| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
My Weekly Standard reviews Andrew Bostom's superb sourcebook The Legacy of Jihad, and edges ever so close to acknowledging the point that the book actually makes. Ever so close, but not unexpectedly given the magazine's general hopelessness about the global jihad, not quite there.
It's a disquieting read. Counter to President Bush's simplistic characterization of Islam as a religion of peace, the truth is far more nuanced; parts of the Koran call for peace, other verses have a decidedly different tenor.In the 1,300 odd years of Islam's existence, there have been peaceful interpreters and practitioners of Islam and war-like ones. What The Legacy of Jihad shows is that whether the war-like interpreters of Islam "hijacked" a peaceful or religion or not, their presence has been a near constant menace for well over a millennium. In other words, popular and respected clerics such as Yussuf al-Qaradawi (who has vowed that Islam will conquer Europe and America) and war-mongering leaders such as Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadenijad are not historic anomalies. Instead, they are links in a chain of Islamic leaders who have practiced jihad passionately for almost 14 centuries.
BOSTOM'S BOOK is likely to be controversial because it traces a history that polite society often seems unwilling to discuss.
Ain't it the truth.
He explains that phrases like "Islam expanded in the 8th and 9th century" are often used to describe the religion's history, but are rarely accompanied by an explanation of how this expansion occurred. The answer, Bostom reveals, is simple: It all happened through war.Quoting Islamic scholars from the Dark Ages through the 20th century, Bostom documents the consistent and usually prevailing presence of an Islam bent on converting or conquering "non-believers." The Legacy of Jihad charts the development of a code whereby it was each Muslim's duty to spread the faith by war. What's more, Islamic scholars developed a depressingly detailed set of rules prescribing the correct way to treat non-believers. One thing in this code was paramount--the best non-believers could hope for was second-class citizen status and an oppressive "head-tax." Other options included slavery and death.
Bostom also debunks the comforting notion that such beliefs and practices are relics of ancient history. For instance, the Islamic slave trade that planted its roots over a millennium ago sadly continues to thrive today in places such as the Sudan.
The philosophy of offensive jihadists has also remained consistent through the ages. Not only does Bostom reprint passages from Islamic scholars from nearly a millennium ago belligerently calling for jihad, he shows the expansion of their thinking in the modern era. Perhaps most informative is a speech he reprints from Ayatollah Khomeini who wasn't enthusiastic about the "religion of peace" concept: Said Khomeini, "All those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the world . . . Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. [They] are witless!"
AMONG THE WITLESS are many American academics, such as Georgetown's John Esposito. In his book, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam,Esposito describes jihad this way: "Literally 'struggle' or 'exertion.' 'Greater' jihad is the struggle within oneself to live a righteous life and submit oneself to God's will. 'Lesser' Jihad is the defense of the Muslim community."
Esposito's definition of jihad, especially "lesser" jihad, is ahistorical; the wars that spread Islam weren't defensive. Certainly none of Khomeini's or al-Qaradawi's rhetoric suggests a defensive stance. While one could argue that, properly defined, jihad solely refers to an individual's struggle for godliness, Bostom's book proves that this definition has seldom been a monopoly view in the Islamic world.
One could argue? Who could argue? Properly defined? By whom? Jihad in the Qur'an certainly doesn't refer solely to an individual's struggle for godliness. Just consult 2:193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, and so many others ad infinitum. These are reinforced by ahadith such as Sahih Muslim 4294, in which Muhammad counsels that nonbelievers should be offered conversion, subjugation, or death. Twentieth-century jihad theorists like Hassan Al-Banna and Abdullah Azzam made great headway among Muslims worldwide by arguing -- correctly -- that the idea of jihad as a spiritual struggle was based on a weak hadith, and that jihad principally and primarily meant fighting in the Qur'an and for Muhammad and the early Muslims.
The fact that My Weekly Standard could have a mountain of information supporting this staring them in the face in Bostom's book and still not be sure "whether the war-like interpreters of Islam 'hijacked' a peaceful or religion or not" evidences a massive case of denial, and one that most of the conservative and liberal mainstream media still suffers from. And as long as this continues, our ability to meet the full dimensions of this threat will be hamstrung.
At least it's good that My Weekly Standard reviewed the book, and favorably, unlike most books about jihad terrorism, which they have regally ignored.
Also, don't miss Jamie Glazov's interview with Andrew Bostom here.
