| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Whenever an Infidel quotes the Qur’an, Muslim apologists say he is quoting it “out of context.” This "context" business was early identified by Ibn Warraq as one of the rhetorical smokescreens put up by those Muslim apologists. Indeed, it is almost as much a favorite as that "if you don't know Arabic, you can't comment on the Qur'an" argument, which would read out of Islamic orthodoxy, on the grounds that they can't possibly understand the texts, the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs and do not know Arabic. Of course, that doesn't keep them, in the madrasas, from being forced to memorize entire chunks of the Qur'an in a language they do not understand.
There are two kinds of context. One is the actual text itself: that is, when a movie reviewer writes that the movie in question is "quite possibly the best example of movie-making out of Hollywood at its most characteristically idiotic" then becomes, in the subsequent ads, a blurb that reads "quite possibly the best example of movie-making out of Hollywood..."
And that is exactly what Muslims do, and people like Bush, when they quote Qur'an 5.32 but never quote it in the obvious and necessary and indispensable context of 5.33.
Another kind of context is the historical one. That is, is what is in Qur'an and Hadith to be taken and applied to this age? Or is it to be understood by Muslims as needing to be re-interpreted, just the way American constitutional jurisprudence is all about intelligently interpreting the original Constitutional text, as well as phrases in the Amendments? (What is "due process of law" in the Fourteenth Amendment? What might be included in that phrase? And how, in what way, would such rights as are found to be included in that phrase apply as against the Federal government -- hint: see the Fifth Amendment, and go from there.)
But the Constitution, blissfully, is a document created in time, by humans -- though possibly the most wonderful and intelligent set of statesmen ever to gather in one place. And therefore we are willing to add amendments from time to time. Therefore we are willing, from time to time, to subject things to new interpretations, or to relate them to what we may see as the intent, or what we think or argue would be the intent today, of the Framers.
Not so with the Qur'an. It is deemed by Believers the literal and uncreated Word of God. It is good for all time. True, in the first few centuries of Islam there was a certain leeway, when texts were still being established, and jurisconsults were deciding what the Qur'an must mean and how to reconcile its obvious internal contradictions. The interpretive doctrine of "naskh" or abrogation then became fixed, and the Qur'an became even more harsh for Infidels as a result. Then, too, the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of so-called Hadith had to be collected, studied, winnowed, and ranked through analysis of the isnad-chain, according to what the most authoritative and learned muhaddithin deemed to be their authenticity. Finally, since the first biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq, was only known through the work of others, and himself wrote 150 years after the death of Muhammad, it was in those first centuries that the official biography was established.
And all this happened. And then the gates of ijtihad swung shut with a thud.
But here's the point: the Qur'an is uncreated and immutable and not-to-be-tampered with. The Hadith, as ranked by Bukhari and Muslim, are not to be changed in their rankings. The details of the life of Muhammad -- the killing of the Banu Qurayza prisoners, the assassinations of Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan, the attack on the inoffensive farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, the justification of killing all those who did not submit to Islam and seizing their property and their women, and even setting out rules for the proper distribution of the loot -- all that is set down, all that cannot be changed, and all that, as with everything else to do with Muhammad, is taught to Muslims as something admirable, and not to be deplored. For everything the Perfect Man, Muhammad, did, is to be emulated.
And so when the subject of little Aisha comes up, it may be that your Muslim interlocutor, who up to that point had managed to pretend to be a Western man, more or less, capable of sweet reason and mastering his passions, will suddenly go into a rage. He may first try to deny that Aisha was six when betrothed to Muhammad and nine when that marriage was consummated (what a demure word, how it puts us in mind of having tiny cress and cucumber sandwiches at, say, high tea at The Dorchester or Claridge's, and since it is midwinter, asking for a little dish of consomme as well), and then when you cite chapter and verse will retreat into the argument of Context, because back in the Seventh Century everyone married young, Everyone Was Doing It.
And at that point you can partly concede that yes, twelve-year-olds were betrothed to one another in some places, and royal alliances were thus fashioned. But in this case it was a nine-year-old girl and a man in his fifties. And furthermore, if it was merely a matter of "context," then why is it that almost the first act of the Ayatollah Khomeini was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine? We know why. If it was good enough for Muhammad, it is good enough for everyone, for all time.
