Terrific Qur'anic exegesis, Bob. It deserves a wider audience so that the "distortions" by Sufi Schwartz are uncovered. Perhaps, even the Weekly Standard might reprint this as a rebutal to Schwartz's mistaken inrepretations that only the Wahhabi brand of Islam is noxious villifying the "people of the book," Christians and Jews and that the "real" Islam, including his conversion from secular humanism to Sufism isn't. To re-interpret that famous line from the Tom Hanks film, "Forest Gump, " "Sufi is as Sufi" does.

Posted by: Chinese Gordon at September 24, 2004 7:41 AM

What are some good literal Koran translations to read? I want to read the Koran and note down the hadiths that have relevance to jihad, treatment of conquered non-muslims, and do not want to waste time reading a translation where the text is changed to make it more tolerant and palatable.

Posted by: Nikephoros_Phokas at September 24, 2004 7:51 AM

I've always been suspicious of Schwartz's articles. He tries to deflect all attention to the Wahhabis. Sufism, to the best of my knowledge, was founded to entice Hindus to islam by pretending there was a mystical aspect to islam as there is in Hinduism. Sufis believe in the Koran just as much as more 'mainstream' Muslims and have exactly the same worldview (Islam ueber alles). Ergo, the same must go for convert Schwartz.

Also, why doesn't Schwartz use a Muslim name? Writing about islam using a non-muslim one is less than honest.

Posted by: Setanta at September 24, 2004 8:24 AM

What this guy seems to be implying is that radical anti-western intolerant islam only occurs because the Wahhabis have made some anti-social modifications to their Koran. GOD how I wish that was the case. The problem is that I have a non-Wahhabis copy of the Koran and it is still chock full of intolerance, absurdities and exhortations to commit atrocities. I have a copy of the bible too and the Koran is far more comprehensive, specific and numerous in its inhumane statments. The modifications in the Wahhabis Koran he has stated are frankly a a drop in the koranic bucket of nasties/holies. Making the koran just that little bit nastier frankly doen't much change an islamists agenda. And besides the secondary islamic texts have an order of magnitude more obscene inhumanities in them. Also this guy interestingly enough bypassed these secondary texts (and all the nasty stuff in the koran) all together while making his case for a wonderful humanistic crime free koran. Why he thinks this does anyone an ounce of good is beyond me...it only makes an islamist smile while making a humanist cringe with disgust. A western dminni journalist (consciously or uncounsciously) appeasing his islamist overlords strikes again!!!!!

Posted by: obl r us at September 24, 2004 8:27 AM

Yes Mr Spencer, if you can please post your response to this guys article in the Weekly Standard. It would be a useful education to its readers.

Posted by: obl r us at September 24, 2004 8:30 AM

Guess I am going to far in my last post.. I am sure the guy meant well as vouched for by mr Spencer, but I can't stand reading stuff like that. For me personally when I read it it seems misleading. It doesn't adress the issue of why so many other non-wahhabi muslims are out to destroy the west. The main reason ofcourse is because of their religion, wahhabi koran version or non wahhabi version. The two arn't that different.

Posted by: obl r us at September 24, 2004 8:40 AM

Thanks very much for this article, Mr. Spencer.

I forwarded the link to several people as an example of "a respectful disagreement between two folks rather than the usual hand-grenade match," and as an example of the care with which we have to consider "nice" Qur'anic verses taken out of context (out of the chronological context within the Qur'an, and out of the hadith context in general).

chw

Posted by: Pilgrim at September 24, 2004 8:47 AM

If there is one thing I have discovered in all the twenty years I have studied religion, with special attention given to Islam, it is that Islam is a religion that cannot be reformed.

It must be wiped off the face of the earth, obliterated, and forgotten.

Many people also believe in the concept of the "moderate muslim". I can assure all that there is no such thing. A "moderate muslim" to me is quite simply not a muslim at all.

