Relax: New study claims that Islamic supremacists don't desire world domination

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said, “Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.”

Omar Ahmad, the cofounder and longtime Board chairman of the influential Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood front group known as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), has said that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God's law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world....The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari'ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: "Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book...is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah." Nyazee concludes: "This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation" of non-Muslims.

A Shafi'i manual of Islamic law endorsed by the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University in Cairo? It says that the leader of the Muslims "makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax," and cites Koran 9:29 in support of this idea: "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." ('Umdat al-Salik o9.8)

Wishful Thinking Alert: "Study: Muslim extremists not looking for world domination," by Adam Levine for CNN, July 10 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Muslim extremists are more concerned with defending against foreign intrusion than foisting Islam on the world, according to a new study of extremist texts. The study suggests that a Western approach of claiming extremists are seeking world domination is misdirected, and instead should seek to counteract claims of victimhood.

"Continued claims to the contrary, by both official and unofficial sources, only play into a 'clash of civilizations' narrative that benefits the extremist cause. These claims also undermine the credibility of Western voices, because the audience knows that extremist arguments are really about victimage and deliverance," write the researchers, Jeffry Halverson, R. Bennett Furlow and Steven Corman.

Ah, yes. Don't tell the truth about the Islamic supremacist desire to Islamize the world, because that only benefits the Islamic supremacists.

This study is rather remarkably insane. The U.S. Government, military, and intelligence apparatus have already determined not to tell the truth about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, and now this new study is urging us to pretend that there is no conflict at all. Those jihad attacks, jihad plots, jihad/martyrdom bombings worldwide? If free people would just stop fighting back, all would be well!

The analysis by Arizona State University's Center for Strategic Communication looked at how the Quran was used in 2,000 propoganda items from 1998 to 2011, though the majority were from post-2007, that emanated mostly from the Middle East and North Africa. Among the groups analyzed were al Qaeda and al Shabaab, as well as anonymous postings online.

One result that surprised the researchers, the "near absence" of citations from one of the most extreme passages, the "Verse of Swords," that encourages "all-out war against world domination."

"Widely regarded as the most militant or violent passage of the Quran, it is treated as a divine call for offensive warfare on a global scale," the researchers wrote. "It is also regarded as a verse which supersedes over 100 other verses of the Quran that counsel patience, tolerance and forgiveness."

At least they weren't craven enough to ignore that.

The study concludes that extremists, at least based on how they quote from the Quran, do not reflect "an aggressive offensive foe seeking domination and conquest of unbelievers, as is commonly assumed. Instead they deal with themes of victimization, dishonor and retribution."

Of course they do. And that's because there is no caliph. Only the caliph is authorized in Islamic law to wage offensive jihad. In the absence of a caliph, defensive jihad is obligatory on every Muslim when a Muslim land is attacked. Hence jihadist texts of the present day generally harp on victimhood, in order to justify the jihad in question as defensive.

"The verses frequently utilized by extremists from this surah address subjects such as enduring hardships and the importance of fighting against the unjust unbelievers who oppress men, women and children," the researchers wrote about the most cited chapter (called a "surah").

Clearly this is because one of the most important present-day jihads is the "Arab Spring" series of uprisings against Arab nationalist rulers in the Middle East and North Africa who did not fully implement Sharia.

| 20 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

20 Comments

| Leave a comment

It seems that you can claim that anything says anything. I'm sure that if you were selective enough you could study Mein Kampf and claim that Hitler loved Jews.

50 christians burned alive inside pastor's home by Muslims in Nigeria

http://bit.ly/MUcFR5

Yeah maybe CNN ought to read the facts before publishing nonsense.

The Qur'an itself contridicts this claim:
(هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ)

"It is He who sent His Messenger with Guidance and the religion of truth to make it surpass over all religion." (Qur'an 9:33)

And I advise these people at CNN to listen to Allah, even though he is pretty boring to listen to.

Allah says (إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ)

"Indeed, we have sent to you a Qur'an in Arabic! So that your minds would be enriched." (12:2)

I hope CNN's minds are enriched with actually LEARNING about what they LIE about.

