Telegraph publishes falsehoods about Qur’an in attempt to clear Islam of responsibility for London jihad murder

Note what Mehdi Hasan leaves out of his Qur’an quotation. “The Muslim faith does not turn men to terror: The two suspects in the Woolwich killing were violating the doctrine of their own holy book,” by Mehdi Hasan in the Telegraph, May 23 (thanks to JH):

‘Whosoever killeth a human being”¦” says the Koran, in the 32nd verse of its fifth chapter, “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

Thus, the two supposedly Muslim men suspected of killing and mutilating an unarmed, off-duty soldier in the middle of a London street, while shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“God is Great”), were violating the injunction of their own holy book. Perversely, it was the non-Muslim Cub Scout leader who, in trying to save the soldier’s life, and standing up to his alleged attackers, was acting in accordance with Koranic principles. Let’s be clear: Islam doesn’t permit the killing of innocents. Jihad is permissible only in self-defence and if sanctioned by a legitimate government. To quote from our Prime Minister’s pitch-perfect statement outside No 10, Wednesday”s barbarism was “a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country”.

Yes, let’s be clear. Qur’an 5:32 actually says this:

For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

Hasan quoted it thusly: “Whosoever killeth a human being…it shall be as if he had killed all mankind.” Notice what he left out: “for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth.” So the Qur’an is saying only that killing a human being for something other than manslaughter or “corruption in the earth” is as if one had killed all mankind.

But what if someone does commit “corruption in the earth”? The Qur’an goes on: “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.” (Qur’an 5:33)

Now we see why Mehdi Hasan left that part out of his Qur’an quote.

So it is permissible — indeed, commanded — to kill those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after “corruption in the land.” Islam doesn’t permit the killing of innocents, but this victim was a British soldier. He was, in the view of his killer, making war upon Allah and his messenger and spreading corruption in the land by fighting in Afghanistan. In that case, the killer’s jihad was defensive, and Hasan’s words about it being only permissible if sanctioned by a legitimate government are simply false in terms of Islamic law.

To be sure, only the state authority can declare offensive jihad. A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh “˜Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, and upon this fact hinges the oft-repeated claim that people like the London murderer are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But he and others like him explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Surely Mehdi Hasan knows all this. So why is he misleading people in the pages of the Telegraph?

How the Media Solves a Problem Like the Woolwich Attack
BBC features MPACUK spokesman repeating jihad murderer's grievance mongering about British military activity
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    Mehdi Hasan is a relentless and vigorous propaganda jihadist in the U.K., whose every word is directed to one purpose, and that is the promotion and defense of Islam, requiring the “struggle” against disbelief and disbelievers, whilst presenting as though he were a “moderate”.

    Mehdi Hasan is the liar who was caught on a recording citing the Quran and referring to disbelievers–atheists and others–as “cattle,” then tried to wriggle out of it with deceptive gymnastics, smoke and mirrors, etc.

    No surprises that this con artist would remove important parts of verse 5:32 about “mischief/corruption,” just like all the liars do. They want you to believe it is peaceful, when they know it is not, as proved by the parts they intentionally hide. They know the vast majority of the public doesn’t have the time or interest to check the original sources. They are doing their duty to Allah (and to themselves and their ummah) in presenting a pleasant face to the infidels, all the while intending–like the majority of Muslims as polled–to impose sharia.

  2. says

    Is there a way of complaining to The Telegraph EN MASSE? This is about educating people about what Islam ACTUALLY SAYS.It is about educating muslims,also, that what their parents told them is not necessarily what Islam is,certainly not the whole picture.

    In this morning’s Sun,we had Media Muslim Anila Baig,who is trotted out after every “muslim story”,say this:

    “Believe it or not, in Islam there are strict rules about warfare ” you cannot even chop down a TREE in a battle let alone chop down a human being.”

    Can you believe that? She doesn’t have much of a clue.Yet she is the Sun’s “Moderate Muslim Representative”.

  3. says

    How utterly morally corrupt the media are for defending the ideology that was behind the sadistic murder of a soldier. May God take vengence on their festering putrid souls. How utterly horrible this is! I am just traumatized by this!

  4. says

    Offensive v. defensive jihad. Innocents v. non-innocents. Islam plays word games. Sick of these games. Most everyone should be by now.

  5. says

    So why is he misleading people in the pages of the Telegraph?