Posted by Robert at January 30, 2006 9:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
For non-American readers, an explantion of "My Weekly Standard" is in order.
Some time ago the definite article in "The Weekly Standard" was replaced at this website, thanks to someone's mischievous miching mallecho, by the first person possessive , so that it became "My Weekly Standard." This summons up, for American readers of a certain age, an elementary-school-distributed publication called "My Weekly Reader" which would provide, in greatly simplified form, news of the world. As one got older, one would put away childish things, and subscribe instead to "Junior Scholastic." You could also take these simplified magazines home with you, and between Howdy Doody and Kate Smith belting out "When the Moon Comes Over the Mountain" -- glance, say, at such questions as the Communist Chinese threats over Quemoy and Matsu, or Nasser acting up as nassers will, or all about the economic miracles wrought by Ludwig Erhard.
So the slight change in the name does a lot of work. And is meant to.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 30, 2006 11:03 AM
While I believe we need to hear more voices like Dr. Bostom's, he is unnecessarily hard on President Bush. Any US President (even third party) has to deal with an Islamic world of dozens of states, important minorities in many others, and oil clout (in the Persian Gulf). We do not need another fifty years' confrontation with over a billion people, especially when that billion is far from a monolith-or, if a monolith, one that shows some very real cracks.
Posted by: Kepha at January 30, 2006 11:20 AM
Polite, sophisticated people in the West subconsciously assume that religion is largely a matter of interpretation, which changes with time, usually in a mellowing direction. That's because they're not really religious themselves and don't understand the emotional appeal. The WSJ types no doubt fit this description. They may be "conservative", but they also live in NYC. :-)
at January 30, 2006 11:29 AM
OT, reflections on Holocaust Memorial Day:
Is BBC trying to be sarcastic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4582736.stm
"The MCB's policy is not to take part in the UK's commemorations of the mass murder of Jews because it does not mention non-Jewish victims of genocide"
Sir Sacranie remarked:
"The MCB's leaders argue that crimes against other peoples should also be marked. "
"The barbarism of killings in Vietnam, Rwanda, Bosnia and Chechnya should also be marked, it says."
Selective memory? He has fogotten about Armenians, East Timor, Kurds in Iraq, Darfur,Biafra.. How convenient.
This caught my eye and the red alarm went off immediately:
"The UK's Holocaust Memorial Day is 27 January, but it will be marked a day earlier this year as "this date falls on a Friday which has implications for a number of faiths", organisers said."
I beg your pardon? A number of faiths???
Holocaust Memorial Day celebrations in Poland:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4652996.stm
"On Thursday, Holocaust survivors mixed with the young at the memorial to the victims of the Warsaw Ghetto.
The tram has the Star of David instead of a number
A 1940s tram marked with the Star of David - like the ones that used to travel through the ghetto - will be seen again on the streets of Warsaw on Friday.
It will be empty. Nobody will get on or off.
Before World War II, Warsaw was home to the largest Jewish community in the world outside New York. "
Finally an interesting comment from a BBC correspondent (thumbs up!):
"The Americans, whose drive for democracy in the Middle East has brought Iranian-influenced Islamists to power in Iraq, must be wondering if it was such a good idea after all.
And many Arab regimes, on which Yasser Arafat modelled his Palestinian set-up, must also be shuddering at the thought of what might happen if real democracy is let loose on them. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4657486.stm
On Hams also from BBC:
Senior Hamas official "Ismail Haniya spoke as EU foreign ministers were meeting in Brussels to discuss halting aid.
Mr Haniya called for unconditional talks between Hamas and international donors, saying no aid money would be used to fund attacks on Israel."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4661066.stm
Mr. Haniya, do you think we were born yesterday?
at January 30, 2006 11:34 AM
"Counter to President Bush's simplistic characterization of Islam as a religion of peace, the truth is far more nuanced ..."
-- from the article
The truth is far more nuanced? Far more? What does that mean?
The author means that he is way smarter than President Bush, who is a simpleton after all. And even though the author believes, in his superior nuanced way, that Islam really is a religion of peace, despite overwhelming empirical and historical evidence to the contrary, he is still way smarter than President Bush.
Posted by: Stendec at January 30, 2006 11:36 AM
My dear Stendec,
Much as I hate to be superior and nuanced, I must point out that you have utterly misread and misunderstood Bostom if you think he believes that Islam is a religion of peace.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at January 30, 2006 11:39 AM
Regarding Bush's ignorance of Islam,
I have pointed out the foolishness of Bush
here
Bush Still Doesn't Understand Islam - Speech at National Endowment ...