Naturally they see themselves as victims; all they're doing is trying to obey the law -- Allah's law, the sharia -- and the nasty non-believers keep interfering. As individuals in non-Moslem countries, they can't follow their religion: whether it's beating or killing a disobedient wife or daughter, or raping non-believer girls, it's all perfectly legit according to sharia, the only law that matters; but the filthy non-believers keep interfering, arresting and jailing them or forccing them to flee back to Islamistan. And when as whole countries they try to follow sharia -- by supporting terrorism, or by suppressing non-believer minorities -- again the non-believers intervene (sometimes) with sanctions, drone strikes, even invasion.
So yes, they're victims; victims of the West's refusal to obey them and accept their rule.

In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: "Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book...is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah." Nyazee concludes: "This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation" of non-Muslims.

Isn't this ALL of Islam in a nutshell? Forget all other suras, this one overrides them all.

"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)
The rest of their book is trivial.

If only people read the Koran, especially people in office of responsibility, in government, media, academia, and read these suras without prejudicial agenda, the meaning of Islam comes crystal clear. It is a religiously cloaked imperialistic power grabbing, conquering and subduing, cult-like ideology to convert the whole world for their dismal expansion and profit. This is the TRUE mandate of Islam. It's a War Machine to impose Sharia on the world. "Tolerance" in Islam? Don't bother to go there, there's nothing.

That is the REAL Islam. The implementation of this conquering imperative is then proceeded in stages. The so-called "extremists" have a fast-forward agenda, whereas the virtual "moderates" have agenda in between fast-forward and low gear, or high gear. If the Islam "militant extremists" literature does not promote world conquest at this point, then it is not being true to its world conquest mandate, and are merely pausing before they re-engage high gear. This Adam Levine study is essentially worthless, ill informed obfuscation and wishful thinking. Bottom line is still the same for Islam: Conquer the world for their neo-Pagan god Allah, all for their profit and expansion. The islamic "victimhood" angle is just a ploy, and should be summarily ignored. Focus instead on their real agenda: Islamic supremacist expansion, world conquest, peoples' subjugation to Sharia, and forced jizya payment, all for their profit.

Do we really need the opinions of Islamic jurists to tell us what is the purpose of Muslims, jihad and caliphate?? Even with or without their telling us, it is to establish Islam and law of Mo/allah all over the world. This is what they have done for last 1400 years and this is what they are doing now. Earlier the jihad was by violent invasions and now it is by "peaceful" immigration to non-Islamic lands(with the consent of non-Muslim host countries) and then doing what they do best, start spreading Islam by any means from stealth to violent jihad. End of the story!! Anybody telling us otherwise is a liar and not be believed!!

Don't the people who conducted this study have their 5 senses working for them? Don't Jeffry Halverson, R. Bennett Furlow and Steven Corman see, hear and read what is happening around them?
So many muslims have clearly proclaimed that they seek world domination and will fight for it. This declaration doesn't count?

The jihadists harp on victimhood because that works on the western mind. The westerners feel guilty because of their forefathers' imperialist mentality.

Relax: New study claims that Islamic supremacists don't desire world domination

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said, “Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.”
.........................................

"Conquer all the mountain tops of the world"? I'm sure Mahmoud just means that he's like to see more Muslims scaling Kilimanjaro and Everest. sarc/off

More:

Omar Ahmad, the cofounder and longtime Board chairman of the influential Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood front group known as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), has said that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”
.........................................

But isn't CAIR just like the NAACP? sarc/off

More:

Wishful Thinking Alert: "Study: Muslim extremists not looking for world domination," by Adam Levine for CNN, July 10 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Muslim extremists are more concerned with defending against foreign intrusion than foisting Islam on the world, according to a new study of extremist texts. The study suggests that a Western approach of claiming extremists are seeking world domination is misdirected, and instead should seek to counteract claims of victimhood...

Ah, yes. Don't tell the truth about the Islamic supremacist desire to Islamize the world, because that only benefits the Islamic supremacists.
.........................................

Such circular reasoning. Also, recall that our presence in Afghanistan—no matter how poorly executed—was a *reaction* to violent Muslim supremacism.

We didn't just wake up one morning and decide that taking the Khyber Pass would be a lark...

