how Muslims treat others and reject it. In Christianity when the Baptists and Methodist disagree about what the Bible teaches we dispute and debate it. We might even raise our voices. When Shiites and Sunni's disagree it leads to massive bloodshed. And they continue doing so for hundreds and hundreds of years. Plus, they don't seem to learn from their mistakes. To sum it up, The last straw is slitting the throat of of the little 8mos. old little Jewish baby for no other reason than he was Jewish.

I bought a koran at a thrift store. Went through it a few pages at a time (I can't believe it was both boring and horrific at the same time) Highlighted all the "punish the unbelievers" and I used the marker so many times the pages are soaked with yellow.

The article is breath-taking for its skewed information.

I must admit that I was never able to get very far in the Koran, although I'm not a bad reader. As Churchill wrote about Mein Kampf: "the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message."

"And if nothing else, long live the Golden Rule. Muslims read the Bible and the Torah and Islam proudly testifies that previous scriptures contain truth. (I personally own—and study—a copy of each). Let us do unto Muslims…"

So, Qasim, why is the Bible banned in Saudi Arabia, and which version do you read?

Well, I have run into Muslims who read the Bible--varied categories of seekers, none-too-devout, the curious, and apostates in the making. But I don't see English-speaking Muslims saying that the King James or New English Bible is a good place to find support for a doctrine. And, how do they welcome the Bible in Pashto, Dari, or Panjabi in Afghanistan or Pakistan?

Qasim Rashid "So here’s the $1 million question: Do critics actually read the Koran?"

I've read the Quran multiple times. I can concur with Sam Harris that the book is loaded with hateful verses. As Sam Harris writes in The End of Faith, after citing numerous such verses,
"On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers. On almost every page, it prepares the ground for religious conflict. Anyone who can read passages like those quoted above and still not see a link between Muslim faith and Muslim violence should probably consult a neurologist."
Here are some online Quranic examples of what Harris is talking about:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/inj/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/int/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/cruelty/long.html

Qasim Rashid actually doesn't refute the claim that the Quran is a book that is loaded with hatred. He doesn't, perhaps because he knows he can't. Nevertheless, he is betting (correctly) on the likelihood that most people reading his article have never read, and will never read, the Quran and probably will not notice or take him to task for failing to even address the claim he set up.

Qasim Rashid says "But stay with me, I promise to address the criticism and not just criticize the critics."
This is deceptive, misleading at best. He doesn't address his own claim re hatred. He instead tries to address a different criticism regarding military aggression versus defense, which, btw, he doesn't explain in terms of how those terms are understood.

He complains that verses such as 2:192 (or 2:191 in most numbering systems), with "slay them wherever you find them" are taken out of context by critics. Yet he does the same, taking the verse out of the textual context of the Quran, and telling us nothing about the context associated with it (as described, purportedly, in the Hadith and Sira), as the Quran itself is lacking in such context. He also tells us nothing about what he, or Islamic scholars, think the terms in the verse mean.

Here's the whole passage:

2:190-194. "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil)."

Anyone who would read such a passage and conclude that they have nothing to be concerned about from those Muslims who insist on following such verses precisely "should probably consult a neurologist" (to borrow Harris' phrase).

Notes on the above passage:
-"wrong-doers" (main translation of al-ẓālimīna,
الظالمين, note the z is variously transcribed as dh or th) or "evil-doers" or "the unjust" or "oppressors" (cf. Qasim Rashid's "aggressors", which is a less-frequently-used apologetic interpretative translation): all non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam now that Muhammad has delivered the message (in the Quran) are wrong-doers according to the Quran. According to the Quran, disbelieving Islam is considered the worst crime. It is considered an act of aggressive defiance and disobedience to Allah.
Anyways, as Robert notes, ""Aggression" is often defined by Islamic commentators as a refusal to accept Islam or allow for the establishment of the Islamic state."
Likewise for "oppression"; it not only covers what we would normally consider to be oppression, but extends further to include any significant opposition to Islam, jihad, and sharia. Opposing Islam in any significant way is considered wrong-doing, oppression, aggression, etc., against Allah, Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims. "Unjust" --again, basically anything significantly contrary to Islam or Islamic law.