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2005/10/bush-still-doesnt-understand-islam.html
and here
Bush Steps In More DoDo
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2005/10/bush-steps-in-more-dodo.html
and here
Bush's Delusions and Ramadan
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2005/10/bushs-delusions-and-ramadan.html
I pity the fool.
Bush has never cracked open a Quran. Neither has Condi. He may have read an Armstrong or Esposito romance novel about Islam, but that is about it.
Posted by: John Sobieski at January 30, 2006 12:00 PM
Robert,
I was criticizing the reviewer, not Bostom. I guess the word "nuanced" is a hot button for me.
And I don't defend President Bush, either. His "relgion of peace" comments are dishearting and sometimes even sickening. But I believe that if he had access to informed advisors concerning the Islamic threat (yourself and Hugh, for instance), he, in is "simplistic" way, would do and say the right things.
Posted by: Stendec at January 30, 2006 12:01 PM
Sorry for the typos: that's "disheartening" and "religion." The words kind of go together when you think about Islam.
Posted by: Stendec at January 30, 2006 12:04 PM
I'm pleased to see Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" getting some exposure. I've read this outstanding book and I recommend it highly. I wish our President and everybody in the US government would read it, maybe finally we could have a policy that deals with Islam in a more realistic fashion, one that recognizes the real nature of this warlike religion.
I won't be holding my breath, though.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at January 30, 2006 12:14 PM
So who is advising Bush so foolishly? DAVID FORTE I researched this guy and posted the wretched facts here -
David Forte - TaqiyyaMaster and Advisor to President Bush
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2005/10/david-forte-taqiyyamaster-and-advisor.html
Posted by: John Sobieski at January 30, 2006 12:18 PM
Finally, even Haaretz has an article critical of Islamicism:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=676507&contrassID=2
What makes Islam so easy to hate?
Posted by: scribe10 at January 30, 2006 12:36 PM
In the UK My Weekly is a rather good (well I like it) magazine, published in Scotland and aimed at the more mature (hem!) woman.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at January 30, 2006 12:37 PM
So, let's all (each of us) buy a copy of Bostom's book and mail it to the White House. Let's bombard them with a salvo of truth. With any luck, one copy just might get through to the eyes of the President. That might make all the difference.
Posted by: Stendec at January 30, 2006 12:41 PM
A mosque was unearthed in Hazor, Palestine during the 1950s containing human-like statues that bear carvings of the symbolic crescent moon on their chests. These statues have been determined by archaeologists to be allah, the Arabian moon-god, and his three daughters. Mosques around the world possess this same crescent-moon symbol perched atop spires on their domes. A funny thing about this mosque at Hazor: it dates from about 1000 years BC.
Islam and its legacy of legalized murder and bloodthirsty warfare, now in the form of jihad, must have been going on a lot longer than the 14 centuries we have credited it for. The original names (we suspect) were altered to protect the guilty.
Posted by: pythagoras at January 30, 2006 12:57 PM
"Hazor, Palestine"
--- from a posting above
Erratum sheet:
Should read "Hazor, Israel."
Site of excavations by Israeli archeologists, including the celebrated Yigal Yadin.
Posted by: Hugh at January 30, 2006 1:08 PM
Its Evolution
The fact that we are writing and reading articles on Islam today is because it is the most successful religion on the planet. Its aggressive nature is what has made it spread across the globe faster than any other religion ever has. Could a pacifist Islam ever have been so successful? Unlikely. It would have been eliminated by a another more aggressive relgion.
Boasting well over a billion adherents, Islam is on a inevitable collision course with the second most powerful entitiy in the world: the US.
Islam wants to assert itself and do what it has done so successfully for centuries: conquer, subjugate, and convert.
Its evolution in action.
