David Wood: The Qur'an in context: "Fight those who do not believe..." (9:29)

Great . I used to know a Mrs Plum, who, at the time of Lockerbie, was a teacher to a number of the students on that flight. The poor lady was in ruins from that day on.

replace "nonsense" with "lies."

Buraq, thank you for your comments. As a pastor of a church for over 20 yrs. when I first came there they were used to 25-30 minute sermons. But mine usually ran 45 minutes. What to do? I just kept doing things I always did, but published an extensive set of study notes to help them stay focused. After about 6 mos. all the complaints stopped. I was a trainer for the police dept. and headed the gang unit. I used this same principle when working with cops. It worked fine. You are right however, most American's watch a lot of tv and about every 10-15 minutes there is a commercial break, so that's how long they focus. It really is a shame as early Americans could focus on 1 1/2 to 2 hrs. Mr.Woods video was informative, funny, slightly disturbing and absolutely necessary. I hope folks will keep watching until they get used to 30 minutes of uninterrupted teaching. Good day to you.

I agree it might be too long for many people, but it was just the right length for me and really felt like 10 minutes. There are 10 minute videos on the Internet, I think there should also be 30 minutes videos that are more detailed and persuasive. The 10 minutes videos sometimes seem to me too superficial and don't deal with the arguments made in defense of Islam (like the context argument David persuasively deals with here).

You wrote: '...I was interested in the historical evidence to suggest that dhimmitude and, by implication jihad, were practically abandoned and forgotten in the Ottoman Empire of the early 19th C.'

Jihad abandoned and forgotten in the Ottoman Epire!? Heavens above! From 1301 until 1922, the Ottoman Empire was drenched in the blood of non-Muslims.

Google it!

Buraq,

You silly ass, Buraq :¬)

If you check the second of the links that Robert gave to the quran blogging text you will find this included:

"In Baghdad in the early nineteenth century, Sheikh Syed Mahmud Allusi (1802-1853), author of the noted commentary on the Qur’an Ruhul Ma’ani, complains that the Muslims have grown so weak that the dhimmis pay the jizya through agents, rather than delivering it themselves on foot. In his Tafsir Anwar al-Bayan, the twentieth-century Indian Mufti Muhammad Aashiq Ilahi Bulandshahri laments that “in today’s times, the system of Atonement (Jizya) is not practised at all by the Muslims. It is indeed unfortunate that not only are the Muslim States afraid to impose Atonement (Jizya) on the disbelievers (kuffar) living in their countries, but they grant them more rights than they grant the Muslims and respect them more. They fail to understand that Allah desires that the Muslims show no respect to any disbeliever (kafir) and that they should not accord any special rights to them.”

In other words, jizya and dhimmitude were no longer practiced at that time. This is why I am interested in the differing implementations of the fundamentalist islamic law and the reasons for them.

Well done, gravenimage. Would that your depiction of that terrible reputed night be seared into the psyche of everyone left in the West who has not yet lost their common sense due to PC/MC nonsense.

I noticed in your depiction that poor Aisha didn't even yet have breasts. Fitting. Telling. Damning.

I also relished your visual characterization of Mohammed as just a too hairy old bastard who could, by no stretch of the imagination, be a babe magnet by any standard to women who have not lost their self-esteem and who have real choice still left in their life. If ever a dirty old man existed, Mohammed is Exhibit Number One, whether fictional or real, since the character of Mohammed is what really counts in any final analysis applied to Islam (again, destroy Mohammed and you destroy Islam).

Hope you're doing well, my friend. As always, I look forward to your posts. Take care, pal.

Gravenimage,

While I understand the message you're conveying, and the truth about Muhammad needs to wake people up.

As a retired sailor, you can imagine that I'm not a prude, but in my mind it does cross that line.

Perhaps if you could dress them up in some manner that doesn't detract from the message without being so blunt.

Just a thought.

I'm confused.

I found it uncomfortably shocking too, but I'm stumped as to how the picture could be made more "tasteful" without blunting the shocking message.

While it's not something I'd hang on my lounge wall, I think the image gave a necessary message. It brought home Ayesha's own understated account of that moment.

"... And then I realised that I was married."

Well done, gravenimage.

Not such good news, Buraq. It's never good news to know that someone has arrived in Hell.

For I take no pleasure in the death of an evil man, says the LORD. I would rather he repent and live. (Ezekiel 18:23)

MV,

You quote 9:29 [I add numbers to the elements]...

"YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in [1] Allah nor the [2] Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by [3] Allah and [4] His Messenger, nor [5] acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

...and then you add your interpretation:

"From what is being said
1. fight the Atheists."

It doesn't say atheists in particular. You can be a theist, believing in god or gods, and still violate any of the items I've noted, in that, first, you don't accept [1] Islam's version of God or [2] Islam's claims about the Last Day. Also, if you are a theist, and you refuse to forbid [3] what Allah and [4] His Messenger had forbidden, you are a non-believer, a non-Muslim, not a true believer, according to the rest of the Quran. If you are a theist and you don't [5] acknowledge that Islam is the religion of truth, you are a non-believer.