    Because that’s who they are, and that’s what they do…The Telegraph and other dhimmi kuffar should be ashamed of themselves…but of course they are not…But, the world is watching and not everyone buys into the propaganda…

  6. says

    Robert should also have focused more on the critical omission of the first part of the verse:
    “For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel…”

    Since Muslims are the children of Ishmael, they are not held to that standard so this verse is seemingly irrelevant — though it does explain perhaps why Israel takes such pains to avoid the deaths of even terrorist sympathizers.

    Indeed, it make sense that Muhammed (cbuh) would mention this maxim as being decreed upon the Jews since the quote is plagiarized from the Jewish Talmud which preceded the wretched birth of Islam.

    I have always thought that in this verse, perhaps Muhammed (cbuh) was subtly mocking the Jews saying that they are so focused on saving lives while his “religion” is all about glorifying deaths — sort of the way that modern Pali mothers of suicide bombers savagely boast “we value death more than you value life.”


  7. says

    Since Mohammed the demon possessed mass murderer thief and pedophile also embraced lying to one’s enemies to gain an advantage over them, Mehdi Hasan is simply lying to nonmuslims to try and defect the public opinion against them.
    Islam is evil because it was Satan, masquerading as an angel of light as St Paul warned against, who fooled Mohammed when he gave old Mo the Koran. This malevolent works righteous theology allows, even encourages violence and murder against unbelievers (even those Muslims who don’t believe the same ie Sunni/Shia blood shed) . These British murderers yesterday were simply trying to gain Allah(Satan)’s favour and points that can be used to off set their sins.

  8. says

    British mainstream media:
    “Uh oh! A British soldier has been killed by an Islamic extremist who has nothing to do with Islam. Quick–we must save Islam! Let’s get as many Muslim apologists as we can to come on and deluge the general public with Islamic propaganda.”

  9. says

    This isn’t even news!

    Muslims truncate that passage EVERY time. To do otherwise would serve them no good purpose.

    It’s a plagiarism of the Jewish tale of Cain and Abel, running from Qur’an 5:27 through 5:32; written by Jews to Jews (the children of Israel), with the barbarous punishments tacked on in 5:33.

    A relevant, informative article:
    The Murder of Abel

  10. says

    Must be a great feeling for the family and friends of the murdered soldier to see all these Islamic assholes grandstanding on national TV, shamelessly mocking them and laughing at their pain.

  11. says

    The Western mainstream media are mostly the propaganda megaphones of the mainstream political parties. In the U.K. (and elsewhere in the West), they are attempting to prevent non-Muslims from doing anything to contain and remove the large-scale (and growing) dangerous and costly Muslim presence in their country. In this case, the pro-Islam, pro-Islamic immigration Telegraph is using Mehdi Hasan to convey pacifying, soothing deceptions about Islam in order to prevent non-Muslims from perceiving the full scope of the Muslim population problem in the U.K. (And Mehdi Hasan, of course, as someone who wants to defend and promote Islam in the U.K., is using them too).

    This latest barbaric jihadist attack is merely one of the side effects of having a sufficiently large Muslim population in the midst of a host non-Muslim population–you get increased violent crimes, systematic rape of non-Muslim girls, gangs, no-go zones for non-Muslims, enormous strain on the welfare system, exploitation of family reunification immigration to transfer foreign Muslim communities into Britain, separate Islamic schools, astronomical (and unsustainable) costs in security/policing/intelligence to defend against all possible terrorist plots, and so on.

    Doubly insane is maintaining and increasing that Muslim population in one’s midst whilst waging warfare against Muslims in a Muslim country. Imagine if, during WW II, Britain maintained within itself a large population of Nazis, subsidized them, and allowed huge numbers of them to flow into the country every year.

  12. says

    Great info, Kinana.

    I think the thing is to focus everything on the huge barn door in that verse — namely the all-too-vague phrase “corruption in the land.” That’s perhaps where the hardest blow in the shortest time can be struck against the apologists’ manipulation of this verse.

    What we need to do is document what “corruption in the land” means to Ibn Kathir (arguably the the most respected Qur’an interpreter of all time, apart from Muhammad) and the other top expositors of the Qur’an. The phrase means all kinds of things including criticism of religion.