-"persecution": the word here is fitnah, which has been interpreted in various ways, generally as some form of significant opposition to Islam, whether violent or non-violent. Another usage refers to internal strife among Muslims, but the 2:190-194 passage deals with the Muslim response to fitnah caused by non-Muslims against Muslims.

-"hostilities": again, any kind of significant opposition to Islam is deemed to be hostility of the worst kind. Criticizing Islam, according to most Muslims today, is considered an extremely hostile act. Most Muslims in the U.K., for example, want at a minimum for those who criticize Islam to be criminally prosecuted and punished. The fact that the Islamic texts tell us that Muhammad ordered his critics and satirists to be killed gives us some idea of what is considered grounds for the use of lethal "retaliation" in Islam. Hence the classic sharia penalty for blasphemy is death.

Qasim Rashid: "Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama might seem vastly different in policy. But, these presidents have each read the Koran."

I doubt that Bush or Obama read the Quran. They may have read a few parts here and there. I think it's plausible that Jefferson may have read the whole thing. Though if they have read the Quran and don't see a connection between violent applications by some Muslims and the text, which instructs Muslims to hate non-Muslims and to behave violently toward them, with or without any real provocation (e.g., 9:29), they should "probably consult a neurologist."

Qasim Rashid: "How else could he [Sam Harris] so effectively pick and choose parts of verses to successfully develop his argument? It’s not like he’s making money off it…oh, right."

Rashid picks and chooses parts of verses to make his point. Rashid is making a living off of Islam apologetics such as in this article, where he fits right in with Washington Post's political agenda. At least Harris is honest in what he writes. Anyways, the fact that Rashid is a hypocrite doesn't invalidate his argument. What invalidates his argument is that he has failed to provide any support whatsoever for it, and he attempts to lie to the public about how these verses are understood in mainstream Islam and how this is reflected in the attitudes and behaviour of most Muslims.

Qasim Rashid: "Norweigian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik killed 76 innocent people in a demented campaign to destroy Islam."

If you read the manifesto, Breivik wants to destroy "cultural Marxism/multiculturalism" which he considers a hate ideology like Nazism. He says he wants to contain Islam in the Muslim world and essentially ban it in Europe. He specifically advises would-be followers not to target or harm Muslims intentionally. (Apparently he doesn't mind mass deportations). He seems to have little interest in destroying Islam, intellectually or otherwise, as long as Islam and Muslims are kept out of Europe. Indeed, there are many things about Islam which he admires and seeks to emulate in his own utopian vision of how society should be.

Here's Breivik on the Quran, in regards to Al-Qaeda, a group which he admires and seeks to emulate:

"al-Qaeda (and similar Islamist groups) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
- Ideology: Global Jihad
- Political effect: substantial
- Reason for success: If Muhammad was alive today, Usama Bin Laden would have been his second in command. They follow the teachings of the Quran and as such have more than 100 million sympathisers and supporters. Superior structural and methodical adaptation, True Islam appeals to many Muslims. Al-Qaeda’s relatively unknown but most important achievement is the fact that they have made moderate Islamist organisations more approachable by expanded the radical political axis. This legitimised several Islamist groups and therefore changed the very definition of “extreme Islam”. Several Islamic political
entities that used to seem radical now seem moderate. As such, they work in tandem with the so called moderate Muslim organisations. They all have the same goal, conquering everything non-Muslim."

Here's Breivik on the Quran, in regards to inspiration for violent attacks:
"Learning the ability/rituals to motivate yourself and being able to follow this ritual on a daily basis is perhaps the most essential aspect of our armed resistance effort in phase 1. One of the reasons why Muslims are so effective at guerrilla warfare is that they keep themselves motivated by praying five times a day and reciting motivational Suras from the Quran."

Breivik even recommends cooperating with Al-Qaeda to kill non-Muslim European civilians.

I am highly impressed by the work of JW, and the kind of comments that I see here which align with recommendable awakening.

Some few 'one eyed men in the land of the blind' - the likes of Qasim Rashid are grooving in their dream to finish the work of Qu’ranic deception for their 'honorable' prophet Mohammed.

”The difference between a violence Muslim and a non violence Muslim is that the former is self-possessed; but the latter - a silent operator”

The truth has come to prevail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w

Qasim Rashid: "In fact, 22:40 establishes the rules of war, “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged.” Then, 22:41 commands Muslims to protect all houses of worship—cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques—to secure universal religious freedom. Such intolerable hatred, no?..."