The Quran states that Muslims should fight polytheists, Christians, Jews, and hypocrites and apostates of Islam. However, it doesn't say anything specific about fighting atheists. Because there were probably not many atheists around at the time the Quran was produced, the Quran itself doesn't have a specific set of policies directed at them. Atheists obviously fit in the general category of disbelievers, and would be treated no better (probably worse) than Jews and Christians.

"2. Dont worry what God has commanded, His Messenger has overruled Allah."

It doesn't say that. (One might interpret that, from a critical perspective, Muhammad appears to be overruling or at least using "Allah" as a handy sockpuppet, based on an overall reading of the Islamic scriptures, but 9:29 doesn't say what you are claiming).

"3. Do not acknowledge the TRUTH these People of the Book, espouse even though you know it is the TRUTH.(this involves a flight from conscience, for Muslims)"

Not a flight from conscience, unless the Muslim actually believes that the People of the Book are telling the truth on matters of God and religion where the People of the Book differ from Muslims.

"4. When they willingly pay the jizya, and suffer humiliation, Muslims can acknowledge the TRUTH the People of the Book suffer so much for, (this is part of their religion is never practiced)."

No, the purpose of the dhimma (besides extracting wealth etc.) was to stamp the stigma of guilt, blame, on the non-Muslim dhimmis, to remind those dhimmis of their guilt and inferior status for rejecting Islam and Muhammad, and to remind Muslims of their superiority over the dhimmis. The Islamic view is that the dhimmis are guilty of errors of the worst kind (though not quite as bad as outright apostasy or overt idol-worship), while Muslims have the true religion.

"Basically this verse is saying athiests must die, that the People of the Book can have no kingdom on Earth, as that is Muslim, and the People of the Book can have their kingdom in Heaven, and Muslims have given up Heaven for filthy lucre."

It suggests that non-Muslims are either to be (a) fought and killed, or, if they surrender, then (b) subjugated and forced to pay jizya.

The People of the Book will not be permitted into Islamic paradise according to the Hadith, and as suggested by the Quran itself (e.g., 3:85, 9:30, despite apologetic da'wa regarding Q 2:62 and 5:69, which refers to those People of the Book who like Islam and who then convert to it). Anyone who doesn't believe in Allah and the messenger Muhammad is going to be punished in Hell-fire (Q 48:13).

SteveA55,

It doesn't surprise me that there were Islamic jurists in the 20th century who bemoaned that the full dhimma was no longer enforced. (There are elements of the dhimma, or policies inspired by it, that persist). I am skeptical of the claims that non-Muslims were treated better, in any Islamic country. Regarding the 19th century example you cite, I suspect that any apparent reductions in the dhimma and jihad were due to pressure from the West, and that the reductions were resisted by the ordinary Muslim population. Bostom, as I recall, has written on this issue.

Whatever signs of progress may have appeared, temporarily, due to Western influence, they were lost by the end of the 20th c. due to the decades of Islamic revival, which are still continuing.

...StevenA55, e.g., re the Ottoman empire in the 19th century, Bostom says:

"Compared with the other Muslim empires, dhimmitude under Ottoman rule was not substantively different (as can be gleaned from excellent analyses referenced in my summaries here and here). Yes, there is a reformist movement in the mid-19th century which begins to take hold, but the reforms are passed grudgingly and are referred to as ‘capitulations’. The European powers, western and Russian, were intervening primarily to improve the plight of the Christian minorities (very little was done for the Jews). But these reforms were never fully implemented because they went against the Sharia. There have been many scholarly analyses of the failure of these reforms, literally up until the Ottoman empire dissolved. There are several essays written by the Ottomanophile Roderick Davison (which I refer to in both books) that are honest about the failure of the Tanzimat reforms. He notes that these reforms were not appropriately implemented as late as 1912. And of course, in its final convulsive years during World War I, the Ottoman empire committed a Jihad genocide against the Armenians, and other Christian populations. So how Schwartz can make these claims I don’t know. Regardless, his claims have no merit."
http://www.jewcy.com/religion-and-beliefs/interview_andrew_bostom

Bostom also has other articles online on this topic.

I struggle with the same quandary, Buraq.

A lot of the material that Robert writes or David speaks is preaching to the coir. It’s not that it isn’t excellent insight into the inner workings of Islam, and it’s not that it isn’t all quite necessary, it IS – it’s just that most of it will never reach the average Joe Kuffar’s brain, because he or she will not allocate the time required to properly digest it.

What is desperately needed is small, bite sized pieces, which our fellow infidel can digest inside of ten minutes. A few years ago I wrote several “leaflets” that attempted to address this issue. One was on the Qur’an and the other was a biography of Muhammad. Each was written to fit on the front and back of a single page. This way you could provide additional information to a casual acquaintance with only one, neatly folded, piece of paper.

On my "to do" list is to write one of these, contrasting the ideals of Western Civilization, with Islam. The paper should simply elucidate the basic tenets of Islam and explain why and how these ideas are directly opposed to and at war with, every founding principle of the West.

gravenimage, your drawings work.