Posted by: barry at January 30, 2006 1:43 PM
I know that this is the Weekly Standard but I am still distressed over their reaction to Bostom's book. I'm think it was predictable that they would give Bostom a good review, afterall, how could they not? The work is irrefutable. But it just astounds me how Bostom could present his argument that jihad is central to Islam by citing classical and modern scholars, the foundational texts, and historic precedent and the staff at WS responds with a shrug and says "well, maybe". They have no counterargument except for the "good word" of Stephen Schwartz, a "reliable" source, who insists that the problem lies soley with "Wahabbism" and also the belief that Bush's Democracy Project is both "just" and "practical". Madness. If we cannot convince the media elites with historical fact about the truth of Islam (not that it is inherently evil, but more importantly that it is a threat to our liberty if the forces of jihad and da'wa are left unchecked), then where do we go from here? The general public is more open to the suggestion that there might be a problem with Islam, which is a good thing, but the blatant propaganda coming out of the left and right wing media will always be an obstacle. Even Jamie Glazov wasn't entirely convinced in his interview with Andrew Bostom. He still held up hope for "empowering" the "moderate Muslim". One billion people and none of these supporters of the "moderates" can even find 10 moderate Muslims that are not apostates. What can we do to convince them that they are wrong and that democracy isn't for everyone?
Posted by: igor at January 30, 2006 3:22 PM
You guys are so hard to please. I'm delighted that the article was published in TWS. Dean Barnett recently wrote a comprehensive and highly critical article in TWS about the Islamic Society of Boston's campaign to sue anybody and everybody who asked the ISB any questions. Gotta give the guy some credit.
You have to start the discussion/persuasion where the audience is, not where you are.
Barnett supports Bostom's book, provides good PR, and exposes it to an audience that might not have heard of it otherwise. Thanks, Dean.
Posted by: kelley at January 30, 2006 3:27 PM
Isn't even reviewing such a book Islamophobic of TWS?
They should be as ashamed of themselves as the scribbling Danes!
May a thousand cartoons - and reviews- bloom!
Posted by: profitsbeard at January 30, 2006 3:43 PM
Well if they are upset by a little cartoon, then this will send the mad mullahs into orbit:
http://i1.tinypic.com/mv6y5x.jpg
at January 30, 2006 4:24 PM
I don't see how anyone can be off put by this review. The awakening of the american people to the true nature of things is not easy or simple. Many just can't accept the idea (YET) that a major monotheistic religion teaches things like the Stone and the Tree, or Omar Rules. We have to begin this somewhere and recognize that we will be regarded by some, perhaps as alarmist Islamophobes, and we have to just keep pointing out things and saying over and over that the formative document NOT taken out of context reccomends aggressive imperial actions as religious activities for the glory of god and the achievement of worldwide peace.
I just got Bostom's book yesterday, and I'm finishing DKG Team of Rivals, and Walid Phares's Future jihad (highly reccomend both--chapter 13 of Future Jihad is as chilling as anything I have ever read), but having already read PIG to Islam, Bat Yeor's Eurabia and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, I have a feelign I know what's coming.
BUt the question remains, how to cram what's contained between the covers of these books in to the mind of america without coming off as crackcots and therefore being ineffective.
Posted by: epaminondas at January 30, 2006 4:40 PM
OT, but this from the beeb;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4663742.stm#piechar
This is the $1 billion 'donation' to the Palestinians (a new breed) from the EU (60%) and the USA (40%).
Ouch!
Posted by: GA_boy at January 30, 2006 4:49 PM
Bush has never cracked open a Quran. Neither has Condi. He may have read an Armstrong or Esposito romance novel about Islam, but that is about it.
Posted by: John Sobieski [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 30, 2006 12:00 PM
How the hell can anyone know what books were cracked open or what.. do you think any Western leader can openly say.. hey its Islam that is at fault!! l mean you must be in the twilight zone someitmes!
For those who think Bush is stupid, he had a higher IQ test than the haughty JohnFingKerry!
it is not practical to throw a border around the west, and toss out all the islamofacists aka muslims out of the US,etc. Democrats have underestimated Bush and are paying the price for it!
at January 30, 2006 5:14 PM
And to add further to what igor mentioned about Stephen Schwartz saying that it's only Wahhabism that's the problem. Islam in all its flavours is a violent civilization-destroying death cult. Whilst Zarqawi, Zawairi and Bin Laden may be Wahhabis, Ahmadinejad certainly isn't and Ayatollah Khomeini wasn't a Wahhabi, but Shia fundamentalists instead, whilst the likes of Basayev and most of the Chechen nutjobs are Sufis, proving the Sufism certainly isn't Islam-lite.
Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at January 30, 2006 5:51 PM
Spirit Of 1683 foolishly says "Islam in all its flavours is a violent civilization-destroying death cult".
Eh...Ahmadi.....peace brother!