    Here is Ibn Kathir on the phrase in question:

    (The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) `Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil…

    So in some circumstances, merely disbelieving in Islam sometimes subjects you to crucifixion and amputation? Am I reading that right? I know David Wood in a video has said that the “mischief” phrase includes all sorts of things that free people consider the most basic civil rights.

    Here is Robert Spencer on the first 60 verses of Sura 5.

  13. says

    Mohammed : “Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

    British police: “A meat cleaver? FFS, someone shoot the clown”

  14. says

    This evil, lying asshole Mehdi Hasan, in his article praising Islam and attacking and mocking the British people, writes:

    “Some cut and paste verses from the Koran out of context;”

    Right after this liar took a verse (5:32) inappropriately out of context, and deceptively removed the most important part of the verse in order to change the meaning perceived by his naive readers.

    “…others unthinkingly demand “reform” of Islam.”

    Sure, why would anyone need to reform Islam? It’s perfect as it is, right Mehdi? Of course, non-Muslims cannot realistically wait around for Muslims to reform Islam. But the acknowledgement on the part of Muslims that Islam is in need of reform would at least show a recognition that there is a problem.

    “Few want to discuss the role of British foreign policy in helping to radicalise these young, disaffected individuals.”

    The two, of the one-two punch. Yesterday we get jihadists hacking apart an unsuspecting off-duty British soldier, today we get Mehdi Hasan relaying their propaganda that the British are not allowed to defend themselves militarily from the Muslims who attacked them and initiated the conflict in the first place.

  15. says

    “Whoever killeth a human being, it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind”. A quote from the duplicitous apologists who believe absolutely that Jews are descendants of “apes and swine” and Christians and others are “the urine of apes and swine”. As such NOT human beings.
    More bldy taqiyya

  16. says

    Looking at some more sources…Iranians using “corruption on earth” charge to bring death penalty against Baha’is.

    …Iranians also using the charge against people who have “anti-Islamic” and pornographic websites.

  17. says

    Is there no one with a spine anymore!!!!!!! When will we call things as they are!!!!!! These men murdered in the name of their religion!!!! Murdered an innocent man in the street. And no one did anything to help him. There were people there and no one lifted a finger to help. What the heck is happening to us????? We used to help the weak of the world now we have people in office that is so weak people think they have to come help us. What a disgrace!!!!! We have lost our way, I pray to Jesus the Christ that He will help us find our way back to Him and build this nation great again with His all-powerful hand.

  18. says

    There was a time the ‘English Mob’ could bring down the Governments or have Admirals and Generals hung. Now more, the Mob now is the sacrificial victims of Islamic terrorist and criminal traitorous politicians.I say this, I am a Yank, I still have freedom of speech at least for a little while.God Bless the U.K. and the USA we are slowing dying and EVERYONE will miss us when we finally die.

  19. says

    quote of Muslim apologist: “Believe it or not, in Islam there are strict rules about warfare ” you cannot even chop down a TREE in a battle let alone chop down a human being.”

    Permission to chop down human beings, Quran 8:12
    “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

    Permission to chop down trees in battle, Quran 59:5
    “Whatever palm-tree you cut down or leave standing upon its roots, It is by Allah’s command, and that He may abase the transgressors.”

  20. says

    British mainstream media:
    “Uh oh! A British soldier has been killed by an Islamic extremist who has nothing to do with Islam. Quick–we must save Islam! Let’s get as many Muslim apologists as we can to come on and deluge the general public with Islamic propaganda.”


    Even being aware for several years that this is the reality we live in, I still find it almost mind-boggling. Your analysis is exactly right, unfortunately. Being of Generation X, it’s hard enough for me to swallow—I can only imagine how bewildering this must be to the remaining Brits who were brave, patriotic veterans of WWII.

    Not that the media/intelligentsia in the US is much different from Britain in this regard.

  21. says


    I investigated this “corruption/mischief” (fasad) business several years ago. There is no definitive, clear answer to what exactly mischief/corruption refers to, if we try for ourselves to derive answers from the Quran, Hadith, and Sira. The Qur’an is what it is, and usually it is vague…which is why Muslim scholars turn to the Hadith and Sira. As you note Ibn Kathir (and others) sums it up in general terms, i.e., it is opposition to Islam and expression of disbelief, in one form or another. Specifically, in 5:32-33, it is referring to the spreading of this fasad in the land, i.e., spreading it in the society. What’s the worst thing you can do, according to the Qur’an? Disbelief of, and expression of disbelief of, Islam. Hence, it would be reasonable to infer from this that the worst forms of spreading fasad would be promoting blasphemy and publicly expressing blasphemy, promoting apostasy or publicly declaring apostasy, and proselytizing to Muslims to convert them out of Islam or to promote other religions in a Muslim society. In short, any public expressions against Islam would be major forms (though not the only forms) of fasad. That is probably why all Muslim-majority countries have some laws restricting critical or “insulting” expressions about Islam and Muhammad.

    The underlying question here is What according to Islam is a “just cause” (see below) for killing someone?

    To cut to the chase here, the (practical) answer to that, for us today, lies in Islamic law and what Muslims actually believe and practice today. In various Islamic countries, there are legal punishments, up to and including death, for the following persons:

    -Sane adult male who leaves Islam publicly and does not repent.
    -Someone who blasphemes Islam or Muhammad.
    -Gays and lesbians.
    -Any able-bodied adult non-Muslim male of sound mind in a non-Muslim population who refuses the formal invitation to embrace Islam when it is offered to that non-Muslim population, prior to jihad warfare being declared on that non-Muslim population.
    -a dhimmi who breaks certain critical aspects of the dhimma pact (e.g., insults Muhammad, married a Muslim woman, etc.).
    -Someone who intentionally kills a Muslim.

    This is not a complete list, and not all Islamic countries today have punishments for every “crime” listed above, but all have some punishments for insulting/ criticizing Islam, and most have some punishments for the other items on the list.

    5:33 actually gives a range of punishments, and the least of the punishments is banishment (which can also mean banishment from the society, i.e., prison).

    Once we take the Quran, hadith, Islamic law, and mainstream Muslim opinion into account, we can infer what mainstream Muslims tend to think fasad (mischief/corruption) is, based on the punishments. For example, 5:32 implies it’s wrong to kill someone except as punishment for killing or for mischief/corruption. Mischief/corruption (fasad) then must be, at minimum, whatever Muslims think is justifiably punishable by death. The Quran with the Hadith (emphasis on the Hadith, because the Quran is often not clear) gives the death penalty for the above things I listed. Hence, a Muslim who thinks public apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality, etc., are each worthy of the death penalty, to maintain a logically consistent view, would have to view these as fitting in the category of “mischief/corruption” (fasad) of 5:32. According to 5:32, only killing or fasad are justifications for killing. Hence, fasad must include the other death penalty offenses including apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, etc.

    The Qur’an also says killing is forbidden, except for a “just cause” (e.g., 17:33). From the rest of the Qur’an, we can begin to glean what is considered by its authors to be a just cause. For example, killing people in religiously-motivated warfare is obviously a “just cause,” otherwise Allah wouldn’t be ordering Muslims to do it (as in 9:29). Killing people who kill Muslims (4:92-93, 9:13, 4:75, 3:140-145) is also considered justified killing (as the verse cited by the jihadist yesterday, 9:36, indicates, also 2:190-195). Eye for an eye, life for a life, is justified killing (5:45). 22:39-45 says it is permissible to kill those who have “wronged” and killed or persecuted Muslims. Ergo, fasad must include all these other behaviours and expressions deemed by Muslims to be worthy of the death penalty of deadly warfare.

    It is difficult to see how all of this would not be applicable, at least in principle, to yesterday’s slaughter, by Muslims who take the verses of warfare seriously today. It’s pretty basic: We are killing Muslims in Muslim countries, thus violating any Islamic notion of treaty, thus making us, collectively, as far as Muslims are concerned, liable to be attacked by Muslims at any time, wherever they find us. Other Muslims choose to deny this or engage in propaganda jihad thinking that that is more prudent.

  22. says

    “Hence, a Muslim who thinks public apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality, etc., are each worthy of the death penalty, to maintain a logically consistent view, would have to view these as fitting in the category of “mischief/corruption” (fasad) of 5:32.”

    That would be the logical inference. More useful still for us would be evidence of Islamic legal scholars/clerics actually stipulating this, in history, and in various places in the world in our time, in the form of legal rulings, fatwas, sermons, books, etc.