More:

This study is rather remarkably insane. The U.S. Government, military, and intelligence apparatus have already determined not to tell the truth about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, and now this new study is urging us to pretend that there is no conflict at all. Those jihad attacks, jihad plots, jihad/martyrdom bombings worldwide? If free people would just stop fighting back, all would be well!
.........................................

That pretty much sums it up.

And it's all bs. As bad as things have been in Afghanistan—and I'm certainly not defending our fantasy-based campaign to attempt to bring democracy to these benighted savages—if we hadn't responded to 9/11 at all, things would likely have been even worse.

Jihadists would have assumed they would simply have carte blanche to attack us.

More:

One result that surprised the researchers, the "near absence" of citations from one of the most extreme passages, the "Verse of Swords," that encourages "all-out war against world domination."
.........................................

Is this just inept phrasing? The Sura of the Sword does *not* posit an "all-out war against world domination", but an all out war *of* world domination.

More:

"Widely regarded as the most militant or violent passage of the Quran, it is treated as a divine call for offensive warfare on a global scale," the researchers wrote. "It is also regarded as a verse which supersedes over 100 other verses of the Quran that counsel patience, tolerance and forgiveness."

At least they weren't craven enough to ignore that.
.........................................

I have to admit, I'm surprised they knew it in the first place...

More:

The study concludes that extremists, at least based on how they quote from the Quran, do not reflect "an aggressive offensive foe seeking domination and conquest of unbelievers, as is commonly assumed. Instead they deal with themes of victimization, dishonor and retribution."

Of course they do. And that's because there is no caliph. Only the caliph is authorized in Islamic law to wage offensive jihad. In the absence of a caliph, defensive jihad is obligatory on every Muslim when a Muslim land is attacked. Hence jihadist texts of the present day generally harp on victimhood, in order to justify the jihad in question as defensive.
.........................................

Very, very true.

The more sophisticated ones also realize that this plays well in the West.

Just consider all the well-meaning morons who regularly wring their hands over the "plight" of the poor "Palestinians". Sounds so much better than acknowledging that these are just Muslim Arabs who aim to destroy Israel...

More:

"The verses frequently utilized by extremists from this surah address subjects such as enduring hardships and the importance of fighting against the unjust unbelievers who oppress men, women and children," the researchers wrote about the most cited chapter (called a "surah").
.........................................

But "oppression" in Islamic terms means *anything* that presents an "obstacle" to, well, Muslim world domination.

Dear Adam Levine of CNN: It's way past your time for your enema. Your fecal level is rapidly rising and is starting to back up into your brain! Please, from now on you need your enema every other day to keep you from saying and writing overtly STUPID things.

Surveys are modernity's substitute for study and analysis.

What if, just what if, the concept of 'defense' to muslims means 'offense?' And, what if, the concept of 'victimhood' to muslims meant 'perpetrator?' If these "scholars" could grasp that juxtaposition, might they re-evaluate their conclusions? One wonders...

Instructive of how word games facilitate totalitarian designs but actually obfuscate the cause of good things like liberty and a Golden Rule for all.

"What if, just what if, the concept of 'defense' to muslims means 'offense?' And, what if, the concept of 'victimhood' to muslims meant 'perpetrator?'"

Good point, George. Islam lives in an 'inverted' universe, so nothing in their terminalogy lines up with ours. Keeping that in mind helps our understanding of the whole cloth of the Islam imperative, War Machine, for conquest for Sharia/jizya domination of the world. First line of defense is to understand the enemy's primitive psyche. Second is stop paying 'aid' (as jizya) to Islam. Third is severely restrict immigration from Islam dominated countries, and re-educate Muslims already here. We can win this easy, once these three steps are taken.

For the benefit of those new to this site and this subject.

'Unjust' in Islamspeak = not sharia-compliant, or not fully sharia-compliant.

'Oppression' in Islamspeak = any situation within which non-Muslims are not dominated by Muslims, or in which deemed-insufficiently-Islamic Muslims are not dominated by those who deem themselves to be more perfectly and fully Islamic (that is, sharia-compliant).

A classic article by an Ex-Muslim, 'Abul Kasem', entitled, 'When Is Islam Oppressed?'