The people I had once thought of as "moderate muslims" in my community were the first to rejoice when they heard of the Twin Tower attacks. Muslim communities in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban were partying in the streets when the news came through that the people responsible for the attacks were Islamic fundamentalists. I recall a "moderate muslim" co-worker telling the rest of us in the office that "Islam and muslims will rule the world..." This was bellowed while we observed a minute of silence for the victims of 9/11, and all the other terror attacks from around the planet.

Islam must be stopped; it must be made to go the way of the dinosaur... But when that asteroid will hit the Kaaba is anyone's guess.

Cheers!

Posted by: Vikk at September 24, 2004 9:00 AM

Apologies to everyone if I seemed harsh about this guys article, I come out more forcibly with my use of language than I realise when speaking anonymously. I respect this guys efforts to fight the Wahhabi sect for sure. However I do worry that articles like his can be dangerously misleading for those ignorant about the koran and hadiths. That is it in a nutshell.

Posted by: obl r us at September 24, 2004 9:09 AM

The best way to re-write the koran would be to use each page as toilet-paper and tissue, taking extra care to smear particularly slimy snot and the more rancid stinking,yellowy tinted, wet-but-nutty logs of turd across pages which speak of mo-homo-ed(pig-piss be into his mouth), and allah (piss be onto his demonic head).

It would be a vast improvement on the excretae which already decorates the pages.

Posted by: Rikki at September 24, 2004 9:46 AM

If the only problem is something he calls the "Wahhabi" Koran, and those bad old Wahhabis (they are a problem all right, but the problem is hardly limited to Wahhabi Islam), then prior to Abdul Wahhab, what caused Jihad conquest, and what prompted the slaughter, forced conversion, or slow asphyxiation, of the Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists? When it comes to the treatment of Infidels, there is no significant difference between the so-called “Wahhabi” Koran and the tenets learned by non-Wahhabis. True, there is a special virulence to Islam in Saudi Arabia, encouraged by the clerics and the corrupt family that consists of True Believers and those who, while not True Believers, find a kind of expiation for their personal corruption in funding mosques, madrasas, and terrorists everywhere in the world. True, the treatment of women is even more severe in Saudi Arabia than elsewhere. But a regime does not have to be one of "Wahhabi" Islam to treat women severely -- look at the Shi'a Islamic Republic of Iran. True, the criminal code in Saudi Arabia hews to the Sharia line much more than does, for example, post-Bourguiba Tunisia. But what of lapidation in Iran, in Afghanistan, in Sudan -- not one of which is a "Wahhabi" country. And there is no difference in the texts in Qur’an and hadith pertaining to Infidels. Nor, one is given to believe, in the main commentators – not only in Ibn Kathir, but in Suyuti, Tabari, Zamakshari. That is surely the main point.

Bernard Lewis has offered an analogy that he finds useful, but that others may find telling mainly about the teller. He compares the role of Saudi Arabia, in funding the world-wide Jihad, with that of an imaginary Texas, still oil-rich, but ruled by a Ku Klux Klan-inspired government, that would fund similar movements among “fundamentalists” elsewhere. Never mind the display, here, of fashionable misunderstanding both of the Ku Klux Klan and of "fundamentalist Christianity" (that old-time religion ould include everyone from Cotton Mather to George Whitfield to John Wesley to Aimee Semple MacPherson). The story itself is highly revealing for what it tells us about Lewis. For the shaky analogy seems to imply that just as, but for those imaginary "Ku Klux Klan Texas fundamentalists," the rest of America is just fine, so too, but for those Wahhabis, there is no real problem with the rest of the world of Islam. For counter-evidence to this, see Egypt, see Iran, see Sudan, see Afghanistan, see Indonesia, see Pakistan, see the Muslim presence in Europe and America.

Lewis cannot bring himself to reverse attitudes formed over decades, partly the result of personal and professional friendships, partly no doubt a desire, when he has stood out – in the context of the last 30 years – as a brave figure refusing to accept many of the received pieties (but unfortunately continuing to retail some of his own), when he has been not only on the receiving end of antisemitism in the Foreign Office, anonymous squibs by the apologists for Araby (Elisabeth Munro, Anthony Parsons, and so on) in the TLS (a main reason, in fact, for instituting the policy of signed reviews), and in the United States, save for those who are his equals (Cook, Crone), a man attacked by those who are simply, in every way, utterly beneath him. One thinks of Edward Said, a comical scarecrow, trying to caw-caw-caw legitimate scholars from studying Islam, but now with more and more of the stuffing coming out of him with each passing day, and of the vast army of apologists for Islam such as John Esposito, who simply has nothing useful to say about Islam, as well as a good chunk of the membership of the MIddle Eastern Studies Association, with its annual Witches' Sabbath (serving, yet again this year, "warmed over post-colonial-hegemonic-discourse" with a special sauce of honeyed words and a taqiyya cherry on top. Mmmm.)

The desire both of Lewis, and of Schwartz, (a "revert" to Shi'a Islam) for quite different reasons, to assign or limit blame to Saudi Arabia and "Wahhabi" Islam, because otherwise one would have to admit that Infidels have a big problem, Houston, and we just can't face it, can we, is humanly understandable, but still unacceptable.

Schwartz has not hidden, but does not advertise either, that he is a “revert” to Shi’a Islam, and that he regards himself as a “Sufi.” One has the feeling that he believes Shi’a Islam is somehow “softer” than Sunni Islam. But the Ayatollah Khomeini was not a mutant, not a sport; he was a perfectly orthodox and well-trained Shi’a theologian. And just look at his bloodthirsty remarks about Infidels (see, for example, the quotation from him in Ibn Warraq’s “Why I Am Not a Muslim” at pp. 11-12). The very word “Sufi” for some evokes the poetry of Rumi (and the name Rumi, in turn, evokes a confused mix of Hesse’s Siddhartha, and granny glasses, and that summer of love in Haight-Ashbury, before they shot Jimmy and Janis and Bobby and …you know), and many Infidels swoon at the idea – Sufism, whirling dervishes, a direct connection to God, without all that other stuff. Well, Sufis are not exempt from the inculcated hostility to Infidels. The “dreamy, otherworldly” (adjectives one imagines are silently applied by the reader) Sufi theologian Al-Ghazali wrote of the necessity of annual participation in the Jihad. Not exactly dreamy, nor otherworldly, nor unthreatening to Infidels or other living things.

Did anyone ever, in the whole history of the world, understand the problem with Islam? Yes, they did. In fact, almost every Western historian, almost every Western philosopher, almost every Western writer, almost every Western statesman – among those historians, philosophers, writers, and statesmen, who bothered to study Islam or the history of Muslim conquest -- understood Islam perfectly. Jakob Burkhardt did. Spinoza did. Tocqueville did. Montaigne did. Diderot did. Winston Churchill did. John Quincy Adams, the most acute Secretary of State in American history, did.

It is only now that everyone and his brother, without studying Islam, makes solemn pronouncements about Islam – pronouncements about its essential goodness, its essential compatibility with the non-Muslim world (about its essential compatibility with intellectual activity and artistic creation nothing is said – and that silence implies there is no problem). And that something is being said in a context of general ignorance, in some cases aided and abetted by its shrinking handmaidens, always on the verge of fainting fits, Miss Fear and Miss Denial.

And if one wants to see a demonstration of how absurdly Islam is covered, then just look at any news broadcast. Or look at the New York Times, which seems hell-bent on outdoing itself -- in its miserable misunderstanding and underreporting on the tenets of Islam -- than it did in its coverage of the Nazis (putting little items about massacres of Jews on p. A23 at the bottom, just the way, in today’s paper, news about Al-Timim’s arrest is at the bottom of page A 23), and of the Communists (remember Walter Duranty?), during the 1930s. Apparently it is looking to win a triumphant Trifecta of journalistic idiocy – and is well on its way.

“Wahhabi” Islam is a problem, but it is not the only problem. Can someone in public life begin to speak, calmly, and soberly, about a belief-system, and about the beliefs that that system inculcates, and to wonder aloud about what can be done about this? Even a call for an impossible “reform” of the texts would be preferable to this silence, this avoidance of reality. Because that “silence” becomes filled with the quislings such as Zapatero, and that is not acceptable.

Posted by: Hugh at September 24, 2004 10:10 AM

JWers:

This will be posted on multiple threads and periodically for the next few days, so I apologize in advance for the repetition.

Susan B and I are compiling a list of e-mail addresses for JWers/DWers who might wish to contact each other personally. Once your name is on the list, if someone wants to contact you, you will first be contacted by Susan who will obtain your authorization before giving out your e-mail address to the individual who requests it. So far we've had a pretty good response to our previous posts but there are a lot of familiar names missing! If you'd like to join our contact list, send your info (be sure to include your JW screenname so we know who you are) to susan_b356@yahoo.com.

CGW

Posted by: CGW at September 24, 2004 11:17 AM

Hugh - Bravo. Visualizing as I read, you made laugh today, and then cry because I, too, am frustrated by the lack of recognition or acknowledgment of the problem by those in public life. One wants to shake them awake, thump them, and thrust various publications into their hands, hoping that they learn and react before it's too late. If only it were that easy...

Posted by: epg at September 24, 2004 12:40 PM

Terrific anaysis by Robert. I doubt that any of our muslim posters will have anything to say on this.
Rikki-
Another bad day?

Posted by: Degenerate Artist at September 24, 2004 2:01 PM

Qur'anic Verses and Astronomical Discoveries
============================================

Professor Yoshihide Kozai: I say, I am very much impressed by finding true astronomical facts in the Qur'an.

Dr. Kozai is Professor Emeritus at Tokyo University, Hongo, Tokyo, Japan, and was the Director of the National Astronomical Observatory, Mikata, Tokyo Japan. We presented to him a number of Qur'anic verses describing the beginning of creation and the heavens, and which deal with the relationship of the earth to the heavens. After studying these verses, Professor Kozai asked us about the Qur'an and about the time when the Qur'an was revealed. We informed him that it was revealed 1400 years ago, and then we asked him about the facts which these verses contained. After each answer we would show him the Qur'anic text. He expressed his astonishment, saying that this Qur'an describes the universe as seen from the highest point, everything seen is distinct and clear. He who said this sees everything in existence. Seen from such a point, there is nothing which can be unseen.

We asked him whether at some point in time the firmament was in a form of smoke. He stated that all signs and indications are converging to prove that at one point in time the whole firmament was nothing but a cloud of smoke. This has come to be established as a proven visible fact. Scientists now can observe new stars forming up out of that smoke, which is the origin of our universe, as we see in this picture (Figure 17.1).

http://www.quranicstudies.com/images/articles//smoke.jpg

This picture was obtained only recently with the help of the spaceship. It shows one of the stars as it forms up out of the smoke. Look at the outer reddish parts of the smoke as it begins to heat and cluster. And look at the center of the cloud and how the smoky matter is of such high density that it becomes irradiant. The illuminating stars we see today were, just as was the whole universe, in that smoke form. We presented to him the Qur'anic verse saying:

Then he turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke (dukhaan): He said to it and to the earth: come you together, willingly or unwillingly. They said: we do come (together) in willing obedience. (Qur'an 41:11).

Some scientists describe this dukhaan or smoke “mist”. But Professor Kozai pointed out that the term “mist” does not correspond to the description of this smoke, because mist is characteristically cold, whereas this cosmic smoke is somewhat hot. Dukhaan indeed is made up of diffused gases to which solid substances are attached, and this is the exact description of the smoke from which the universe emerged even before the stars were formed. Professor Kozai said that because that smoke was hot, we cannot describe it as “mist”. Dukhaan is the best descriptive word that can ever be. In this way Professor Kozai continued to scrutinize each Qur'anic verse we presented to him.

http://www.quranicstudies.com/images/articles//smoke2.jpg

Finally we asked him: ‘What do you think of this phenomenon which you have seen for yourself, namely, that science is beginning to discover the secrets of the universe, whereas many of these secrets have already been revealed in the Qur'an or in the Sunnah? Do you think that the Qur'an was given to the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) from a human source?’

Professor Kozai replied: "I say, I am very much impressed by finding true astronomical facts in Qur'an, and for us modern astronomers have been studying a very small piece of the universe. We have concentrated our efforts for understanding of a very small part. Because by using telescopes, we can see only very few parts of the sky without thinking about the whole universe. So, by reading Qur'an and by answering to the questions, I think I can find my future way for investigation of the universe."

http://www.quranicstudies.com/images/articles//ngc2346.jpg

Professor Kozai believes it is impossible that the Qur'an was from a human source. He further stated that we scientists in our studies concentrated only on a small area, but if we read the Qur'an, then we will see a much larger picture of this universe. Scientists have to look at it in a panorama, not within limited and narrow perspectives. Professor Kozai acknowledges relating to the Cosmos, he is now able to define his way in the future. He states that, from now on, he will plan his research guided by the comprehensive Qur'anic view of the universe.

Glory to You O Lord, may You be exalted! This is the ever-lasting miracle which renews itself. This is a miracle which gives life and which convinces Muslims and Non-Muslims, and which will convince all generations until the Day of Judgment. Allah said in the Qur'an:

But Allah bears witness that what He has sent unto thee He has sent with His (own) knowledge. (Qur'an 4:166).

And say: Praise be to Allah, Who will soon show you His signs, so that you shall know them. (Qur'an 27:93).

Posted by: abushaukat33 at September 24, 2004 2:41 PM

I can take any Moslem from moderate to extreme in about 60 seconds.

Does anyone know of any passages in the Qur’an that mentions the Jews and their right to their land? I also thought there was some passages that mention all the land is Allah’s and no one can claim it as theirs? I have been searching but haven’t found them yet. Do they exist?

Posted by: Bar at September 24, 2004 2:47 PM

Bernard Lewis labours under the shadow of being an Ashkenazic Jew whose academic specialty is Middle Eastern history and religion -- "Orientalism" (and I say this in the sense of a scholarly study and not the perjorative that the late and unlamented Edward Said's sense). Possibly, he "pulls his punches" for two reasons -- to avoid being seen as a biased critic, and to retain access.

Schwartz doesn't have Lewis's academic credentials and also labours under the double-whammy of being a Jew romanced himself into converting into an esoteric minority sect of a religion that, in this case (unlike say a Jew who converted to Zen Buddhism or Hari Krishna) was literally founded in the blood of his own co-religionists. So, of course, whatever Schwartz writes comes through the filter of rationalizing a personal choice that may not be all that rational.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 24, 2004 2:49 PM

abushaukat33

1,000 America's killed in Iraq... 14,000 Iraq's killed by American's...
I see you Allah protects you well!

Posted by: Bar at September 24, 2004 2:50 PM

the difference is bar, that your dead are gonna be eternal fuel for helfire whilst the muslim dead killed by the kuffar are gonna be in paradise...

Posted by: abushaukat33 at September 24, 2004 2:55 PM

you wanna learn about the quran read these articles you misguided people, refutations to your kuffr from every possible angle... even your own kuffar are amazed and the divinity and authenticy of the quran sadly you are not

============================================
http://www.quranicstudies.com/topics.html
=============================================

the following verses from the creator describes u people niceley

6. Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.


7. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allahs Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment.


8. And of mankind, there are some (hypocrites) who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day" while in fact they believe not.


9. They (think to) deceive Allah and those who believe, while they only deceive themselves, and perceive (it) not!

10. In their hearts is a disease (of doubt and hypocrisy) and Allah has increased their disease. A painful torment is theirs because they used to tell lies.

11. And when it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peacemakers."

12. Verily! They are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not.

21. O mankind! Worship your Lord (Allah), Who created you and those who were before you so that you may become Al-Muttaqoon (the pious - see V.2:2).

22. Who has made the earth a resting place for you, and the sky as a canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do not set up rivals unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped).

23. And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Quran) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a Soorah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful.

24. But if you do it not, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.

Posted by: abushaukat33 at September 24, 2004 2:56 PM

abushaukat33

From : http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/pourhassan1.htm
And it just doesn't add up
Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 state the Qur'anic inheritance law. When a man dies, and is leaving behind three daughters, his two parents and his wife, they will receive the respective shares of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together, 1/3 for the parents together [both according to verse 4:11] and 1/8 for the wife [4:12] which adds up to more than the available estate. A second example: A man leaves only his mother, his wife and two sisters, then they receive 1/3 [mother, 4:11], 1/4 [wife, 4:12] and 2/3 [the two sisters, 4:176], which again adds up to 15/12 of the available property.

Could Allah not add?
If Allah is God you would think he could add.

Six or eight days of creation? Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation procedure adds up to eight days.

What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]

How merciful is Allah's mercy? He has prescribed mercy for himself [6:12], yet he does not guide some, even though he could [6:35, 14:4].

From : http://feistymama.com/bp/mohammed.htm

To be saved - you only have to know One name and it is NOT Allah. The name of Jesus of Nazareth, the only begotten Son of God and the only mediator between man and the Father. Muslims have to get over the lie that God cannot begot. He surely did. Look to Genesis where God says;

Genesis 1:26: (4000 B.C.)
"And God said, Let us make man in our image...."

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16
1 John 2: 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

1. Matthew
7:15
"Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravaging wolves.
15:9
They worship Me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commands of men."

Posted by: Bar at September 24, 2004 3:06 PM

abushaukat33

I enjoy your postings...
Please stay and defend you Qur'an and your Allah

Do not take offense when us infidels blaspheme him and Mohammed.

From http://feistymama.com/bp/mohammed.htm

Christians were told in the Bible to be on-guard and that the Antichrist will not only just be a man who appears shortly before the Lord Jesus, but also a movement which denies that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. There is no more militant movement on earth equal to Islam. No religion teaches hatred more than Islam. Jesus said; "many false prophets will rise up and deceive man."

Posted by: Bar at September 24, 2004 3:18 PM

Nike,

Go to the links section on the front of Jihad Watch, scan down til you come to Faithfreedom.

That's an excellent place to start. It's operated by Al Sina( he is from Iran, ex-muslim). Many who have left Islam put the information together on this site that is easily researched.

After you look at that, for further information, just continue to scan through the sites listed there.

If you have questions about the info once you've looked at, just let the members here know and we can guide you. We also have Ali Dashti, who has been a wonderful source of information for all of us here.

Posted by: susan_b at September 24, 2004 3:39 PM

Another great site: http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm

which skewers not only the pseudoscientific crap that some Muslims ascribe to as "proof" of the superiority of their beliefs, but debunks other faiths/sects, at times with great humour.

Unfortunately, humour (plus an open mind and analytical powers) are rare commodities, especially among people (like Abushkaut33) who take religion and "holy" writ too seriously/literally.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 24, 2004 3:57 PM

Nikephoros;

The least tolerent - most Wahabi English version of the Qur'an I've come across is "The Noble Qur'an".

It's the one I have (With the original Arabic aswell)

You can find it online here.

Regards,

KC

Posted by: kc England at September 24, 2004 4:02 PM

And, in answer to Bar's question re: the Koran acknowledging the right of Jews to lands in the Middle East, yes, I've read such references, and think they were given by Kamal Nawash, a Palestinian, who is founder and President of The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, and think I read them in a posting on FrontPageMag.com a few months ago.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 24, 2004 4:04 PM

Hey! how about that 'Abushauk' An Infidels hands all over a 'Mus-haf' !!

And by the way you still haven't responded to my post to you on the 'Beheading DVD's' thread.
As you can see from my post there, The Qur'an really isn't that scientific.

Regards,
KC

Posted by: kc England at September 24, 2004 4:09 PM

Abushauk-

The reason Mohammed put all that crap in the Quran is that there were PLENTY of people who opposed his evil lies in his lifetime, hence all those passages about disbelievers, sealed hearts, doubters, etc. But what Muslims fail to take into account is that these people were not doubting monotheism, for the most part. Monotheism has been around for thousands of years. They were (rightfully!!) skeptical as to its so called "Messenger" and all the dirty deeds he was doing. Of course, your wonder guy managed to eventually kill them before he departed this world.

Posted by: kafira at September 24, 2004 4:09 PM

Actually, Bar, my memory failed me slightly. The reference to the Koran legitimitizing the Jewish claim to land in the Middle East comes from comes Jamie Glazov's August 13/04 Symposium: The Islamic Reformation.

The claim was made by Professor Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University.

You can still retrieve the article from FrontPageMag.com's archives.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 24, 2004 4:16 PM

Thank you so much.. waterdragon52

Posted by: Bar at September 24, 2004 5:08 PM

Steven Schwartz would like us to believe that if Wahhabism was defeated then all will be fine. This is pure fantasy or he is being economical with the truth. The problem as we all know, is not Wahhabism but the koran itself.

There is also the fairly similar case of Irshad Manji. Irshad Manji when questioned why she does not leave Islam, replies in an apologetic and devious way, that there are many good things in Islam and she hopes for a more peaceful interpretation of the Koran or a Reformation. On both counts, she knows that this is not possible. As long as she continues to define herself as a Muslim, ipso facto, she believes that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah and is the role model for mankind. How on earth anyone can honestly regard Mohammed as a role model for mankind, beats me.

Besides anyone who believes that the Koran can be reformed is practising Taqqiya for the benefit of Western infidels or is an apostate. Irshad Manji is not an apostate and neither is Schwartz.

So why do Schwartz and Manji do it. To me there is a lurking suspicion that this is all part of the war. Deception and disinformation have always been part of a major war and both Schwartz and Manji are practising it. In the last two years there has been a hue and cry in the West, trying to find Moderate Muslims (MM). This desire to find MM is crucial to the continuation of multi-culturalism. Without MM, the whole project dies. Thus mainstream media gives these two far greater space then honest ex-Muslims such as Ali Sena and Ibn Warraq.

And so here they are, Schwartz and Manji, for their own reasons, willing to satisfy the panic search for MM. But these two do it for their own reasons. As confessed Muslims, they realise that the Muslim project in the West is at a dangerous pass. No MM - and the PC multi-culti media will begin to come to conclusions that endangers the ummah in the West. So the Left and the Ummah need each other for their own particular projects. However, given the exponential growth of the Ummah in the West, all it requires is for Manji, Schwartz and others who may follow them, to lull the West for another 30 years or so. By then it will be too late, according to their way of thinking, for LLLs and us, to do anything about it.

I think we would be far better relying on Ali Sena of Faithfreedom.org, when he states that Islam cannot be reformed. Honesty is the one single attribute that seems to be missing from the writings of Manji and Schwartz. It is what damns them both.

Do you know what is the worst thing I find about this war? It is that I, a live and let live liberal in the genuine sense, have become suspicious of my fellow man.

Posted by: DP111 at September 24, 2004 6:26 PM

waterdragon52:

I frankly do not believe anything that comes from Islam, its defenders or apologisers.

Asst. Professor Khaleel Mohammed may have realised that attaining the greater goal of Islamisation of the West, can be done more easily by granting a breathing space to Israel for the time being. Once Islamisation of the West is complete, Israel will fall without any further ado.

Posted by: DP111 at September 24, 2004 6:37 PM