I have just returned from a dance recital in which my 9 year old niece performed, as well as many other young girls. When I think of these delightful young children and how they would be violated and destroyed under Sharia – rage is much too small a word to describe the emotion I feel.

Muhammad RAPED children! To Muslims he is the “model of conduct”. We should say this loudly and often, to our PC/MC friends. Do it for the girls.

gravenimage:

You did just a superb job! The image is disturbing and masterful in its expression. I was particularly impressed with the way you managed to put an evil, lecherous look on mo's countenance and a look of abject terror on Aisha's. The body positioning was genius, no specific body parts showed, but the situation was dramatically and accurately portrayed. I loved the horrific amount of body and facial hair on mo, compared with Aisha's baby-bottom smoothness.

BRAVISSIMA ! ! !

CGW

With respect, your post to me mostly answers the question you asked in your first post! Ergo, you didn't really need to ask it.

However, on the topic of 'tame' Islam in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century: If you were a non-Muslim, you'd hardly've noticed. The 'millet' system - which entrenched the idea of a segregated 2nd class of citizens who had to pay jizya - shows that there was no sign of ameliorating the sufferings of the non-Muslim population.

Add to that the "Bulgarian Horrors", the systematic massacres of thousands of Bulgarian Christians by Ottoman forces in 1876-77, and you've got the typical blood, blood, blood, frenzy that obssesses Islam.

Also, the Ottoman Empire was occupied by problems on its borders with Russia, as well as signs of growing revolt by Armenian intellectuals. There were also problems with the Janissaries that was solved through assassinating their leaders. All in all, the Empire was crumbling.

So, far from Islam becoming temporarily 'reformed' or 'civilized', it was simply a time for reorganization and re-loading of weapons. The result of that was the Armenian genocide, of course.

By the way, Buraq is not an common ass, he is a rather special creature who can fly - nay (neigh!), soar! Mind your manners. :)

Well bucked Buraq, and that comes from a fellow nag. ;-)

Hi, Gravenimage ...

Your artistry is amazing and the message profound!! a picture really is worth a thousand words. Brava!!!

:)

Steve,

Thanks for brightening up the place a bit!

You're welcome GeeGee, sorry, CeeGee!

Nothing like the odd groan-inducing pun to let some air in the place and force a weary chuckle or two.

"...most American's watch a lot of tv and about every 10-15 minutes there is a commercial break, so that's how long they focus."

Those damned Americans again!

Wellington, thank you so much for your kind words about my art.

PRCS wrote:

Gravenimage,

While I understand the message you're conveying, and the truth about Muhammad needs to wake people up.

As a retired sailor, you can imagine that I'm not a prude, but in my mind it does cross that line.

Perhaps if you could dress them up in some manner that doesn't detract from the message without being so blunt...
........................................

PRCS, I understand your discomfort. As I mentioned, I wrestled with how to present this. But beyond a point, depicting this scene cannot help but be disturbing, because *child rape is disturbing*.

I certainly understand if you have issues with my work, or disagree with my depiction.

I just want you to know that I was not being gratuitously distasteful.

Diana Summers, Davegreybeard, CGW, SteveA55, and Chanp, thanks so much for your comments.

Davegreybeard wrote:

I have just returned from a dance recital in which my 9 year old niece performed, as well as many other young girls. When I think of these delightful young children and how they would be violated and destroyed under Sharia – rage is much too small a word to describe the emotion I feel.

Muhammad RAPED children! To Muslims he is the “model of conduct”. We should say this loudly and often, to our PC/MC friends. Do it for the girls.
................................

I know how you feel, Dave. And little girls are still suffering all over the world because of the "Prophet's" vile perversions.

When I posted the drawing over on photobucket, I got this message from Rezali Mehil, a Muslim apologist who has been leaving her comments here at JW quite frequently of late:

"What a disgusting person you are for attempting to portray something that was holy matrimony ordained by Allah SWT into this. - Shame on you kufr"

So—creating a drawing critical of child rape is "disgusting" and something to be ashamed of, but child rape itself is "holy".

*These* are "Muslim values".

SteveA55 wrote:

Referring to your drawing. Now I would suggest that the reality must have been even uglier than your restrained and somewhat tasteful representation. All according to trusted Islamic sources, of course. So what exactly is she complaining about?
........................................

Hi Steve. Her only complaint—besides my having depicted the "Prophet" in the fist place—was that I was *critical* of child rape. Notice she has no trouble waxing eloquent on the subject her-but in *praise* of child rape.

And I agree that the reality of child rape is even ugly than what I showed.

More:

It's clear that allah also ordained mass murder. How would she respond to one of your depictions of one of those events?
........................................

Let's find out. Here's my depiction of the "Prophet" beheading the Jews of Banu Quraza tribe, where there were reportedly as many as 900 victims:

http://s478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/gravenimageartist/?action=view¤t=BanuQurayza.jpg

My guess is that if this were described as a glorious victory and execution of perfidious Jews, it would be just fine, but being flippant or critical would be regarded as completely Haram.