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

'When is Islam Oppressed?'
by Abul Kasem
20 Nov, 2005
QUOTE "I am telling you that my religion doesn't tolerate other religion. It doesn't tolerate. The only one law which needs to be spread, it can be here or anywhere else has to be Islam."
[ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) interview with Abdul Nacer Benbrika (Abu Bekr), the spiritual leader of the Victorian terror cell suspect). The daily Telegraph, Sydney, November 10, 2005, p.31]

'WHAT IS THE ISLAMIC definition of oppression? Ask any Islamist ...".

"...Any action, activity, remark, gesture, word/s, sound, utterance, look, manner, habit, conduct, style and so on, which are not in conformity with Islamic precepts are considered as blasphemous or 'waging war'...".

Click on the link and read it all.

And now for a classic from one-time regular contributor and instructor here, 'Hugh Fitzgerald'.


http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/fitzgerald-95-things-that-fuel-muslim-extremism.html

“The American presence in Iraq fuels Muslim extremism.”
-- a conclusion concluded from the National Intelligence Estimate by many concluders in solemn conclusory conclave assembled.
Ninety-Five Other Things That Also Fuel Muslim Extremism:

1. Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.”


2. The British government’s protection of Salman Rushdie...ETC.

(Click on the link read the rest of Hugh's list of Muslim 'grievances', it's brilliant).

Then there's this scorcher of an article by Sultan Knish.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/11/dangers-of-legitimizing-islamic.html
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The Dangers of Legitimizing Muslim Grievances

"...Muslim grievances are the frustration of conquerors, the broken teeth of predators who weren't allowed to feed on the world until their stomachs burst.
All the lands they couldn't conquer, the peoples who rebelled against their rule, the inferior civilizations that pushed them back and drove them off...".

Finally: Islamic Dictionary For Infidels.

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

Islamic Dictionary for Infidels

Read those four articles, fully understand what they're getting at, and no amount of whining and squawking from Muslims - in particular, from the Poooor Palestinians [tm] will have any effect upon you henceforward.


Muslims hate Hindus because Hindus used to be slaves, or despised and abused dhimmis, but are now a free independent nation doing better than the two chunks the Muslims seized at Partition (Pakistan and Bangladesh).

Muslims hate Jews, because Islam teaches Muslims that they (Muslims) should be on top and Jews should be getting trampled under their boots; but those uppity Jooz in the state of Israel are flourishing and (however imperfectly) defending themselves against Jihad.


O.T.
I made a little cartoon about Mohammed being the "Seal of the Prophets". Just wanted to share it. :-) http://willdoohan288.typepad.com/blog/

I'm just digging into the report of the study now, and already I see that the author Adam Levine of the CNN blog article has, apparently out of a basic ignorance of the Quran's contents, made a misleading claim:

"One result that surprised the researchers, the "near absence" of citations from one of the most extreme passages, the "Verse of Swords," that encourages "all-out war against world domination.""

He's referring to one verse, 9:5, which is what is most commonly meant when someone refers to "the verse of the sword" [singular]. What Levine doesn't tell you is that the study found that Sura 9 is the most frequently cited Sura.

Here is the rank order of the top eleven cited Suras, starting with most frequently quoted:

9
3
4
2
8
5
12
22
47
61
33

The Sura here that stands out most here is Sura 12, which is pretty tame by Quranic standards. But clearly the rest of the most frequently cited Suras all contain bellicose commands an glorification of jihad, fighting, conquest, etc.

Why is Sura 12 cited so often? According to the researchers, it is mainly due to a formality in the way jihadists typically quote one verse from that Sura:

"In fact, it should be noted that all of these surahs, except for Surah Twelve (Yusuf), are Medinan. The reason why Surah Twelve is the exception to this trend is due largely to the frequency with which a portion of a particular verse is invoked, namely the later part of verse (ayah) 12:21, which is the number one most cited verse (see next section). It states: “God has full power and control over His affairs, but most among mankind know not.” This is an exhortation commonly invoked in the extremist texts, affirming that God’s plan is firmly in place amidst the chaos and suffering of war. It is used almost exclusively to conclude a section of a text."