  23. says

    Here is the original ,from the Talmud:

    “For this reason was man created alone, to teach thee that whosever destroys a single soul of Israel [of Israel is absent in some texts], scripture imputes (guilt) to him as though he had Destroyed a Complete World; and whosever preserves a single soul of Israel, scripture ascribes (merit) to him as though he had Preserved a Complete World [since all mankind originated from one man].” – Babylonian Talmud, Mishnah Sanhedrin 37a

    For an good expose of verses 5:32-3 see here:

  24. says

    Saudi Arabia, Iran, and some other countries actually do punish “corruption on earth” nowadays and it includes the death penalty. [Googling “corruption on earth + death penalty” will turn up some results with specific examples. Not surprisingly, these regimes take advantage of the ambiguity of fasad, just as Muhammad himself took advantage of his “shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings,” i.e., a dictator’s dream].

    Ultimately, the question raised by the fasad loophole in 5:32 is what is acceptable killing in Islam. The acceptable forms of killing are pretty well-documented in the Hadith, then built upon in Islamic law, and implemented today in many countries. In contrast, I didn’t encounter much in the Hadith in the way of precise definition and examples of fasad.

    Because of the ambiguity of fasad in the primary source texts though, and hence the need for even Islamic legalists to make inferential leaps to define it and assign examples to it, I suspect any case made by us about fasad would be vulnerable to criticisms that the punishments nowadays are “not really Islamic.”

    (Though I have to admit, over the years I’ve become less and less concerned about whether a practice is really Islamic, and much more interested in whether Muslims think it’s Islamic, and want it, and implement it nowadays. Discussions about Islam and Muslims can become really bogged down and time-consuming when there is a lot of emphasis on the primary texts).

    Of course, if we had some hadiths where Muhammad says “mischief/corruption” in the land is blasphemy, apostasy, adultery, etc.,” that would be highly useful, a compact little silver bullet, so to speak, against these apologists who always trot out 5:32 sans the fasad loophole. As far as I’m aware though, there are no such hadiths, and the Quran as usual is pretty ambiguous.

  25. says

    Was just reviewing my old file on mischief/corruption (fasad) and decided to do a new google search. Up top of the results was a good article, which highlights that the concept of corruption on earth was important in the Iranian revolution, i.e., as a means to Islamically justify killing or punishing dissidents, etc.

    From the article:

    “Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali, who was one of the most active judges in applying the charge of ‘spreading corruption on earth’, defined it in his memoirs
    A Corrupter on earth is a person who contributes to spreading and expanding corruption on earth. Corruption is what leads to the decline, destruction and deviation of society from its [true] nature. People who were executed had striven to spread corruption and prostitution, distributing heroin and opium and exhibiting licentious behavior, atheism, murder, betrayal, flattery: in sum, all these vile qualities. These people’s problems were aggravated by the fact that they did not repent once they saw the people’s revolution.

  26. says

    “Because of the ambiguity of fasad in the primary source texts though, and hence the need for even Islamic legalists to make inferential leaps to define it and assign examples to it, I suspect any case made by us about fasad would be vulnerable to criticisms that the punishments nowadays are “not really Islamic.” ”

    Still, there must be Islamic scholars and clerics stipulating in speeches, sermons, or writings that x, y and z are examples of fasad and even referencing the appropriate Koran passages. Just because the connection may be ambiguous doesn’t nor wouldn’t stop even a lawyer — let alone a demagogue (= most Islamic clerics) — from asseverating it. I think if there is a problem of dearth of evidence (which I’m not convinced is the case, as I think most Arabic speeches and writings are still ignored and untranslated, with MEMRI only chipping away at the mountain), the problem may well be less one of ambiguity than one of most Muslim scholars and clerics assuming it’s such an obvious given, they don’t even need to advert to it. (Now the expression of that in words by a few influential scholars and clerics would be nice.)

  27. says

    As I said, do a search, and you’ll see some examples of how it’s interpreted concretely.

    Otherwise this discussion is a waste of time as you are speculating about something that you could easily look into for yourself.

  28. says

    So hear your frustration. Shame is, as long as we’ve got gutless politicians, maybe I’ll advised, but inadequately informed just the same, representing us and in control of the system, we’re easy meat for the Islamist jihadists who are playing us and overtaking us for the fools and naives we are.

  29. says

    This isn’t a “discussion”. I’m just noting a methodological fact about a lacuna in our (that of the Counter-Jihad) research that needs to be tightened up.