-the rules of war are derived by all the verses in the Quran and all the relevant parts of the hadith, and then are established in Islamic law.

-it is intolerable hatred, and worse--cold-blooded murder--to fight (q-t-l; kill) people over religious ideological differences, where the Quran and hadith claim that Muslims have been "wronged" (z-l-m) by non-Muslims, yes. (see my above discussion of wrong-doers, etc. The classical jihad policy is that when Muslims invite non-Muslims to embrace Islam and the latter refuse, Muslims, if they have the means to do so, are to respond by waging military jihad, fighting and killing the non-Muslims, until the non-Muslims either embrace Islam or accept the terms of the pact of surrender [dhimma], a policy which is in part based on Quran 9:29 and on the Hadith).

-22:41 (or 22:40 in the standard numbering) does imply that destroying buildings including places of worship was considered as a bad thing. However, this is phrased in the past tense. It is not a command saying never destroy non-Muslim places of worship under any circumstances. Moreover, Qasim Rashid's argument fails utterly when we consider the fact that Allah/Muhammad himself ordered and approved the destruction of the so-call Mosque of opposition. By this example, any building, religious or otherwise, can be destroyed if the people using it are deemed to be in significant opposition to ("true") Islam, jihad, and sharia, and are not otherwise "protected" by an Islamically-defined treaty. Take a look at how churches and other places of worship are treated in the Muslim world.

Qasim Rashid is very bothered by Islam critics and is not troubled at all by the Quran. This tells us a great deal about Qasim Rashid.

'Pew reports the American Muslim approval rating is well below 50 percent'

Gee, I wonder why that is?

Qasim Rashid: "And that is one thing the Koran is -- a book of laws."

Whew! That's a relief. And here I was worried that Rashid was going to say the Quran was a book of about inner struggle and had no legal, military (see above), or political relevance whatsoever. I'm so relieved that he is suggesting that he supports sharia law.

Yes, the Quran is a book containing some law-giving verses or those giving legal precedents. Here's a few examples:

5:33 "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom"

5:38 "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise."

24:2 "(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement."

33:60-61 "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbours in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."

2:221 "Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe: A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allures you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the Fire. But God beckons by His Grace to the Garden (of bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His Signs clear to mankind: That they may celebrate His praise."

Yes, what a relief, how reassuring, to find that Qasim Rashid is suggesting that he accepts all these wonderful laws in the Quran. And how reassuring that he is being so open and honest about this, and addressing people's questions and concerns without hiding anything or dodging any issues or criticisms. He is truly a great Muslim.

The question to ask these leftists neo-libs is if they read the Quran and if so why do they deny the truth about Quran and Muslims. Not only they deny that Quran is hateful and violent promoting book, they justify the viloence of those Medina passages. Are these PC/MC liberals delusional or brain dead, or liars, or hypocrites or all combined in one? their PC/MC motives have actually blinded them so badly they cannot see the truth even if it stared them in their eyes.

Expose the truth about Islam and Muslims regardless of what the MSM and PC/MC liberals continue to say.

It's worth clicking on that link to the "free pdf copy". The commentary is an attempt at whitewash, but it cannot disguise the Qur'ans moral mediocrity.

It might possibly convince someone who (a) read it presupposing the Golden Rule and (b) didn't know the historical background.

Do dhimmis and apologists read the Quran?

Well if he really wants us to apply the Golden Rule to followers of Islam - do unto others...... wouldn't we have to bomb, stone, amputate, rape, pillage and many of the other fabulous behaviors muslims practice - wouldn't we have to do that to them? Just saying.......

To go with the very helpful essays that Gravenimage and Kinana of Khaybar have posted in this thread, here are two articles that persons new to this site and this subject may find instructive.

The first is by an apostate from Islam, 'Abul Kasem' (originally from Bangladesh), entitled "When is Islam Oppressed?"

http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/IslamOppressed.htm

When is Islam Oppressed?
by Abul Kasem
20 Nov, 2005

The other item is an essay entitled 'Islamic Dictionary for Infidels'.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/islamic-dictionary-for-infidels.html