I'm going on to read the rest of the study and will report back what I find. Here's the link:
http://csc.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdf/csc1202-quran-verses.pdf

Overall impression on the first reading: These authors exhibit a combination of naivety and protective-of-Islam bias. They use an Islamic perspective or put an Islam apologetic spin on each of the frequently quoted verses they cite in their appendix.

I have said before that 9:14 is the worst verse in the Quran, so I wasn't surprised by the fact that it was the most frequently quoted verse (besides 12:21, which is quoted as a formality to respect Allah). I had to laugh at the researchers' spin on this flagrantly bellicose verse, which they try to classify as retaliatory and defensive.

9:14 states:
"Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers."

What the researchers don't tell readers is that "Fight" (q-t-l) here unambiguously means slaughter. This is a direct command from Allah to Muslims, stating that killing the disbelievers in question, or who fit the description provided in the passage, is an act of carrying out Allah's will.

The researchers also don't tell readers that verbal "insults" against Islam are among the grievances listed in the passage leading into 9:14. It is no surprise that not only al-Qaeda (when griping about the Muhammad cartoon controversy) but also people like Bouyeri, the killer of Van Gogh, cited 9:14 as a command to kill those who insult Islam, thus healing/satisfying the "hearts/minds" ("breasts") of the believers. The passage is not only talking about people who "attacked" the Muslims first (9:13)--itself a tendentious piece of Muslim-partisan propaganda relayed uncritically and recklessly here by these researchers. It is talking about people who allegedly broke their oaths to Islam and/or who "reviled" Islam with disapproval and criticism (9:12). That is, the passage is talking about fighting (slaughtering) apostates and blasphemers, and the "leaders of disbelief", among others. Not surprisingly, the Saudis use this passage (9:12-14) among others to justify the death penalty for apostates and blasphemers.

Here's how the researchers present and interpret the verse:
"Note that verse 9:14 uses the word adhub, meaning to “punish” or “chastise,” and later the word shafa, meaning to “cure” or “heal.” The verbs used in 9:14 indicate an assumption that the Muslims have been wronged and wounded by the unbelievers. Thus, violent action is presented as retaliatory."

What the researchers don't tell you is that the passage and the grievances (which include non-violent offenses against Islam) and "healing" (which is psychological) are used to justify "conquest" (see Ibn Kathir's tafsir of 9:13). Thus there is no mutual exclusivity between offense and defense; appeals to retaliation are used to motivate conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.

------------------------

The researcher's central claim is that the verses cited emphasize defense, retaliation, and victimhood; and that world dominance and conquest to spread Islam are not emphasized. There is no doubt that jihadists engage in this kind of rhetoric. However, it is another thing altogether for the researchers to deny that the jihadists understand these verses to support conquest. It is easy for the researchers to arrive at this conclusion by ignoring their own data. One of the most frequently-quoted verses was 8:39, which states:

8:39 "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."

Again, "fight" (q-t-l) here means slaughter; it is in a direct command to slaughter the unbelievers.

The Arabic word for "persecution" here is "fitnah." To get some idea of how the jihadists understand this term, here is the Saudi Hilali and Khan translation, complete with their parenthetical and bracketed insertions based on Hadith and Sira, and on mainstream tafsirs:

8:39 "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do."

Here's how the researchers present it:

"8:39: And fight them on until there is no more discord and religion (or the way) is for God (alone). One of the early Medinan verses that granted the Muslims permission to fight against the pagan Meccans, leading to the Battle of Badr in 624."

In other words, the researchers are supplying their own interpretations and ignoring those of the jihadists. They ignore the fact that the verse is saying fight them until all religion (deen) is for Allah, i.e., fight them until everyone follows Islam, either as Muslims or as dhimmis and slaves subjugated under the rules of Islam. (2:193, which says basically the same things as 8:39, also made it into the most frequently-quoted list).

Another frequently quoted verse was 8:60, which flat-out calls for Muslims to use everything they have in their power to the utmost to "strike terror" into the hearts of the enemy disbelievers and not let up until they accept Islamic terms of peace (8:59-61), i.e., conformity with and obedience to Islamic law. That's conquest.

