| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Thomas Haidon is a Muslim who is willing to entertain the possibility, as you can see below, that even the word of the Qur'an needs to be reevaluated and revised in light of the way it incites Muslims to violence today. He makes this case in the context of an extended reply to Stephen Schwartz's article here. I am grateful for this reply since, although I have no idea who the ignorant, demogogic Islamophobes are to which Schwartz refers, I have made many of the same points they seem to have made — including the assertion that Islamic radicalism was not invented by the Wahhabis, but has its source in the Qur'an and other core elements of the Islamic system. Haidon makes that case here. From FrontPage:
In his recent essay “What Defines Moderate Islam?” Stephen Schwartz highlights an essential element of the "reformist" discourse: how do we define a "moderate Muslim" or "moderate Islam"? Mr. Schwartz fails to arrive at a workable definition for either. Nonetheless, he believes that moderate Muslims and moderate Islam have existed throughout Muslim history, and that the only barrier to true moderation is the cancer of Wahabbism.Mr. Schwartz employs the example of Bosnian Islam partially to illustrate his thesis. I am unable to comment on the unique case of Bosnian Muslims. While, I have, over the last month or so availed myself to research the Bosnian "phenomenon," I am not learned to the point where I can question Mr. Schwartz's characterization of that community. Nonetheless, I respectfully take issue with several of Mr. Schwartz's general statements on "moderate Islam" and the role that the classical sources of Islam have played and will play in contemporary Muslim ideology.
At the outset, we have a divergence of opinion on the general source of the malaise that is facing Islam. Mr. Schwartz seems to believe that the source is exclusively Wahabbism. I put it to Mr. Schwartz, that while Wahhabism is a significant driving force behind the current malaise Islam is facing, it is not the foundation of that malaise. The real foundation is nearly fourteen hundred years of Muslim tradition, and the misguided interpretation of the Qu'ran and more importantly and the misapplication the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad.
Read on: Haidon is not saying, as do many pseudo-moderates, that the Qur'an if understood properly will create a community of tolerance and peace.
I wholeheartedly reject the notion that prior to Arabia's allegiance to Ibn al Wahab, that a truly moderate version of Islam existed. One need only to carefully evaluate the four schools of Sunni jurisprudential (and Sh'ia Jafari) thought (including the Maliki school), which evolved throughout Islam's history, to determine that "moderation" still meant the killing of apostates, stoning of adulterers and the subjugation of women, etc.Mr. Schwartz made the following observation in his analysis: "Moderate Islam has always existed; but it is not and will not be defined by purging of texts or precedents from the Qu'ran or other elements of its theology, which are harsh to Western ears, and which some Westerners wish to blame for terrorism." I strongly disagree. While aspects of a moderate form of Islam have existed in pockets throughout Muslim history, as may be the case of the current Bosnian Muslims, it has never been a pervasive force, and was always prone to ideological defeat because of the complications that Muslim tradition presents and the sheer complexity of the Qu'ran itself. The so-called "Rightly-Guided Caliphates," and the political power mongering in between, should be seen as the primary catalyst for this politicization and corruption of Islam. It is during the latter of these caliphates that men like Al-Bukhari and Abu Hurairah (relaters of the ahadith), became political "prostitutes" to the Caliphates.
Despite the fact that these so called traditions of the Prophet Muhammad were codified, approximately 150 years after his death, Muslims often make no distinction between the actual revelation of the Qu'ran and the Sunnah. In fact, Mr. Schwartz does not take pains truly to distinguish the nature of Muslim tradition from the revelation of the Qu'ran, and seems to paint them with the same brush in terms of their priority in Islam (although he of course recognizes the difference).
In Islam, the revelation forming the Qu'ran is the undisputed word of God, full stop. Ahadith, by their very nature, cannot be viewed as such. In several situations ahadith directly contradict the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran does not prescribe a worldly punishment, while specific ahadith prescribe the penalty of death. Each school of Islamic legal thought, including the Maliki school to which Mr Schwartz makes reference, sanction the death penalty for riddah (apostasy).
My argument is, following the "tradition" of Abdullah Na'im, Fazlur Rahman and Ahmed Mansour, that the perceived duality between the Qu'ran and Sunnah has led Islam to where it is today, in a state of disarray. What of one of the most controversial traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, in which the Prophet consummates his marriage to the nine-year-old daughter of Ali? This is a tradition that most Muslims rarely discuss in the open. I discussed this particular hadith with a Muslim recently who drew the conclusion that whatever the Prophet did was halal, hence legal; thus having sexual relations with a nine year old girl was perfectly acceptable because it was the Prophet who perpetrated it. To me, this widely accepted hadith provides the greatest case for abandoning or at the very least deemphasizing the entire Muslim tradition (whether the tradition is true or not).
Mere deemphasis or abandonment of the Muslim tradition does not end the inquiry. While I recognise (as a Muslim) that the revelation from God to Muhammad is "perfect", the Qu'ran in itself is an extraordinarily complex document, often not fully understood by the most preeminent scholars. As such, it is essential in the twenty-first century that efforts be made to develop a new modern and moderate exegesis (tafsir) (in contrast for example to that of Sayd Qutb's "In the Shade of the Qu'ran").
I am not advocating the abandonment of the Qu’ran or its deemphasis in any respect, although it must be recognized that while the revelation of God to Muhammad may be "perfect", the fact that the written Qu'ran has been tampered with and reordered by men, with certain verses omitted, should indicate that our holy scripture as codified by man may not be as perfect as we might think. This is why the development of a new, radically new, modern and moderate exegesis is essential.
Placing the complex Qu'ran, without comprehensive and exhaustive explanation of its contents and how it applies today, into the hands of Muslim youth is grossly irresponsible. Mr. Schwartz points out that once Wahhabism is vanquished and Islamic pluralism is "restored", then we as Muslims can re-analyse the Qu'ran and Sunnah afresh. This is absurd. Muslims must collectively rethink and reevaluate these sources in the here and now. Through this self-evaluation, we can work towards providing a practical and viable alternative to the monster of Wahhabism. Simply fighting Wahabbism without providing an alternative vision will only perpetuate the existence of the ideology. Furthermore, a mere return, to pre-Wahabbi Islamic thought, even if that construct could be construed as moderate, without addressing the rationale behind the ideological shift from it to Wahabbism does nothing to adequately protect Islam from a future Wahabbi hijacking. What is required is not a return to the so-called "glory days" of Islam, where a limited form of pluralism and discourse existed, but the removal of the manmade doctrines that allowed Islam to succumb to Wahabbism. Otherwise the cycle will be repeated.
"Mr. Schwartz points out that once Wahhabism is vanquished and Islamic pluralism is 'restored', then we as Muslims can re-analyse the Qu'ran and Sunnah afresh. This is absurd." Indeed it is, because Wahhabism spreads around the world by portraying itself, with abundant Qur'anic quotes and Hadith citations, as "true Islam." It is the radicals who are interpreting the Qur'an for today's Muslims. Unless and until moderate Muslims begin to re-analyze the Qur'an afresh now, and come up with some way to blunt the force of the radical exegesis that teaches that violent jihad is the Qur'an's last word on relations with non-believers, the radicals will continue to have the intellectual ascendancy in the Islamic community.
Such reevaluation is not merely an academic or theoretical exercise. Western Muslims are slowly awakening to the fact that classical sources of Islam need to be reevaluated, not only in their interpretation but application. Western Muslims, in theory, provide the greatest hope for contemporary Islam (although reality seems to indicate a different trend). Discourse and critical self-examination are more likely to occur among Western Muslims because of the relative scope of freedom offered.The influence of Wahhabism on Western Muslims, is largely a result of Western governments failing to curtail Saudi and Pakistani infiltrators and their propaganda from controlling Western Islamic institutions. Western governments have vested interest (which has been highlighted again by the killing of Theo Van Gogh) in ensuring that Western Muslims are free from the influence of Wahhabism.
I do not share the same enthusiasm that true Islamic moderation and modernization can emanate from the Arabian peninsula, even upon the collapse of Wahhabism, when Arabia is and always has been so culturally and ideologically divergent to Western idealism. Merely ignoring the disastrous impact that a greater part of the Muslim tradition has had on Islam, and hoping that Muslims can eventually discern what is moderate and modern from that tradition is naively optimistic in my view.
While I have nothing but respect and admiration for Mr. Schwartz's knowledge and contribution to Islam, I strongly disagree with his conclusions. Nonetheless, I hope that this response fosters a healthy and constructive dialogue between two committed Muslims.
I hope so, but I rather doubt it — and not only because Schwartz has replied haughtily and caustically to questions that I have raised. The larger problem is that as Haidon advances his project of Qur'anic reevaluation (in which I wish him all success), he will face Muslims who will brand him an unbeliever, and quote chapter and verse of the Qur'an both against him and to defend jihadist violence. There are moderate Muslims (and Haidon is one of the most forthright and courageous), but Islam itself is not and has never moderate. Jihadists base their actions on core elements of the Qur'an and Islamic tradition; attempts to uproot those elements, while I applaud them, are certain to meet with stiff and often lethal opposition.
Posted by Robert at November 19, 2004 7:30 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
A compelling article. If the Koran is the actual word of God, and anybody who says it isn't can be kiled with impunity by any other Muslim, then what kind of introspection are we likely to see? Salmon Rushdie was a big red flag waving in our face that we chose to ignore.
I've come to the conclusion that the only moderate Muslims are the ones who were born into it and don't practice the religion. There's plenty of bits and pieces in the Koran from which one could fashion a belief system for personal living that is as peaceful, tolerant and loving as any other, but if I understand Islamic jurisprudence correctly, then Islam is a package deal and not an a la carte menu.
Particularly troubling is the notion that whatever Mohammed did is not only OK but should be emulated as closely as possible. For a good part of his life Mohammed was a brigand who robbed caravans, pillaged villages, slaughtered opponents in large numbers, and dispensed death to his followers for suspected disloyalty. Granted that it may be unfair to judge 7th century behaviour by 21st centuury standards but that's a long, long way from deliberately creating a lifestyle to replicate it.
Will Islam go through a reformation? I don't know. As historically significant as that may be the fallout from that dynamic should not by my problem as a citizen of Western Civ. Islam as I understand it is as much a political ideology as a religion and in that vein is as oppressive, intolerant of dissent, and controlling as any of the totalitarian 'isms of the 20th century. If somebody is praying towards Mecca five times a day then until all this ambivalence is sorted out I don't want them on my city council or my school board.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 19, 2004 8:54 AM
Thomas Haidon seems to be a muslim who genuinely wants to create a more humane version of Islam.
That is an excellent thing to strive for.
Personally I don't think anyone really knows how to reform Islam to western humanistic standards without a significant excising of many passages/statements from the Qur'an.
I think first the hadiths would have to be proven as fallible in their entirety and as a result completely abandoned by muslims. Then some kind of theological case for Allah being infinately compassionate (not less compassionate than alot of humanists are) has to be made. This sort of prime over-riding theological principle would need to be seen as self-evident to muslims so as to take precedence over the cruel and inhumane statements in the Quran. Then if this concept could be accepted then the commandments that are not compassionate in the Quran (ie. those that fail the infinite compassion test) could be excised because they can't logically come from god.
If so many men and woman can be more compassionate than the god portayed in the Quran then surely the uncompassioante commadments can be seen as false and not genuine revelations. To accept otherwise is to accept a evil infinite god OR a finite/flawed god with less humanity and goodness than most "finite" human beings. The first kind of god seems pointless/illogical in worshiping since it is evil, the second kind of god seems pointless/illogical in worshiping also if humans in terms of their goodness are superior to it. Therefore if a god is to be worshiped it must be infinite and infinatetly good. Islam really is full of a great deal of illogical clutter which is causing hell on earth... AND ONLY a logical reformation will do.
Just my two cents worth.
Posted by: obl r us at November 19, 2004 9:19 AM
I wonder how long Thomas Haidon will last before he gets death threats and a 24 hour bodyguard.
I don't think he knew what he let himself in for when he converted to Islam.
Posted by: Voltaire at November 19, 2004 10:35 AM
Haidon says,
"The real foundation is nearly fourteen hundred years of Muslim tradition, and the misguided interpretation of the Qu'ran and more importantly and the misapplication the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad."
And,
"While I recognise (as a Muslim) that the revelation from God to Muhammad is "perfect", the Qu'ran in itself is an extraordinarily complex document, often not fully understood by the most preeminent scholars."
So, the Qu'ran is perfect and complex, but has failed to produce any 'moderate' traditions (And what do we mean by 'moderate'? Do we simply mean things like, 'traditions that do not sanction indiscriminate murder of Infidels in certain circumstances'? Think about it. The 'moderation' they are talking about may simply be defined in terms of negations of brutality), not understood by the most preeiment scholars, and subject to rampant 'misguided' interpretation since the days of its invention.'
Hence, the question Robert has asked many times: where is this interpretation that is 'not misguided'? (Again note the use of negations.) What standards does one employ in judging that an interpretation of the text is not misguided? Standards consistently and coherently expressed in the Qu'ran itself or other standards?
But, the text itself is brimming with brutality, dehumanization, and injunctions for literal interpretation. It should be no surprise the text has never inspired 'moderate' traditions, and is subject to rampant 'misguided' interpretation, i.e. interpretation that inspires brutality.
Schwartz and Haidon share a fatal assumption that dooms both thinkers to unintelligible positions: "revelation from God to Muhammad is "perfect".
So, it follows that moral wisdom, the truth must be in the Qu'ran somewhere. But where? Oh, that is complex" "NonMuslims cannot understand [Schwartz]" or "Scholars and everybody have to really get busy removing man-made doctrines and explaining things. [Haidon]"
These odd views would simply be academic 'funnies' if the Qu'ran and Islam did not inspire such murder, such violence, such mind stifling brutality and ignorance, denial of things human, and actions, attitudes, beliefs towards others, that are 'unGodly' on any sane view of what that term means.
Hence, we should not smile, shake our heads and wonder how intelligent people can believe such nonsense; there is a part of us that wants to wish them well, so that they convince others who believe in the Qu'ran, that fountain of moral wisdom, not to harm or kill us.
In that regard, good luck, my friends.
Posted by: JTF at November 19, 2004 10:53 AM
tHE ONLY WAY TO STOP THIS DEATH CULT IS FOR SOME DIG TO TURN UP A BOOK THAT MAKES THE WHOLE QURAN THE BOOK OF MUDER AND THEIFS AND RAPERS ALL NUL AND VOID....
ALL ELES IS JUST LIES THEY ARE SENDING OUT THOSE TO SAVE THEM AND WILL NOT BE KILLED IS RUSHIED DEAD I THINK NOT IS VAN GOGH DEAD I THINK SO THIS IS IN THEIR BOOK CALLED SPIES TO DECIVE THE MASSES!!
EVEN THE SIMPILE MIND CAN SEE THIS!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Sight,Wisdom, and Courage to stay the course to Destory ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen
PS
Did I Tell you there are Swarms of Locus in egypt and moving over mulsum lands eating their crops!!
at November 19, 2004 11:04 AM
It's good to see an expert reply to Schwartz's column - I read it a couple of days ago and it left me with more questions than answers.
I am not very confident Islam itself can go through a Reformation given how narrowly it defines itself - any attempt to create an off-shoot of Islam similar to the reformist/Protestant churches that were born of the Christian Reformation would certainly be assailed as apostacy, if not blasphemy. However, the Protestants bulled through similar charges of heresy, so maybe we can never say never.
On the other hand, I am less pessimistic regarding a reformation of political Islam. If this aspect can be subjected to the forces of humanism and enlightenment, I believe it can moderate the immoderate aspects of Islam, such as offensive jihadism, the subjugation of women, etc. etc.
at November 19, 2004 11:44 AM
What we need is an aspiring writer to hook up with a talented forgerer. They could plant some "holy" documents somewhere to help moderate Muslims make a case. It is rumored that a Congregational minister cooked up the Book of Mormon as a spoof and look where that ended...
Posted by: former liberal WF at November 19, 2004 11:46 AM
Even if the entire body of hadiths, jurists' opinions and the sira (biography of Muhammad) were to be abandoned and the only authoritative source of Islamic guidance accepted was the Koran itself, we are still left with Sura 9. It alone has been enough to inspire and justify the mass slaughter of non-Muslims for more than a thousand years. Until the violent passages in the Koran itself are abrogated by someone the Muslims can acknowledge has authority to do so, will the scourge of violent jihad be expunged from the planet.
There have been movements that have claimed to have just such authority. In recent history, the Babi and Bahai movements can be cited as examples. So it is possible that a true reform of Islam can take place but the need for abrogation of Koranic content implies that only the appearance of a truly extraordinary individual of apocalyptic stature can catalyze the process.
One thing the West can do is to exert economic, political, and if necessary, military pressure on Muslim societies and governments to secure tolerance of religious minorities, especially the reformers like the Bahai community. The Americans can start with Iraq by making sure the Bahai community and other reform movements are not only protected but perhaps even supported materially.
In the end it doesn't matter if it is the Bahai movement or some other that achieves the critical mass of reform. What matters is that non-violent reform minded minorities are free to live in the Muslim world in the hope that one of these movements will someday take root.
Posted by: DrMack at November 19, 2004 12:07 PM
I wonder if "optimistic" moderate Muslims like Schwartz serve the role of "useful fools" for the authentic (radical) variety. The would-be moderates persuade the rest of the world that a "moderate Islam" that is true to its founding texts is possible. Meanwhile, the authentic, radical, Muslims who are true to the founding texts proceed with their program of recruitment and mobilization.
Schwartz would consider me to be an ignorant Islamophobe. But I suspect that I understand his religion at least as well as he understands Christianity. Within Christianity, there has at many times been a strand of primitivist movement which aimed to recover the authentic message of the Bible. The Protestant Reformation can be thought of in these terms, and the wide variety of fundamentalist Christian movements are examples of the same thing.
Primitivist movements tend to be appealing to people who take their religion and its founding documents seriously. I'm a bit skeptical of the impulse myself. For each good thing that can be noted about the early Christian community (for example the extraordinary community reported in Acts 2 and 4),there are bad things which one would not want to see reproduced today (for example the disorders of the Corinthian church).
The Wahhabists are an example of this primitivist impulse within Islam. The worrisome thing is that the Wahhabists may be correct when they assert that their approach is the authentic path of Islam. If they really do have the most authentic understanding of the texts, their views will always be attractive to sincere, conservative Muslims who want to confirm their lives to the precepts of the Qur'an. I find Spencer's take on this (that Wahhabism is authentic Islam) more persuasive than Schwartz's (that Wahhabism is not authentically Islamic)
Haidon seems to advocate the formulation of a "modernist" intepretation of Islam. I don't think that it will work. Modernist reinterpretations of Christianity, such as those represented by the liberal mainline Protestant denominations in the US, lack power to inspire people: the mainline denominations are in a decades-long decline, while the more conservative evangelical and fundamentalist movements are growing. If there is a sociological principle at work here, that ancient religions do not syncretize with modernism in ways that are appealing to large numbers of people, then we can expect that moderate/liberal Islam will similarly never capture the allegiance of the majority of the Islamic community.
My own intuition is that conservative Islam will never fail entirely, nor even become the minority position, unless and until it is supplanted by a more attractive vision of God and of spirituality. If there is no such more attractive vision, then we are stuck in a bad place. Personally, I think that there is a more attractive vision. Perhaps the Dhimmis of the world should be rooting for and helping conservative christian mission.
Dhimmisoftheworldunite
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at November 19, 2004 1:07 PM
PEACE, ISLAM STYLE:
Bukhari:V9B84N59 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.” Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me.’”
SO THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE MONSTER KILLERS IS KILL THEM BEFORE THEY KILL US!!
Qur’an 8:58 “If you apprehend treachery from any group on the part of a people (with whom you have a treaty), retaliate by breaking off (relations) with them. The infidels should not think they can bypass (Islamic law or the punishment of Allah). Surely they cannot escape.”
SO AGAIN CAN’T TRUST BECAUSE THEY CAN BREAK THE TREADY SO KILL BEFORE YOU GET KILLED??
Qur’an 47:33 “Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace.”
IN ANOTHER WORD NO PEACE WAR ALL THE TIME??
Qur’an 9:3 “Allah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.”
AGAIN NO TRUST BECAUSE THEY WILL BREAK IT??
Qur’an 97:5 “There is peace until the dawning of the day!”
WHEN IS THIS PEACE AFTER THEY HAVE KILLED ALL NON-MULSUMS??
Qur’an 49:9 “If two parties among the Believers fall into fighting, make peace: but if one becomes aggressive, then fight against the one that transgresses until it complies.”
SO IT DOES OKAY THEM TO FIGHT EACH OTHER SO IT WAS ALL BULSH-T!!
Qur’an 9:7 “How can there be a covenant between Allah and His Messenger and the disbelievers with whom you made a treaty near the sacred Mosque?”
SO WE CAN MAKE NO TREADYS JUST HAVE TO KILL OR BE KILLED??
Qur’an 9:8 “How (can there be such a treaty), seeing that they get an advantage, the upper hand over you? They do not pay you respect, or honor you or the ties of kinship or covenant. With (good words from) their mouths they entice you [out negotiate you], but their hearts are averse to you.”
DID I TELL YOU THE LOCUS ARE EATING THEIR LANDS CAN THEY EAT BLACK OIL I THINK NOT SO THEY ARE AFTER YOURS!!
Qur’an 9:12 “If they violate their oaths and break treaties, taunting you for your Religion, then fight these specimens of faithlessness.”
NOW WHO IS IT WHO BREAKS TREADYS?? MUSSIS!!
Qur’an 9:8 “How (can there be such a treaty), seeing that they get an advantage, the upper hand over you? They do not pay you respect, or honor you or the ties of kinship or covenant. With (good words from) their mouths they entice you [out negotiate you], but their hearts are averse to you.”
AGAIN THERE IS NO PLEASING THESE PEOPLE WHAT EVER YOU AGREE TO THEY CHANGE THE RULES THEY WANT NOT A PIECE THEY WANT THE WHOLE??
Tabari VIII:165 “There is nothing that you can do to make peace with him.”
IS THIS WHAT I JUST SAID OR WHAT??
Ishaq:544 “Muhammad commanded the people to prepare for the foray [raid, incursion, sortie, attack, or assault]. The Messenger informed his troops that he was going to Mecca. He ordered them to prepare themselves and ready their equipment quickly. He said, ‘O Allah, keep spies and news from the Quraysh until we take them by surprise in their land.’”
SO WHEN HE LOST IN ONE PLACE HE ATTACKED ANOTHER UNTILL HE WON YES HE WAS A TERRORIST??
Tabari VIII:182 “Allah had enabled Muhammad to take the persons of the Quraysh by force, giving him power over them so they were his booty. Their lives were now his spoil.”
KILLING AND STEALING!!
Ishaq:552 “When the populace settled down, Muhammad went to the Ka’aba and compassed it seven times on his camel, touching the Black Stone with a stick. Then he went inside the Temple. There he found a dove made of wood. He broke it in his hands and threw it away.” [The first idol Muhammad broke was the international symbol of peace.]
HE BROKE THE DOVE YES NO DOVE NO PEACE!!
Tabari IX:58 “When the Messenger reached Tabuk the governor of Aylah [a seaport at the north end of the Gulf of Aqabah] came to him, made a treaty, and agreed to pay the jizyah tax. The people of Jarba and Adhruh also offered to pay him the tax.”
THIS MUST BE FRANCE AND NOW THEY THINK THEY ARE WINNING AND CAN TAKE ALL OF EUROPE AND I AM CONFUSSED CAUSE THE EUROPEANS LOVE THEIR HISTORY AND HAVE FORGOTTEN THE BARBIA PRITES [YES MUSSIS] BLOCKAID NO TRADE IN THE MED THIS IS WHERE THE SHORES OF TRIPLI COME FROM YES THE US MARIENS SAVED EUROPE FROM THE MULSUMS??
Ishaq:607 “The Byzantines encountered the Messenger’s cavalry which was led by Khalid. Ukaydir was seized and his brother Hassan was killed. Muhammad spared his life and made peace with him on the condition that he pay the zakat tax.”
NO WE WONT PAY THEY DO THS NOW THROUGH THE UN=LEAGE OF NATION!!
Tabari IX:79 “In this year the zakat was made obligatory, and the Messenger dispatched his agents to collect it. The verse was revealed: ‘Take the zakat from their wealth to purify them.’”
WE ARE PURE ENOUGH THANK YOU IT IS THE ARABS WHO HAVE LOCUS IN THEIR FIELDS??
Ishaq:316 “In peace you are wild asses—rough and coarse. And in war you are like women wearing corsets. But I care not so long as my hand can grasp my trusty blade.”
SO AGAIN HE SAYS NO PEACE??
Qur’an 8:61 “But if the enemy inclines toward peace, do you (also) incline to peace, and trust in Allah. Should they intend to deceive or cheat you, verily Allah suffices: He strengthened you with His aid and with Believers.” [The small print is real important. “Should they intend to deceive or cheat” is an open invitation to invoke 8:57 to 60. The first to interpret this surah said:]
LIE UNTIL YOU ARE STRONG ENOUGH TO TAKE THEM BECAUSE WE CAN BREAK TREADYS ANYWAY!!
Ishaq:326 “If they ask you for peace on the basis of Islam (submission), make peace on that basis. Be of one mind by His religion.”
LIE LIE LIE UNTIL YOU CAN DEFEAT THEM THEY ARE TO STUPID TO KNOW??
Tabari VIII:17 “The Muslims and polytheists stayed in their positions for twenty nights with no fighting except for the shooting of arrows and the siege. When the trial became great for the people, the Messenger sent for the leaders of the Ghatafan [Meccan comrades]. He offered them a third of the date harvest of Medina on condition that they leave. The truce between the sides progressed to the point of drawing up a written document, but there was no witnessing or firm determination to make peace; it was only a matter of maneuvering.”
JOINING WITH THE LIBS TO BEAT THE OTHERS??
Ishaq:454 “Now that Allah has conferred Islam on us, and made us famous, shall we give them our property? By Allah, we will offer them only the sword until Allah judges between us.’ ‘As you wish,’ said Allah’s Messenger.”
THROUGH WAR AND RAPE AND STEALING YES LOOK AT ALL THE ARAB LANDS AND WHERE THEY LIVE IN ALL THE WORLD AND YOU WILL SEE HIGH CRIME AND HIGH BULLYS??
I AM SICK OF THE MANY SAY THEY ARE AFRAID OF THE FEW THIS IS THE BIGGEST LIE AND BULSHIT....
WHEN GOOD MEN STAND AND DO NOTHING EVIL RULES!!
GUESS THE MULSUMS HAVE NO GOOD MEN?? SAD! SAD! SAD!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Sight,Wisdom, and Courage to stay the course to Victory to Destory ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat Amen
PS
These men can talk but we see no action so I say TALK Is CHEEP!!
idf all the nice ones say they are afraid then they have Brought the Evil with them and will never have any balls...
Posted by: Catherine at November 19, 2004 4:01 PM
blah, blah, blah.
Posted by: juicealot at November 19, 2004 9:43 PM
Thomas Haidon a moderate Muslim? No way. He's a liberal Protestant post-Christian eccentric attracted by the exotic, who now knows he's gotten into something very sticky and unpleasant. With the easy self-assurance of an American with elite pretentions, he thinks the [don't say it too loudly: "them folks"] will surely come to see his light.
I've seen the same in a radical feminist who professed to be Buddhist--even though the home-grown Buddhists believe their new Western sister's kharma damns her to being led around the 18th Hell in a portable stock while the child she aborted tugs at her skirts; and that her jean-clad, between-menstruations bum will render a chair or bench unfit for the use of a monk.
It's my prayer that now that the multicultural dream is turning into a nightmare, people will come back to Jesus Christ, who gave them a free, posperous Western (and Westernizing) world in the first place.
Posted by: Kepha1 at November 19, 2004 10:33 PM
He will probably be the target of beheading attempts,by muslim fanatics.
If more and more people will speak out,muslims cannot kill all of them,so in the end,the word will eventually be out about this venomous islamic cult.
at November 20, 2004 12:52 AM
(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 Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)