Posted by: Naseem at January 30, 2006 6:02 PM
Islam didnot convert people by force whioch the criminal racist author wrote in his book. When Islam
free the holyland they where only 1% of the population of the area. Than it was like that for 40 years untril the religion of Islam won then over by if peaceful nature of Islam won then over. The Icon hestery in the Greek church also help. When they took over the holy land the greek church decide to ban ionsts from churches and people from haveing then also. 90% of the people of the greek church want icons and the Eastern Roman Empire opposeive the icons workship by forces. Most people in the holyland want to have icions in they church and home. They surrend they cities to the Persain Empire
in a 20 year long war before Islam came on the sence. When the moslim took over the holy land they allow both side in the icion issue to workhip the way they want. Twentry later the Greek Church gave than ultiman to the icion workshiper change your way or be excomminulate from the church. Many of icion workshipper would rather convert to Islam which have no idoels or icion allow in workshipping God.
Christian donot workship one God instead they workship three gods(the father, the son, and the spirit) you cannot divide up one God into three gods.
Posted by: DefenderofIslam at January 30, 2006 6:25 PM
DefenderofIslam, Maybe you can't divide one God into three, but God can!
Posted by: kelley at January 30, 2006 6:47 PM
"you cannot divide up one God into three gods."
Yeah, right, just like H20 cannot exist in three forms;
Gas : steam,
Solid : Ice
Liquid : Water.
Just like there cannot exist three folds in a blanket.
Who are you to prescribe what God can or cannot do?
Posted by: Mike_W at January 30, 2006 7:31 PM
We all know how the Middle East studies programs have been infiltrated by Muslim agents and apologists for Islam - protecting Islam...
--- from Sobieski's article on David Forte
You know, in the 70s academic standards got thrown out the window during the hippie takover of academia.
In a very real sense, Women's Studies Departments and African American Studies Departments paved the way for the dozens of pro-terrorism Studies departments on our campuses now working so earnestly to kill off freedom.
But the once that stabbed me through the heart is when it became ok to "deconstruct" history... in other words, to spout bullcrap as a truthful recounting of past events.
Trailblazers, they are.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 30, 2006 8:25 PM
Kepha,
Your point has some validity. It's easy for us to offer our infinite wisdom as armchair quarterbacks with nothing to lose (Robert himself being the exception since his name and imprimature are out there for all to see).
The President is dealing with the real world on a daily basis. He represents ALL Americans, not just infidels. He has responsibilities at home and abroad that constrict his ability to express himself in ways that we take for granted.
It's not what he doesn't say that bothers me, it's what he does say. It would be absurd to expect him to excoriate the Muslim faith in the manner of a Hugh Fitzgerald.
But he could express the desire to build bridges with the Muslim world without validating Islam as a "religion of peace." He could call for understanding between cultures without selectively quoting from the Quran and engaging in convoluted theological interprations of Islam and jihad...the kind that Andrew Bostom finds so reprehensible.
In short, he could be a statesman without wallowing in the putrid waters of Islamic apologia.
Posted by: Cornelius at January 30, 2006 9:35 PM
hey nassem -
I think Islam is a violent death cult, too.
Don't you get it?
We are wise to you!!!!
You can fool some of the people all of the time - and all of the people some of the time...but YOU CAN"T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME. And you bastards don't fool me at all.
All the high-minded rhetoric from Nassem and "Defender of Islam" (whose English is appauling) dosen't change what we know in our cells - when I see bearded muslims on a plane with a koran in hand, I prepare for life and death combat, and so should everyone else.
One day, this dastardly religion MAY go through a reformation. Until that time, we must fight bravely and without reserve.
at January 30, 2006 10:18 PM
Polite, sophisticated people in the West subconsciously assume that religion is largely a matter of interpretation, which changes with time, usually in a mellowing direction.
Then, as they dab their chins with napkins at the end of the dinner party, the polite and civilized guests notice the grunting and groaning over in the corner of the state room.
That squatting figure is your Moslem, that steaming log on the expensive rug is your Islam.
Guess who's coming to dinner.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 30, 2006 10:41 PM
Islam wants to assert itself and do what it has done so successfully for centuries: conquer, subjugate, and convert.
Its evolution in action.
Posted by: barry at January 30, 2006 01:43 PM
Evolution in action?!! I would call it devolution in action. Islam's former success in the conquer, subjugate, and convert departments was achieved under very different circumstances than exist in today's world. They can use every dirty trick spelled out in their Satanic Qur'an and they will still lose. Islam will eventually push the wrong buttons, which will result in the untimely demise of millions of the billions. The survivors will be conquered, subjugated, and converted.
Before this war is over, muslims will savor the bitter taste of their own medicine.
Posted by: Susanp at January 31, 2006 12:04 AM
DefenderofIslam, I don't know where you studied history, but I would suggest a refresher course.
People who expose the truth are not "racists." And what qualifications might you possess to speak for God? While you're brushing up on history, you might want to learn about the Holy Trinity from a Christian perspective instead of believing the lies you've heard from Islamic clergy, who are as stupid as you are.
Posted by: Susanp at January 31, 2006 12:11 AM
defenderofIslam...Remember this...Allah had no son, but he had three daughters....Thier names were Larry, Curly and Mo. I'm sure you remember Mo. Mo married a six year old and had sex with her when she was nine. Larry was disgusted, but Curly wanted to watch. When Mo had revelations from Allah, while under the covers with the child bride, it was Curly who was writing them down. If not for Curly much of the Quran would have been lost in Mo's throes of passion...or whatever it was. So next time you start complaining, remember that Islam owes it's existence to Allahs daughter Curly.
at January 31, 2006 2:08 AM
Robert:“At least it's good that My Weekly Standard reviewed the book, and favorably, unlike most books about jihad terrorism, which they have regally ignored.”
MWS: “AMONG THE WITLESS are many American academics, such as Georgetown's John Esposito.”
I have to agree, as far as MSM standards are concerned, the review is not that bad. Nice shot at Esposito; and it’s a fair one. Nevertheless, the reviewer does seem to be holding back. One would never guess that the book contains descriptions of mass rapes, mass slaughter of POWs, and rulings permitting Muslims to kill non-Muslim women and children captives who “waged war” by speaking against Islam, and so on.
MWS:“…the truth is far more nuanced; parts of the Koran call for peace, other verses have a decidedly different tenor.”
Nuanced like the edges of Mohammad’s swords…“nuanced.” Such is the tentative comment of someone who has not actually read the Koran. There really aren’t that many “good” verses. Many of the good verses refer to one thing: Pay the zakat! Most good verses only refer to goodness toward fellow Muslims. Still other good verses are actually veiled threats—“be patient with them [disbelievers]…for a while”(!) One good Meccan verse says act “as though/as if” you are friends with the disbelievers. Only 20% of the Meccan suras even contain a good verse, whereas 88% of them contain at least one bad verse. And through all of this disbelievers (those who reject Mohammad’s revelations) are condemned to hell-fires anyway. That policy never changes. So who cares whether Mohammad told his followers, on occasion, to be superficially polite to disbelievers? Would we evaluate a modern ethical treatise by ignoring the 250 times the author condemned those of rival viewpoints to the hell-fires?!
MSW:“The Legacy of Jihad charts the development of a code whereby it was each Muslim's duty to spread the faith by war.”
The word “development” here implies that the code wasn’t already set in the Koran, which is obviously false (see Suras 9, 61, 48, 8, etc.).
Ibn Kathir, EXCERPTS--------------------------
Verse 48:28. http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=48&tid=49630
The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
Allah the Exalted and Most Honored said, while delivering the glad tidings to the believers that the Messenger will triumph over his enemies and the rest of the people of the earth,
(He it is Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth,) with beneficial knowledge and righteous good deeds. Indeed, the Islamic Shari`ah has two factors, knowledge and deeds. The true religious knowledge is by definition true, and the accepted Islamic acts are by definition accepted. Therefore, the news and creed that this religion conveys are true and its commandments are just,
(that He may make it superior to all religions.) all the religions of the people of the earth, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, whether having certain ideologies or being atheists or idolators.
(And All-Sufficient is Allah as a Witness.) that Muhammad is His Messenger and that He will grant him victory. Allah the Exalted and Most Honored has the best knowledge.
(29. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. You see them bowing falling down prostrate, seeking reward from Allah and acceptance. The mark of them is on their faces from the traces of prostration. This is their description in the Tawrah. But their description in the Injil is like a seed which sends forth its shoot, then makes it strong, and becomes thick and it stands straight on its stem, delighting the sowers, that He may enrage the disbelievers with them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous good deeds, forgiveness and a mighty reward.)
*48:21 And other (gain), which ye have not been able to achieve, Allah will compass it, Allah is Able to do all things.
48:22 And if those who disbelieve join battle with you they will take to flight, and afterward they will find no protecting friend nor helper.
48:23 It is the law of Allah which hath taken course aforetime. Thou wilt not find for the law of Allah aught of power to change.
Verse 48:21 http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=48&tid=49468
Good News of continuous Muslim Victories until the Day of Resurrection
The statement of Allah the Exalted and Most Honored,
(And other (victories) which are not yet within your power; indeed Allah encompasses them. And Allah is Ever Able to do all things.) Meaning, there are other war spoils and victories to come which are not within your grasp now. However, Allah will make them within your reach and indeed He compasses all these victories for your benefit. Surely, Allah the Exalted provides provisions and sustenance for His servants who have Taqwa, from resources they could never imagine. Scholars of Tafsir differ over the reference to other war spoils mentioned here. Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said that it refers to the conquest of Khaybar. This meaning is sound according to the Ayah,
(and He has hastened for you this.) which refers to the treaty of Al-Hudaybiyyah. This is view of Ad-Dahhak, Muhammad bin Ishaq and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam. Qatadah said that this part of the Ayah refers to the conquest of Makkah, and this opinion was preferred by Ibn Jarir. Ibn Abi Layla and Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that it refers to victories over the Persians and the Romans, while Mujahid said that it refers to every victory and all spoils of war, until the Day of Resurrection. Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Ibn `Abbas commented on the Ayah,
(And other (victories) which are not yet within your power; indeed Allah compasses them.), "They are the victories that are continuing until this day.''
Verse 9:123 http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=22240
The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
Allah commands the believers to fight the disbelievers, the closest in area to the Islamic state, then the farthest. This is why the Messenger of Allah started fighting the idolators in the Arabian Peninsula. When he finished with them and Allah gave him control over Makkah, Al-Madinah, At-Ta'if, Yemen, Yamamah, Hajr, Khaybar, Hadramawt and other Arab provinces, and the various Arab tribes entered Islam in large crowds, he then started fighting the People of the Scriptures. He began preparations to fight the Romans who were the closest in area to the Arabian Peninsula, and as such, had the most right to be called to Islam, especially since they were from the People of the Scriptures. The Prophet marched until he reached Tabuk and went back because of the extreme hardship, little rain and little supplies. This battle occurred on the ninth year after his Hijrah. In the tenth year, the Messenger of Allah was busy with the Farewell Hajj. The Messenger died eighty-one days after he returned from that Hajj, Allah chose him for what He had prepared for him [in Paradise]. After his death, his executor, friend, and Khalifah, Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, became the leader. At that time, the religion came under attack and would have been defeated, if it had not been for the fact that Allah gave the religion firmness through Abu Bakr, who established its basis and made its foundations firm. He brought those who strayed from the religion back to it, and made those who reverted from Islam return. He took the Zakah from the evil people who did not want to pay it, and explained the truth to those who were unaware of it. On behalf of the Prophet , Abu Bakr delivered what he was entrusted with. Then, he started preparing the Islamic armies to fight the Roman cross worshippers, and the Persian fire worshippers. By the blessing of his mission, Allah opened the lands for him and brought down Caesar and Kisra and those who obeyed them among the servants. Abu Bakr spent their treasures in the cause of Allah, just as the Messenger of Allah had foretold would happen. This mission continued after Abu Bakr at the hands of he whom Abu Bakr chose to be his successor, Al-Faruq, the Martyr of the Mihrab, Abu Hafs, `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him. With `Umar, Allah humiliated the disbelievers, suppressed the tyrants and hypocrites, and opened the eastern and western parts of the world. The treasures of various countries were brought to `Umar from near and far provinces, and he divided them according to the legitimate and accepted method. `Umar then died as a martyr after he lived a praise worthy life. Then, the Companions among the Muhajirin and Ansar agreed to chose after `Umar, `Uthman bin `Affan, Leader of the faithful and Martyr of the House, may Allah be pleased with him. During `Uthman's reign, Islam wore its widest garment and Allah's unequivocal proof was established in various parts of the world over the necks of the servants. Islam appeared in the eastern and western parts of the world and Allah's Word was elevated and His religion apparent. The pure religion reached its deepest aims against Allah's enemies, and whenever Muslims overcame an Ummah, they moved to the next one, and then the next one, crushing the tyranical evil doers.
They did this in reverence to Allah's statement,
(O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you,) Allah said next,
(and let them find harshness in you), meaning, let the disbelievers find harshness in you against them in battle. The complete believer is he who is kind to his believing brother, and harsh with his disbelieving enemy. Allah said in other Ayah,
(Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers...)[5:54],
(Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those who are with him are severe against the disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.)[48:29], and,
(O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them.)[9:73] Allah said,
(And know that Allah is with those who have Taqwa), meaning, fight the disbelievers and trust in Allah knowing that Allah is with you if you fear and obey Him. This was the case in the first three blessed generations of Islam, the best members of this Ummah. Since they were firm on the religion and reached an unsurpassed level of obedience to Allah, they consistently prevailed over their enemies. During that era, victories were abundant, and enemies were ever more in a state of utter loss and degradation. However, after the turmoil began, desires and divisions became prevalent between various Muslim kings, the enemies were eager to attack the outposts of Islam and marched into its territory without much opposition. Then, the Muslim kings were too busy with their enmity for each other. The disbelievers then marched to the capital cities of the Islamic states, after gaining control over many of its areas, in addition to entire Islamic lands. Verily, ownership of all affairs is with Allah in the beginning and in the end. Whenever a just Muslim king stood up and obeyed Allah's orders, all the while trusting in Allah, Allah helped him regain control over some Muslim lands and took back from the enemy what was compatible to his obedience and support to Allah. We ask Allah to help the Muslims gain control over the forelocks of His disbeliever enemies and to raise high the word of Muslims over all lands. Verily, Allah is Most Generous, Most Giving.
-----------------END OF EXCERPT
at January 31, 2006 7:25 AM
Defender of Islam: “whioch the criminal racist author wrote in his book.”
The Legacy of Jihad is written by multiple authors. It’s an edited volume. I guess you are directing your accusation at all of the contributers, and the reviewer who was at least moderately positive? I’ve learned that, whenever I hear the term “racist” being bandied about, that there is a reasonable chance that the perceived offence in question in fact, had nothing to do with race. I have also learned to suspect that the term is being used because the claimant has no valid argument, and is simply using name-calling/distraction. Also, I find the term is used whenever ugly facts are revealed about a group that is not defined by race. I find that Muslim apologists use the term extensively, calling Islam a race. Their characterization, not mine. This is all disturbing because this persistent, hysterical, dishonest usage puts all claims of racism, including true claims, in doubt.
On the other hand, if we use your definition, and a religious group is a race, then I guess the Koran is a racist book—according to your own definition. Have you read the Koran? Go here:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Tafsir (or tafseer) is necessary to understand the meaning and context of the quran.
http://www.tafsir.com/
at January 31, 2006 7:36 AM
"Nuanced like the edges of Mohammad’s swords…“nuanced.” Such is the tentative comment of someone who has not actually read the Koran."
-- Posted by Achimedes
That was my instant reaction to the reviewer's statement that the truth, unlike President Bush'es "simplistic" statements about Islam's being a "religion of peace," is "far more nuanced."
The President, who apparently has not read Bostom's book or others like it (I agree with that assessment, based on his behavior and the demands of his daily schedule), and is otherwise ill-advised on the subject, is just flat wrong when he makes such a statement. That, friends, is NOT a "nuance." That is a gaping Grand Canyon of a difference.
But, to the reviewer, who we know for sure DID read Bostom's book and should therefore know better, the difference between what the President said and the truth is still a nuance, a fine shade of distinction, discernable to only the most superior of intellects (like himself, apparently).
In the course of revealing his own denial of reality, a Grand Canyon of a reality that is sitting square in front of his face (Bostom's book), the reviewer takes a rabbit punch at the President, saying that his ideas are "simplistic."
If the reviewer had said that the President is dead wrong, or badly ill-informed, or both, that would be fine. But instead, the reviewer implied that the President is too dumb to see the "nuance" that he (the reviewer) perceives in Bostom's book. So, even if the President sat down tomorrow and read Bostom's book cover to cover, he would't get it.
It is the reviewer who doesn't get it. To him, the book is merely "disquieting."
at January 31, 2006 1:09 PM
I am at a loss to say anything more compelling than:
You've got to be kidding me! What a stupid religion.
Bite me, Allah.
Posted by: finnschick at January 31, 2006 2:58 PM
(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.)