How do the researchers deal with 8:60? I'm not sure, because, though it is cited in their pie chart, they don't discuss it anywhere in their brief paper. No doubt, they would deal with it as they had dealt with others, i.e., impose an apologist interpretation on the verse, while ignoring how Muslim jurists and in particular jihadists interpret it. Thus the researchers can maintain their thesis that these verses are all just about defense and retaliation, not conquest and supremacy.

Verse 5:54, also frequently cited, justifies jihad against apostates (i.e., those who "turn back" from Islam). How this fits the defensive/victimhood thesis I am not sure, though I am reasonably sure these researchers would find a way whereby jihad of this sort--struggling (j-h-d) mightily against the disbelievers and apostates but acting humble and gentle with the believing Muslims--is really all just a defensive reaction to oppression and not a supremacist imperative to suppress disbelief and disbelievers.

The study:
http://csc.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdf/csc1202-quran-verses.pdf

An online quranbrowser:
http://quranbrowser.com/

Great Kinana, excellent. Important to see in depth analysis of their researchers' shallow 'analysis' of Islamic Jihad. I find this illustrative of how apologists for Islam will dilute the aggressive nature of the Koran, to make it sort of passable in the eyes of modern audiences who cannot believe that something as barbaric and oppressive as the "verses of the sword", Allah's vengeance on the infidels littered throughout the Koran, could possible be followed as religious mandate by modern Arabs and Muslims.

@ Kinana of Khaybar:

One of the most frequently-quoted verses was 8:39, which states:
8:39 "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."

Here's how the researchers present it: "8:39: And fight them on until there is no more discord and religion (or the way) is for God (alone). One of the early Medinan verses that granted the Muslims permission to fight against the pagan Meccans, leading to the Battle of Badr in 624."

How could anyone still believe this stuff (?), they think to themselves. Surely the milder version is more modern, right? Wrong. That original is what they believe, and it is willful blindness to think otherwise. Modern 21st century Islamic Jihad is just warmed soup of what had been happening for fourteen centuries of Islamic conquest, subjugation, oppression and enslavement, genocide and cultural destruction, all done for their imperialist dreams of a world Caliphate powered by Sharia law and funded by jizya, (foreign aid and petrodollars), as urged on by the big wizard Allah whispered into the fevered brain of a 7th century Warlord. So nothing had changed, except during the 'colonialism' period they were put down, so kept low, but now with oil wealth they feel they can flex Jihad muscles again and obey Allah's command to subdue the infidels. Apologizing for Islamic Jihad, imperialistic conquest ambitions and actions, is counter-productive, not worth the research funding wasted, not even the print paper.

Adam Levine and his researchers should be laughed out of the room, and dismissed.

Both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and x-president Bill Clinton have silver tongues. Meaning both would make good attorneys, presidents, or used car salemen. A lot like Obama and G.W. Bush.

"And now we can see a new world order coming into effect."

Of course it's the new world of the silver tongue. Where words of taqiyya and bull-shit flow like water over the damn of peace.

Welcome one and all to our new world of lies. And the new leadership refered to as "Bull-shit".

Battle,

Here's one more example of their absurd Karen Armstrongish reading. Q 3:139 was one of the frequently-quoted verses that the researchers discussed. Here's how they quoted it:

"That verse states: “So lose not heart, nor fall into despair: for ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith.”"

They used the Yusuf Ali translation, which is an odd interpretation for this verse. Ali used the word "mastery" instead of words like prevail, triumph, superior, or upper hand, which are used in other translations. The verse is about getting revenge, of course, but it is also about conquest, gaining dominance over the infidels and thus controlling them. That's what "mastery" would mean in that context, i.e., mastery over the infidels, as is noted in the Hadith (i.e., that the Muslim jihadists who survive battle will become the "masters" over the non-Muslims in this life, and those jihadists who are slain will be rewarded in the hereafter), but the researchers present this as though the verse is about "learning" from life's lessons, i.e., "mastery" is glossed by them as a kind of psychological mastery over oneself, i.e., inner jihad. Anyways, all the tafsirs I checked indicate that the verse is talking about dominance and triumph over the non-Muslims in question. Moreover, the jihadists interpret the verse as referring to dominance over the infidels as well.

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“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”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter