Pretty much what we've been expecting. You'd think CAIR might have noticed and kept their mouths shut...

Guys! Right below the reviews for Mr. Spencer’s book on Amazon, there is a discussion forum link. No one has posted to it Yet, but I thought I’d mention it.

Today’s Extras on Jihad’s 5th Column:

What does Engineering have to do with Killing Jews?:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20420

The School that Terrorism Built”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20329

Posted by: Gary at December 5, 2005 7:53 AM

Yeah, I read online about on of the freakin' idiot jesusfreaks taking a "tour of duty" in "palestine" where he would bravely walk a gaggle of Arab kids to school "in order to prevent Israeli settlers from shooting at them."

And later, "Israeli Settlers" beat the hell out of him... LOL.

So, they would beat him up, but wouldn't shoot at children because he was walking with them? That's the problem with telling lies... if you tell too many, eventually some of them are going to contradict. LOL.

BTW... what kind of marksman couldn't shoot into a crowd of children and miss the single adult in their midst?

What a joke....maybe soon the "Christian" peace-keeping team will have the chance to meet Jesus, Mohammed, and whoever else they think is waiting for them. Its too bad that Mel Gibson wasn't there to help them.

Posted by: kj at December 5, 2005 9:16 AM

From Gary's little link:

In July of 2003, the Islamic Academy of Florida (IAF), an elementary/secondary private school for Muslims based in the Temple Terrace suburb of Tampa Bay, was suspended from receiving taxpayer funded tuition vouchers. The voucher program is a statewide government initiative that was devised to help underprivileged students in underachieving schools get a better education. Up until that point, the school had received more than $350,000 in vouchers, the majority of which came from Florida PRIDE, an organization that funds scholarships. After further investigation, the school was cut off completely from the voucher program.

Thank YOU, Jeb Bush. No wonder they campaigned so hard for him. And just think: we TAXPAYERS of Florida gave them "only" a third of a MILLION dollars before they were cut off (I wonder how much of that went to murder women and children in Israel?)

And were it not for Al-Arian's indictment, they'd STILL be learning Islam ON MY DIME. And if Al-Arian walks, how quick do you think they will jump back on the moneytrain, Gary? And will the "academy" be entitled to "back" wages?

Ah, the glories of funding "faith-based" initiatives.

And Gary, I never thougth I'd say this, but thanks for the equal treatment of both sides of the would-be dhimmi political scene. It takes a big man to admit the failings of his party, but you've done it. I salute you for your non-partisan ship.

You linked one article that called Georgia Tech to task for promoting "palestine" and lying about Israel, and you linked another article that really showcased the landmark problem here in Florida with Jeb Bush (R-Carpetbagger) using OUR money to fund "faith-based" schools. Very good.

Posted by: kj at December 5, 2005 9:27 AM

"In other words, 'They're on your side, you idiots. Let them go.'"

ROTFLMAO! "Stupid is as stupid does."

Posted by: Rick at December 5, 2005 10:40 AM

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

U.S. IMAMS SAY IRAQ HOSTAGE-TAKERS VIOLATE ISLAMIC BELIEFS

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 10/29/04) - A number of American Imams today issued a statement calling for the release of all hostages currently being held in Iraq. The declaration by Muslim religious leaders, released at a Capitol Hill news conference hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) stated: (The statement was read in English and Arabic.)

“As leaders of American mosques and as representatives of the American Muslim community, we call for the immediate and unconditional release of all civilian hostages currently being held in Iraq, whatever their nationality or faith.

“The targeting of civilians has always been prohibited in Islam. Those who kidnap and murder civilians are violating Islamic norms and deserve to be repudiated by Muslims in America, in Iraq and throughout the Islamic world. As it states in the Quran, Islam’s revealed text: ‘If anyone slays a human being…it shall be as though he had slain all mankind, and if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.’ (5:32)

“It is time for all parties to the tragic conflict in Iraq to end any actions that result in harm to the civilian population and the destruction of property. Reports now indicate that some 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the invasion of Iraq. All human beings, whether hostages or ordinary Iraqis, have a right to life and liberty that must be protected.”

SEE: “100,000 Iraqi Civilians Have Died in Coalition Actions, Study Estimates”
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1029iraq-casualties29.html
http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9445/early_online_publication

More than 150 foreigners have been kidnapped this year in Iraq and about one-third of them have been killed. The most recent kidnap victims have included a Japanese traveler, a Polish woman who has lived in Iraq for decades, drivers from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and Margaret Hassan, the director of a foreign relief organization working in Iraq.

CAIR, America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group, recently launched an online petition drive designed to disassociate Islam from the violent acts of a few Muslims.

SEE: CAIR’s “Not in the Name of Islam” Petition
http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=169&page=AA

- END -

CAIR CONDEMNS MURDER OF MARGARET HASSAN

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/17/04) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today condemned the apparent murder of British-Iraqi aid worker Margaret Hassan.

Hassan was kidnapped Oct. 19 in Baghdad, where she was the local director of the relief group CARE International. A video released to the Al-Jazeera satellite network showed what was purported to be Hassan’s execution by her kidnappers.

In its statement, the Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group said:

"We condemn this cold-blooded murder and repudiate all those who commit such acts of mindless violence. We offer sincere condolences to Ms. Hassan’s family and once again call on people of all faiths and cultures to work together for peace and reconciliation, not continued war and destruction."

In October, CAIR held a news conference in Washington, D.C., at which a number of American Imams issued a statement calling for the release of all hostages held in Iraq. Their declaration stated in part: “As leaders of American mosques and as representatives of the American Muslim community, we call for the immediate and unconditional release of all civilian hostages currently being held in Iraq, whatever their nationality or faith.”

SEE: http://www.cair.com/asp/article.asp?id=1294&page=NR

Also in October, CAIR sent a letter of support to CARE International Secretary General Denis Caillaux. The letter read in part: “It is beyond contempt that anyone would attempt to thwart the humanitarian work of CARE International and human rights advocates likes Mrs. Hassan…We hope that this terrible ordeal will soon be over and Mrs. Hassan can return to her family and her wonderful work helping the people of Iraq.”

CAIR recently launched an online petition drive, called “Not in the Name of Islam,” designed to disassociate Islam from the violent acts of a few Muslims.

SEE: http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=169&page=AA

The “Not in the Name of Islam” petition states:

“We, the undersigned Muslims, wish to state clearly that those who commit acts of terror, murder and cruelty in the name of Islam are not only destroying innocent lives, but are also betraying the values of the faith they claim to represent. No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people, and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam. We repudiate and dissociate ourselves from any Muslim group or individual who commits such brutal and un-Islamic acts. We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.”

CAIR, America's largest Muslim civil liberties group, is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has 29 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

- END -

CAIR CALLS FOR RELEASE OF ALL HOSTAGES IN IRAQ
Islamic civil rights group condemns murder of American engineer

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 9/21/04) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today condemned the murder of American civil engineer Eugene Armstrong in Iraq and called for the immediate release of all hostages currently held in that country, including another American and a Briton. (More than 130 foreigners have been kidnapped recently in Iraq.)

In its statement, the Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group said:

"We condemn this latest act of murder in Iraq and repudiate those who would commit such atrocities. We also call for the immediate release of all hostages currently held in Iraq, whatever their nation of origin or faith."

“As American Muslims and people of conscience, we unequivocally reject the claim that any cause could possibly be advanced by the killing of civilians and offer our sincere condolences to Mr. Armstrong’s family.”

CAIR recently launched an online petition drive, called “Not in the Name of Islam,” designed to disassociate Islam from the violent acts of a few Muslims.

SEE: http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=169&page=AA

The “Not in the Name of Islam” petition states:

“We, the undersigned Muslims, wish to state clearly that those who commit acts of terror, murder and cruelty in the name of Islam are not only destroying innocent lives, but are also betraying the values of the faith they claim to represent. No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people, and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam. We repudiate and dissociate ourselves from any Muslim group or individual who commits such brutal and un-Islamic acts. We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.”

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 29 regional offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada.

- END -

Posted by: CAIR at December 5, 2005 10:55 AM

“The targeting of civilians has always been prohibited in Islam."

Please PROVE that the targeting of civilians is prohibited in Islam.

So far, the opposite has been globally proven true.

So far, and historically, Islam has initiated violence toward innocent civilians by the thousands if not millions.

What is CAIR doing to acknowledge the violence problems caused by Islam? Nothing.

What is CAIR doing to fix global Islam? Nothing.

What is CAIR doing to try and "convince" people that there is nothing wrong with Islam? Everything psychologically possible.

List of Islamic Terror Attacks

List of Islamic Terror Attacks

STARTLING NUMBERS

"It is significant to note that Osama bin Laden views chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons as legitimate," says the report, titled "Pandemics: Avian Flu."

And how many "Muslims" around the globe agree with Osama bin Laden and hold him in high esteem? Percentages are deceiving, and the media loves to use them to spout such things as "Muslim support for bin laden is waning" etc. Let me grab a calculator here,

60% Jordan out of 6 mil = 3.6 mil
51% Pakistan out of 162 mil = 82.6 mil
35% Indonesia out of 241 mil = 84.35 mil
26% Morocco out of 32 mil = 8.32 mil
7% Turkey out of 70 mil = 4.9 mil

total for 5 countries = 183.77 MILLION people in favor of highly esteeming Osama bin Laden. An understatement at best.

http://pewglobal.org/reports

P.S. Dear "CAIR" I have tried to be understanding toward your entity in the past. But now I have learned well how to expose your deception and make the public aware. - Report.

Posted by: Report at December 5, 2005 11:33 AM

Dear Mr. Hooper,

One of your organization's press releases stated:

"As it states in the Quran, Islam’s revealed text: ‘If anyone slays a human being…it shall be as though he had slain all mankind, and if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.’ (5:32)"

I hate to do this, Doug. But, here's what 5:32 really reveals:

For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoseoever 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, but afterwards lo! Many of them become prodigals of the earth.

So, did Allah have a mouse in his pocket? And who are those "Children of Israel" anyway? And where do you suppose Mo got that one from? A Jew?

Posted by: PRCS at December 5, 2005 12:08 PM

And we're just supposed to believe whatever CAIR says, in their ploy to seduce western civilisation into believing islam is some sort of religion. CAIR has expressed pro-terrorist agendas on many occassions. And their phoney fatwah against terrorism, was signed by an imam from Cleveland, recently deported on charges of collaborating with terrorists. So, how trustworthy is CAIR, really? The more they try to convince America that they are pro-freedom and anti-terrorist, the more they dig their own grave by doing stupid things like promoting terrorism, hiring terrorists, funding terrorist groups. CAIR, simply, is the largest teror cell in the United States. They can lie all they want, and pretend like they are on the side of good, but some of us can see right through them. We know that they practice al-taqiya, we've seen it time and time again in the past. CAIR is untrustworthy whenever it comes to things they say in trying to show they are for what is good. Trust CAIR, and be caught in their wave of trying to take over America for islam.

Posted by: pastor_matt023 at December 5, 2005 12:24 PM

kj:

Point well taken about the propaganda from CTP and the PSM/ISM types whose notion of "peace keeping" is to protect terrorists by interfering with searching people for weapons and explosivesm etc..

After all, according to the ususal suspects, the IDF are capable of being able to strike targets that are located around corners a la the Mohammed al-Durra fraud, and they get rid of pesky "peace activists" by deliberately running them over with tractor tanks when given the opportunity.

For them, war isn't the answer unless you're a Marxist guerilla or an Islamofascist.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at December 5, 2005 12:57 PM

Correction - what CAIR really said was "They're on our side, you idiots. Let them go."

Posted by: johnb at December 5, 2005 2:05 PM

I remain a proud infidel and unbeliever in anything that CAIR's public relations machine rolls out. CAIR ended their posting with a reminder---warning---about the 29 chapters of CAIR that exist in the US and Canada. They left out the exact number of their long line of well-paid lawyers sniffing out any "anti-Muslim" speech, art, television shows, books, or mean frowns that they can and will attack, threaten and file a lawsuit against at the nearest courthouse.

Posted by: maryrose at December 5, 2005 2:22 PM

This is nothing new. When a Guardian journalist was kidnapped by Zarky's boys in Iraq, the Londinistan Islamist, Azzam al-Tamimi, pleaded for his release on Arab TV because the Guardian "supported Arab causes".

Posted by: igor at December 5, 2005 3:37 PM

Islam just defines civilians differently. Who are we to go around imposing universal norms of human rights on medieval theocrats? We must allow them to drag us back into the Dark Ages to remain progressive.

/spit

Posted by: Beagle at December 5, 2005 3:47 PM

In Islam there are no innocent civilians, no Israeli is innocent, because they all are citizens of and support the Jewish state.

In Iraq, the Shi'a that are killed by the Sunni's are merely kaffiri who are guilty by virue of their collaboration with the kufr invaders.

And should by mistake a "good" Muslim be killed, well then Jennah is his reward for he died in the struggle in the way of Allah.

I would be delighted if CAIR would condemn this:

Suicide Bomber Kills Five in Israel
In Israel, a suicide bomber has killed at least five people outside a shopping mall in the coastal town of Netanya. Dozens were injured in the blast. The Palestinian group Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. It was the first suicide attack inside Israel in six weeks.

Of course they won't because those Jews aren't innocent civilians, after all they are Jews, and didn't Allah say the rocks and trees will cry out, "There's a Jew behind me kill him".

Another point of order, checking Muslim sites googling "There are no innocent civilians" Islam or Muslim. I come across a lot of obfuscation, such as Islamdoor.com, seems that even stretching it, the definition of innocent civilian is limited to women and children (but following the lead of the massacre of Jews at Medina, a pubic hair inspection must first be conducted on young males, to assure that they are "innocent").

Posted by: Nariz at December 5, 2005 7:02 PM

To CAIR ,

Regarding your above post:

Please provide the Islamic definition of "innocent civilian." Please cite the Koran and reliable Hadith to support the Islamic basis for that definition.

If your definition differs from the Islamic texts, please identify explicitly the respects by which it differs.

You clearly condemned the killing of Margaret Hassan. She was a Muslim*, and protesting against the U.S.-British-led coalition in Iraq.
*http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1319224,00.html

Finally, you also misquoted a snippet taken out of context from verse 5:32. You removed the phrases "corruption/mischief in the land" and "prodigals (those who violate Allah's rules) in the land." What you've done constitutes
hiding scripture. Let me remind you of what the Koran has to say about those who hide scripture:

2:174 “Lo! those who hide aught of the Scripture which Allah hath revealed and purchase a small gain therewith, they eat into their bellies nothing else than fire. Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He make them grow. Theirs will be a painful doom.”

(This crime of may be pardoned, however, if the purpose of the deception-by-omission is to further the cause of Islam).

I will present my assessment of verse 5:32 in the next post. Please refute it.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 6, 2005 1:24 AM

Does the Koran’s Verse 5:32 Prohibit the Killing of Non-Muslims? (Dec. 05/05).

After every well-publicized major terrorist attack, Islamic apologists appear in the mainstream media, typically claiming that Islam is a religion of peace. To support their assertion, Islamic apologists often cite a sentence fragment from the Koran’s verse 5:32. First, here is the usually-cropped quote:

5:32 “…whosoever killeth a human being… 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…”

So far, so good. Sounds like a universal proclamation that all human life is highly valuable, and that murdering one person would be a terrible crime—like murdering all of humankind. To get a better understanding of the origins of this verse and its intended meaning, let’s go through the complete verses 5:32-37 (Pickthall’s translation), starting with 5:32:

5:32 “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 become prodigals of the earth.”

See Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of 5:32 at http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13723 .

I will present evidence that (1) the good part of 5:32—the part that sounds like a prohibition against murdering any innocent human being—is taken from pre-Islamic sources, and will show (2) that the omitted parts of 5:32, when included, change the meaning dramatically, actually permitting killing of non-Muslims in a wide variety of circumstances.

(1) The good part of verse 5:32 does derive from earlier sources.

In context, the decree doesn’t apply universally to all peoples. The verse refers to the Children of Israel in Biblical history (i.e., prior to the time of Mohammed). It is almost certain that the good part of the verse is actually of Jewish origin, predating the Koran. This excerpt speaks for itself:

“When we turn to another Jewish record - the Mishnah Sanhedrin, we find the link between the story and what follows:
“We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, "The voice of thy brother's bloods crieth" (Gen. 4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race, but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved the whole race.”
Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4:5
“Here is a passage from the Mishnah! The Mishnah is a Jewish commentary on the Torah. How did a Rabbi's commentary make its way into the Qur'an and be quoted as word from Allah? Simple, Muhammad had heard these teachings from the Jews, and repeated them later as he recited "revelation".
“Because the word for blood is in the plural in Gen. 4:10, an ingenious Rabbi invented the supposition that all Abel's offspring had been killed with him which signified that any murder or life-saving act had universal implications. Clearly Muhammad had no knowledge of the source of the theory set out in the Mishnah but, in hearing it related, simply set out the Rabbi's suppositions as the eternal decree of God! Just think, some Jewish Rabbi's thoughts now are comprised in the Qur'an!”http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/cain.html

This evidence makes it extremely likely that Mohammad (or whoever produced the words for this part of Koran) did plagiarize or appropriate this quoted commentary of a rabbi. Given that this is a rabbi’s commentary, not the words of Allah as conveyed by a prophet, the divine authenticity of this part of 5:32 is all but discredited.

(2) When the omitted parts of the verse are included, the meaning of the verse changes, and permits the killing of non-Muslims under many circumstances.

Now, the argument a defender of Islam might make here, after reading the above excerpt, is “So what? Islam and Judaism have a common source, Allah, and it was Allah that guided the rabbi in his commentary, and then guided the prophet Mohammad with a more ‘correct’ version.” (For this interpretation to be acceptable to Islam, one must not assume that the rabbi was a partner to Allah, but simply a believer guided by Allah). However, this more “correct” version, intended for Muslims, has an addition not found in the earlier source. That main addition is the “corruption in the earth” exception. (We don’t need to deal with the exception for manslaughter here, for this discussion).

Killing someone for “corruption in the earth/land” is permitted (see 5:33). “Corruption in the land,” the phrase that apologists typically remove (or hope people just gloss over), refers to the words and/or actions of non-Muslims that come into significant conflict with Islam. Some people have previously commented on this glaring problem with 5:32, e.g., see http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001351.html , though 5:32 is often cropped, quoted, and passed off without notice. Nevertheless, most people who cite the cropped quote seem to have little clue or concern about what the verse actually says. This is no trivial academic matter. Interpreted by Muslims, the verse deals with matters of life and death!

The Koran says that the presence of disbelievers causes confusion and corruption in the land, and therefore Muslims must join together to oppose them (8:73). Ibn Kathir interprets 8:73 to mean that if the Muslims do not join together to protect themselves and their religion from the disbelievers, then “(…there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great corruption), meaning, if you do not shun the idolators and offer your loyalty to the believers, Fitnah will overcome the people. Then confusion [polytheism and corruption] will be rampant, for the believers will be mixed with disbelievers, resulting in tremendous, widespread trials [corruption and mischief] between people.” http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=8&tid=20667 . (Parentheses and [brackets] in original). Note that fitnah is “"Trial, testing." A term referring to antagonism toward individual Muslims at Islam's beginning. Now it is used to refer to threats to the health of the state.” http://www.answers.com/topic/fitnah . It can refer to civil strife, the presence of disbelievers, disbelief, or the drawing of Muslims away from Islam and into disbelief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna . Oppression refers to any words, actions, or institutions that go against, or impede, the full unrestricted practice of Islam (Abul Kasem discusses “oppression” further http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem51205.htm ).

Let’s continue….

5:33 “The only reward for 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;”

See Ibn Kathir’s tafsir of 5:33 here http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13751 .

5:33 states the penalties. Those who wage war against Allah/Mohammad and/or cause corruption in the earth will be brutally killed, or significantly dismembered (to the point of being permanently disabled), or banished. (The severity of the penalty would presumably depend on the severity of the transgression against Islam).

Corruption in the land, or corruption/mischief on earth, is a huge category of offences, violent or non-violent, that significantly go against Islam. Google “corruption on earth” + “death penalty” to get an idea of the range of offences considered to fit the category today in some strict Islamic countries. These crimes vary widely, including, for a few examples, criticizing or calling for changes in Islamic traditions; practicing “sorcery”; engaging in “charlatanism”; a non-Muslim man having sex with a Muslim woman; highway robbery; destruction buildings; terrorism against Muslims).

War against God, mentioned in 5:33 (below), is also the same kind of huge, flexible category that could include a wide variety of offences significantly against Islamic doctrine or Islamic society. Aqa Mahdi Puya comments: “Waging war against Allah and His prophet means hostility against His chosen representatives; or deviation from His laws by overstepping the boundaries laid down by Him; or letting loose a reign of terror to persecute and frighten innocent people in order to deprive them of their rights; or attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims; or activities to enslave, exploit and destroy human beings.” (Source: http://al-islam.org/quran/ ). There are a couple of potentially misleading statements in Puya’s commentary. First, the Koran does call, in jihad, for terrorizing the disbelievers (9:5), but never calls for terrorizing believers. Puya’s comments about “innocent people” could refer to Muslims, but the Koran does not consider the non-Muslims to be innocent—far from it (see below). Second, the Koran permits Muslims to have slaves (4:3, 4:36, 23:6, 24:58, 30:28, 33:28, 33:50). Otherwise, Puya’s commentary is consistent with other accounts). According to Ibn Kathir, disbelief is included in the category of crimes ‘war against God,’ see http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13751 ). What ‘corruption on earth’ and ‘war against God’ have in common is that each is a huge category encompassing a variety of violent and non-violent words and actions considered offences in Islam. The significant overlap between the two categories involves opposition to Islam, including non-violent opposition.

Scholar and apostate of Islam, Ibn Warraq, does not interpret 5:32 to be a peaceful verse, pointing out that, in light of 5:33, the verse contains a warning to the Jews (i.e., warning them not to commit mischief/corruption). This point is partly in reference to this part of 5:32: “…Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them become prodigals of the earth.” Note that “prodigals of the earth” is not a compliment. It means that many of the Jews were reckless, exceeding limits in the land, despite having been given clear instructions from the prophets of Allah. Ibn Warraq writes, "The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. 'Behave, or else' is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses [5:32-33] aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated, and banished!" [brackets added]. (From Ibn Warraq, ed., (2003) _Leaving Islam_ p. 401. Amherst, New York: Prometheus). This interpretation is confirmed by Ibn Kathir http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13743

A more direct question is simply, what did Mohammad consider to be acceptable killing? We know from the Islamic texts (Koran, Hadith, Sira) that he had critics and satirical poets assassinated for their words against Islam (Sources: http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/index.html , http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/free_speech.htm , http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm . The Koran is clear that (male) Muslims must emulate the example of the prophet Mohammad (33:21), and therefore are obligated to kill (non-Muslim) critics of Islam. If this is acceptable killing according to Islam, why should anyone take 5:32 seriously as a peaceful verse? How can this be a peaceful verse if it allows Muslims to kill anyone simply for doing or saying anything against Islam? Let's continue...

5:34. “Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

See Ibn Kathir’s interpretation here: http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13783

Those who surrender (convert) to or repent (return to Islam), submitting (or renewing) their allegiance to Allah will not be killed. (Keep in mind that Mohammad was, and encouraged his followers to be, ever wary of hypocrites—those who are merely pretending to repent or submit themselves to Allah).

These passages may also be taken as having a wider application than dealing with individual transgressions. In battles or raids, the Koran states that captives should not be taken until a slaughter has first been made (8:67). Allah’s followers cannot be very “merciful” if some people must be slaughtered before they have a chance to surrender to Islam, but this too is considered acceptable killing. Let’s also keep in mind the general Islamic policy of acting hard against the disbelievers but being merciful to other believers (48:29).

5:35. “O ye who believe! Be mindful of your duty to Allah, and seek the way of the approach unto Him, and strive in His way in order that ye may succeed.”
5:36. “As for those who disbelieve, lo! If all that is in the earth were theirs, and as much again therewith, to ransom them from the doom on the Day of the Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them. Theirs will be a painful doom.”
5:37. “They will wish to come forth from the Fire, but they will not come forth from it. Theirs will be a lasting doom.”

A disbeliever is anyone who doesn’t believe in the one Allah (with no partners or rivals), Mohammad’s validity as a prophet, the eventuality of the Last Day, or who significantly transgresses Islam. The disbelievers are non-Muslims, including non-religious people generally, anyone who strongly questions, criticizes, or mocks Islam, and generally people of all other religions (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.). They are doomed to hellfire, and there is nothing that can be done about it—except, of course, to convert to Islam exclusively, before it’s too late. Verse 3:85 says, unambiguously, that Islam (the “Surrender”) is the only acceptable religion. Those who deny Mohammad’s revelations are evil (7:177). Over 250 separate verses in the Koran condemn non-Muslims to hell-fire/eternal doom.

The worst possible crime is disbelief in or denial of Allah (10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 32:22). Disbelief or turning away from Allah is the worst crime and is a persecution worse than warfare (2:217) or slaughter (2:191). (For a discussion, including tafsir, of 2:191, see http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq/70.htm , by Ali Sina). Disbelief is considered aggressive defiance against Allah. Non-Muslims, according to the Koran, are not considered innocent civilians. They are “guilty” of disbelief (45:31, 83:29)—the worst crime. The Koran says that non-Muslims are against Allah (25:55); on the side of the Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); “evil” (16:27, 2:91, 2:99); the “wrong-doers” (2:254, 5:45); the “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); hypocrites (4:61); “unclean” (9:28); the “worst of created beings” (98:6); “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55); “the worst beasts in Allah’s sight” (8:55), “apes” and/or “pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166). Verse 60:4 says followers of Allah will hate the disbelievers forever, until disbelievers come to believe in Allah only.

Killing disbelievers is not, in itself *(Note), a crime. This is confirmed in Tabari, e.g., “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us…” Tabari IX:69. In fact, many verses in the Koran order the killing of various kinds of disbelievers (33:61, 4:76, 4:89-91, 8:12, 9:41, 9:5, 9:29, 61:11, etc.). Believers must honour their duty to Allah and fight the disbelievers in battle, or be punished in hell (2:216, 8:15-16, 9:39). Nowhere does the Koran say that disbelievers should not be killed, except where there are benefits to Islam to let the disbelievers live. They could be spared as slaves to be bought or sold; they could become dhimmis (subjugated second-class citizens); they could be ransomed; women could be taken forcibly as wives or sex slaves. Abul Kasem, an apostate of Islam, has cited and discussed Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of 5:32 (see link above), indicating that non-Muslims are not protected by 5:32; only Muslims are protected ( http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem50808.htm ).

Some non-Muslims could be protected by treaties with the Muslims, if this was beneficial to Islam, but even these treaties could be broken at any time (e.g., see 9:1-17) to serve the larger goals of Islam (see below). (For a discussion of this broken treaty in Sura 9, see Ali Sina’s commentary at http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Waqasp3.htm . In that article, Sina also cites 8:58, which allows Muslims to break treaties even if they only suspect or fear treachery from the other side). This type of treaty violation is roughly consistent with Islamic holy war policy, as pertaining to the condition where Muslims are in a strong position militarily, e.g., Muslims should not call for peace when they have the upper hand (47:35). Another reason to seriously doubt the validity of such treaties, regardless of the relative military strength of the Muslims, is that the Koran orders Muslims not to believe the non-Muslims (3:73), who are referred to as liars (e.g., 2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11). For further evidence that such treaties have been interpreted by Islamic scholars, historically, to be merely temporary tactical manoeuvres that could be overruled within the overriding long-term strategic, global jihad, see Dr. Andrew Bostom’s article at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14578 .

Robert Spencer’s article at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18732 cites Sunni Islamic scholarly endorsement of the obligatory global jihad against non-Muslims for the purposes of making the whole world Islamic (also see the above link from Andrew Bostom). Generally speaking, the jihad policy involves giving non-Muslims a choice: (1) convert to Islam, or else (2) remain a non-Muslim but become a (subjugated) dhimmi and pay the jizya “protection” tax, or else (3) be put to death.

Intentional killing is a crime (i.e., murder) when one of Muslim humankind is the victim (4:93). More precisely, taking the rest of the Koran into account, 5:32 may only protect strict, Koran-adhering Muslims, or “single-minded slaves of Allah.” Many verses suggest that weak, casual, or mere nominal Muslims may not be protected. This is strongly suggested by Sura 9. Nevertheless, killing a believing Muslim in a terrorist attack, according to the above, could constitute corruption on earth and war against Allah. On that interpretation, because such terrorists (e.g., bin Laden, Zarqawi, et al.) have also killed Muslims (not just inadvertently, but deliberately, e.g., attacks in Saudi Arabia), those terrorists could be penalized in accordance with 5:33. (Fighting between different sects, such as between Sunni and Shia, has been justified by each side claiming that the other are not true Muslims).

Quoted fully, with the understanding of the context, and in light of the overarching message of the Koran, verse 5:32 was never intended as a sanction against the killing of disbelievers. Verses in the Koran must always be understood within the context of the ultimate goal of Islam. Allah sent Mohammad (and his followers) to conquer all other religions (9:33, 48:28, 61:9). To achieve this ultimate goal, Muslims must convert, subjugate, or kill all non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (2:193, 8:39). This is the context that contains and overrules all contexts in Islam.

Conclusions:

1. Verse 5:32 is almost certainly derived from earlier Jewish sources—actually a rabbi’s commentary, not the revelations of a prophet of God/Allah. Mohammad (or someone) added the ‘corruption on earth’ exception, changing the original concept in order to permit the death penalty for significant violations against Islam.

2. Even if we assume the verse is authentic, corruption on earth is so broad a category that almost anything that disbelievers say or do that is judged to be significantly against Islam could be used as grounds for administering the harsh penalties--including death--described in 5:33. In other words, 5:32 permits what most non-Muslims would consider to be murder. Therefore, 5:32 is of no worth to non-Muslims and should not be presented as if it were a good verse.

*Note: Historically, killing a dhimmi or a slave could be considered a crime because this represented a loss to Islamic society—the destruction of one of the Muslims’ sources of labour and revenue. (That’s why it could potentially be a crime; killing of a disbeliever itself is not the crime). Even in these cases, the penalities were relatively minor (e.g., several lashes with a whip). That is not the hardest interpretation. In a harder interpretation, some jurists were of the opinion that even women and children and other non-combatants could be killed simply on the grounds that they were disbelievers. For presentation of these historical Islamic interpretations, see Andrew Bostom’s article http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14964 .
An excerpt, from Dr. Bostom’s article:
"Both Muslim and non-Muslim sources document countless episodes of the pillage and massacre of non-combatants during jihad conquests and raids. And there is ample juridical justification for such acts. For example, the great Maliki jurist and philosopher Averroes (d. 1198) asserted,
"Most scholars agree that fortresses may be assailed with mangonels, no matter whether there are women and children within them or not. This is based on the fact that the Prophet used mangonels against the population of al-Ta'if."
The much lionized Sufi theologian Al-Ghazali (d. 1111) made a similar pronouncement:
"...one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...""
(End of excerpt).
The killing of women and children in jihad is specifically allowed, in accordance with the prophet Mohammad’s own example. You will also find in Bostom’s article citation of a ruling that non-combatants captured in jihad (such as women, children, the elderly, the handicapped) could be put to death for verbal expressions against Islam. Indeed, a Muslim who killed a non-Muslim could be excused if he could convincingly claim that the non-Muslim had committed corruption on earth or war against Allah. In contrast, killing a Muslim was a crime punishable by death.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 6, 2005 1:39 AM

Archi,

You're doing a bang up job on this.

Here's another link:

http://thewoman.blogspot.com/2005/07/ellipses.html

Posted by: PRCS at December 6, 2005 2:00 AM

PRCS,

Thanks for that link. I scrolled down to an apologist's defence of the cropping--he called it a "condensing" that was used to avoid misunderstanding--and then Irene Adler's reply to that poster:

""Spreading mischief in the land" is a very broad category indeed for justifying murder.
In fact when a new Ottoman Sultan was chosen, all of the male relatives of the old Sultan were murdered by the court -- based on this verse -- because more than one claimant to the Caliphate would result in "mischief" in the land.
Regarding the condensed versions, that may be a reasonable point, but don't you think it is a bit odd that most of the "condensed" versions always leave out all the bloodthirsty language that tends to make us kaffirs nervous?"
--------------------------------------
I think Adler was being far too generous to the apologist poster (see "reasonable point"). The poster was claiming the "condensed version" was representative of the Koran overall. Clearly, it is not. (The apologist poster, BTW, cited nothing from any Islamic text).

Also, the changing-of-the-Sultans example seems a little crude. Unless the Islamic texts or the example of the prophet supports that slaughter (of presumably Muslim males), it's best to avoid examples like that. (Otherwise, Adler should cite the support). I do agree with Adler, though, in that the category "corruption on earth" is so broad that it permits quite a free range of interpretations for any Islamist despot who is looking for a reason to slaughter enemies or potential enemies.

For all practical purposes, 5:32-33 can be invoked to justify the slaughter of disbelievers, simply because they have committed the worst crime (disbelief)--a worse crime than killing a believing Muslim. No verses, zero verses, in the Koran state that disbelievers' lives should be protected, even though the Koran states clearly that intentionally killing a believing Muslim is a (major) crime (4:93), probably subject to eye-for-eye life-for-life retaliation (i.e., death penalty, according to my above references).

(As I understand it, the position in the Islamic doctrines on the killing women and children is equivocal, though, as Bostom's sources indicate, if non-Muslim women and children are killed, there is only a minor penalty (several lashes) for the destruction of Muslims' "property" (source of revenue). In the context of actual battle, women and children non-combatants certainly can be killed, in accordance with the prophet's example. Also, Bostom's sources indicated that non-Muslim women and children captives could be executed if they merely said anything against Islam).

Non-Muslims, in carrying on with their un-Islamic words and deeds, customs and institutions, are going against Islam. In particular, if those deeds or words impede the propagation and spread of Islam, this is clear grounds for pursuing executions, assassinations, and all-out jihad against the disbelievers.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 6, 2005 3:37 AM

To CAIR,

These links, which you posted, don't lead to the cited sources (e.g., page not found).

SEE: “100,000 Iraqi Civilians Have Died in Coalition Actions, Study Estimates”
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1029iraq-casualties29.html
http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9445/early_online_publication

Posted by: Archimedes at December 6, 2005 3:59 AM

To CAIR,

You said,
“No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people, and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam.”

A positive sentiment. However, the prophet condemned and indeed assassinated or executed those who mocked or criticized him (see my above article).

“We repudiate and dissociate ourselves from any Muslim group or individual who commits such brutal and un-Islamic acts.”

Do you therefore repudiate Mohammad?

“We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.”

What have you done to refuse to allow it? The only options are a complete reconstruction/revision of the Islamic texts, or their complete repudiation.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Koran, 22:15 (Pickthall): “Whoso is wont to think that Allah will not give him (Mohammad) victory in the world and in the Hereafter (and is enraged at the thought of his victory), let him stretch a rope up to the roof (of his dwelling), and let him hang himself. Then let him see whether his strategy dispelleth that whereat he rageth!”

Posted by: Archimedes at December 6, 2005 4:40 AM

Archi,

Per the apologist:

"The problem with mentioning that verse without the "ellipsis" as you call it, is that people such as most of you here are extremely likely to misunderstand what the verse means (due to preconceived, misinformed ideas about what Islam is about)."

The 'problem' is double-sided.

Assuming that the apologist is a Muslim who can read and type and has access to a computer and the vast research resources the internet offers and who has typed such a response on a computer via the internet to another internet savvy computer user in a ridiculous attempt to perpetuate what the recipient clearly knows to be nonsense typifies the Muslim side of the problem.

Couple that with the vast majority in the Muslim world who are illiterate and whose understanding of the Qur'an and Islam is molded by Muslim 'leaders', clerics and folks like the apologist and the true magnitude of that side of the problem becomes obvious.

On the flip side, too few actually challenge such leaders, clerics, and apologists, and too many -- as with the BBC article -- facilitate them.

P.S. Have you considered submitting your works to newspapers or magazines?

Posted by: PRCS at December 6, 2005 7:40 AM

KJ: Speaking as a "freaking idgit Jesusfreak" myself, I think there are some things you ought to know.

For one thing, I see that the CPT are supported by groups from the United Presbyterian Church, USA, which supports homosexual marriage and goddess worship. There are also Quakers, who have yet to meet a bloodthirsty tyranny that wasn't "misunderstood" while unctuously condemning every multiparty democracy that ever had the temerity to defend itself against the same.

I can't throw mud at the Mennonite contingent in the CPT. I've yet to meet a born-and-bred Mennonite whom I didn't like; although--God forgive me--it's sort of fun to ask them what one would do if he came around the barn, pitchfork in hand, to see some goon (his back to pitchfork-bearing Mennonite) threatening the wife or child with a knife.

Posted by: Kepha at December 6, 2005 8:41 AM

sheik and PRCS,

Thanks for those words of encouragement.

Actually, PRCS, I am looking into getting both the 5:32 (anyone who killeth) and the 2:256 (no compulsion) articles published anonymously on the net.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 7, 2005 8:57 AM

Pretty good, Archi. We are all enlightened. Heydad!

Posted by: Eliyahu at December 7, 2005 4:56 PM