And that is the problem. It is regarding the Qur'an as outside of time, instead of as a product of humans, produced in time and space and seen in its historical context. That is why the work of scholars of early Islam, if heeded, can do much to help the genuine "moderate" Muslims -- those who comprehend the nightmare, and who out of fear or filial piety cannot declare themselves to be apostates, but continue bravely to tell themselves that something can be done: perhaps we can eliminate the Hadith, perhaps somehow we can claim that the biography of Muhammad was tampered with or begin to diminish his role, perhaps perhaps perhaps.
But Ahmed Bedier is not one of those who finds anything worrisome about Islam. He is out to defend every last bit of it, to protect it from critical scrutiny. Only the most treacly of treatments, the kind of thing we now expect and indeed would be amazed not to find from the likes of Esposito and Armstrong, will satisfy most Muslims.
But it will no longer satisfy us. There has been, even in the regular -- that is, even in the uncomprehending -- popular press, too much of what we may call Jihad News. And the pressure of that news, which is added to day after day all around the world, is building up so that even the most willfully religion-of-peace Infidel is having trouble ignoring the evidence. Those Infidels will soon begin to find the "context" argument, and all the other rhetorical tricks employed by Bedier and others, not merely unsatisfactory, but positively alarming.
"War is deception," said Muhammad. Once that is understood, and once one has been deceived, and has come to realize the depth and breadth of that deception, one will not easily go back to the mixture as before.
Posted by Hugh at November 8, 2006 11:31 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
1)If 7th century Arabic is the "official" language of the Koran (since Allah gave it to Mr. Perfect in that language) this must mean a Koran in any other language must be invalid. Therefore, the last true Muslim died centuries ago in Arabia.
That means today's Muslims practice some erroneous form of Islam based on mistranslations of the original Koran (which itself must be blasphemy since translating the Koran from its "official" language is altering Allah's word).
This MUST explain why jihadists do what they do-they're simply confused about their holy book. I get it now.
2)Being a Muslim guy must be hell. After all, it isn't easy trying to be as perfect as Mr. Perfect himself, especially since most countries don't look favorably upon 50 year olds marrying 9 year olds in this day and age.
3)One should not be surprised at Satan Khomeini lowering the marriage age. Being a direct descendent of Mr. Perfect (so it's been said) means he's a product of inbreeding. This explains his demented brain's workings.
4)Islam was a load of crap in the 7th century and it's even more so today. THAT cannot be taken out of context.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 8, 2006 11:55 AM
These people also forget that there are CHRISTIAN ARABS who DO read Arabic and they read the QURAN and agree with Robert Spencer! Like the BOOK:
Islam Revealed A Christian Arab's View Of Islam
by Dr. Anis Shorrosh
Dr. Anis Shorrosh speaks and reads FLUENT Arabic in all its manifestations and was born and raised in nazereth (hometown of Jesus).
His webpage:
http://www.focusing-on-islam.com/Aboutus.htm
On which it states:
Three years ago Dr. and Mrs. Shorrosh completed the translation of the monumental document The True Furqan from Arabic to English
(in ohter words he is fluent in Arabic). He is only ONE example of people that scholars like Robert Spencer can refer or call up if they ever need to.
BUT guess what? As Robert said: most muslims do not know arabic! So there are excellent translations put out be islamic presses translated by SAUDI ARABIAN linguists all the time. I myself
got "THE NOBLE QUR'AN" in English (and translated before 9/11). I put it next to the Satanic Verses in my library (because this is a free country and I can do that).
at November 8, 2006 12:01 PM
My COPY OF "THE NOBLE QURAN"
http://www.amazon.com/Noble-Quran-Muhammad-M-Khan/dp/996074079X
# Hardcover: 927 pages
# Publisher: Dar-us-Salam Publications; 1 edition (March 1, 1999)
# ISBN: 996074079X
at November 8, 2006 12:05 PM
At least one can understand one of the reasons why the Bible is the best selling book of all time is the allowing for it to be printed in the different languages. That is its great beauty.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 8, 2006 12:07 PM
I am still reading it (and hadiths which are free online). Sorry to disappoint all the moderate muslims (aka muslims who do not read quran/hadiths) out there but it is a very violent book that tells me I should submit to Allah and FIGHT unbelievers where ever I find them.
Reading the New testament brings tears to my eyes. Reading the Quran makes my stomach turn.
Not saying that to offend anyone just reporting exactly what i see in myself.
Quran is really really twisted.
Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 8, 2006 12:07 PM
Reading the New testament brings tears to my eyes. Reading the Quran makes my stomach turn.
Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 8, 2006 12:07 PM
Actually, reading the Koran brought tears to my eyes. Tears of boredom and pain-what a headache it gave me!
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 8, 2006 12:19 PM
"..consummated (what a demure word, how it puts us in mind of having tiny cress and cucumber sandwiches at, say, high tea at The Dorchester or Claridge's, and since it is midwinter, asking for a little dish of consomme as well)"
Bouquets to you Hugh!Lol.
Posted by: Crows&Cows at November 8, 2006 12:20 PM
This is part of a running dialogue I had with some Muslim posters taking issue with my use of verse 9:5, 9:29 etc.
[user name deleted]:
Why not show the context of these versus? Oh, maybe cause they wouldnt be prejudice anymore if you did!
Me: all come from Islamic scripture. All are used constantly by jihadists to justify their violence. That gives us the right to post them for the Infidel word to become familiar with. In context or out of context. Don't just say something is out of context, demonstrate it. What is the context of Verse 9:5 we misunderstand? What is the context of verse 9:5 Osama bin Laden misunderstands?
[user name deleted]:
Salam, 9:5 is probably the most common taken out of context verse by muslims and non-muslims alike. It is referring to the disbelievers who has been abusing our wonderful prophet (PBUH). For 15 years The prophet (PBUH) was abused by them, he ignored them, he never foguht back even after his own people were killed. Finally, after 15 years, Allah told them they could now fight back. He said "Kill all the disbelievers..."
akashmiah
First of all verses are wrongly interpreted here. i.e. verse 9:5 should be: "Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikűn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." A
Me: These are the verses used by our enemies to justify killing us. The Verse of the Sword is understood by jihadists to be the last word on the subject. It abrogates all previous treaties with non-Muslims. Right or wrong?
What is so merciful about letting us live only if we convert or exist as dhimmis, pay the humiliation tax etc with willing submission to our Muslim betters?
Thanks but no thanks.
[user name deleted]:
(1 month ago)
The Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) had agreements with the non-muslims, aswell as did trade with them. They were not enemies, even after many tried to kill him. Concerning the so-called "humiliation tax," this tax is for protection. Ever notice in Muslim countries, protesting a minority group (non-muslims) is illegal? also in countries that everyone is required to fight in the army, non-muslims are not. Those are the reason for these taxes.
Me: "Humiliation" was called that by Muslims, it could even be accompanied by face slapping to humiliate the payer. Protection from whom? From Muslims. Dhimmi rules varied according to whims of rulers but Koranic rules were harsh to emphasize dhimmi inferiority...
dhimmis must distinguish themselves in dress (origin of yellow star for Jews), forbidden to ring church bells or display crosses, to mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet or Islam: in which case he loses dhimmi status and reverts to prisoner of war (Reliance of the Traveller) and people in the West are expected to act as dhimmis as if Islamic law applied to them: not to criticize Islam or Muhammad, not to discuss what is preached daily across the Muslim world-- under penalty of riots, mass hysteria, death threats to intimidate and silence. Cartoon riots were accompanied by Muslim proposals to make illegal criticizing "religion." We know which religion.
The first purpose of the Jizya was to enrich the umma-- it is even called "booty." Second, it suspends the jihad threat (death, slavery, exile) for the non-Muslim and protects his being, property under certain restrictive conditions. Atheists, however, have no "right to life" and are to be killed.
See Ibn Kathir's commentary on 9:29 "with willing submission in defeat and subservience and feel themselves subdued, disgraced, humiliated and belittled." Is the intention clear enough? This status applied legally, it is also known as apartheid. Jizya is extortion money, akin to "protection" payments demanded by the Mafia. You know, there is a reason no Muslim country signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
The status of dhimmi was so oppressive over time these populations dwindled to small minorities or disappeared altogether. Millions of human beings.
The dhimmi is inferior to Muslims in every walk of life. Why is this important? This is the only acceptable role for non-Muslims under Islam.
akashmiah (1 month ago)
And in the next verse Allah (SWT) says: "And if anyone of the Mushrikűn (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allâh (the Qur'ân), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not."9:6. And other verses are not complet and have been altered in some cases. read the whole quran then try to preach
Me: "Everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5"--Jalaluddin Suyati 1497
"Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying the jizya (penalty tax) or being killed. The verses about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case."--scholar al-Shawkani
Please explain to bin Laden or his mentor Sheikh Rahman, how they misunderstand Islam.
akashmiah (1 month ago)
And above all Jihad fi Sabilillah is now an obligation for every muslim. Allahu Akbar.
at November 8, 2006 12:36 PM
. . ."when that marriage was consummated (what a demure word, how it puts us in mind of having tiny cress and cucumber sandwiches at, say, high tea at The Dorchester or Claridge's, and since it is midwinter, asking for a little dish of consomme as well)"
with a TWIST of lemon ZEST!
Posted by: Malinois at November 8, 2006 12:40 PM
Great! So Islam is a context based ideology which can be consigned to the moral backwater of 7th century Arabia.
Posted by: Celsius at November 8, 2006 12:41 PM
It makes no difference what Moslems do, say, or think. The Quran (and Hadith and Sunna) is here to stay. Reform Islam? No way , no how.
Why do I say that?
Well, think of The Five Books of Moses. They were dictated to Moses word for word. Is the Quran any less the dictation of God than The Torah? Are the Moslems inferior to the Jews?
In reform Judaism, one may regard the Old Testament in context and regard it as a human artifact. But do Orthodox Jews care what reform "Jews" say? Of course not. How can an orthodox Jew respect the "Jewish" opinion of someone who drives to Synagogue on Shabbat and eats Cheeseburgers?
So there will always be Jihadis/Salafists who will point their finger at reformers. Because its all based on ritual, on observable practices--there will always be the "holier-than-thou" crowd. However in Islam it should be the "unholier than thou" crowd.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 8, 2006 1:00 PM
Yeah I love it- 'Taken out of context' lol- 'Kill all infidels' apparently doesn't mean 'kill all infidels' it apparently means 'hug and kiss all infidels' when read in just the right 'context' according to the radical murderous war mongers who wish us dead!
Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...
Posted by: CottShop at November 8, 2006 1:10 PM
From an informative essay by some guy named "Carlos":
"Islam's apologists love to accuse their critics of quoting passages out of context... More often than not, context works against the interests of the apologists."
"[Jihad,] a Muslim's duty, occurs in the context of opposing, or striving against, the unbeliever. The striving of jihad is primarily the striving to spread Islam and Islamic rule."
"The "Sword Verse" in Context
"Sura 8 was received after the Battle of Badr, which was supposed to be a raid by Muhammad on a Meccan caravan but escalated into a full-scale clash between Muhammad and the pagan Meccans. This battle is legendary in the history of Islam and often taken as a prototype for holy war against nonbelievers in general. Although it was received somewhat later, Sura 9 is traditionally considered an extension of sura 8; it is the only sura not separated from its predecessor by the bismillah formula ("In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate"). Together these suras describe Islam's attitude toward confronting nonbelievers.
"Perhaps the most infamous of these verses is the "sword verse," "slay them wherever ye find them" (9:5). Some commentators point out that this verse applied only to nonbelievers who broke treaties with the Muslims, since verse 4 states that treaties with nonbelievers who have not broken them must be honored. However, once "the end of their term" (v. 4) has been reached, the Muslims are free to attack.
"Muhammad's intention was always to convert the Arabian peninsula to Islam, whether by forceful or peaceful means. He made treaties to strengthen his position and to prepare for future action, not to achieve a state of permanent coexistence. He made the famous Treaty of Hudaybiyya at a time when he was militarily weak, then broke it on a pretext after he became stronger. (The story is complicated, but it started when a Meccan tribe allied with Muhammad killed a member of another tribe, which retaliated, allowing Muhammad to exploit the situation.)
"The verses following the "sword verse" clarify its meaning as well as Muhammad's attitude toward nonbelievers:
"In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds. But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, - they are your brethren in Faith. (9:10-11)
"...These pagans, whom Muslims are to treat kindly, have become "brethren in faith" - they have ceased to be pagans. Verse 9:5 uses the same language: if the pagans "repent," establish regular prayers (salat) and adopt the practices of Islam, they are no longer to be treated as enemies. The ultimate goal is the conversion of pagans to Islam, through whatever means, peaceful or aggressive.
The other verses from suras 8 and 9 do not even mention treaties as a mitigating factor. The effect of treaties is at best temporary. The only thing that truly saves an unbeliever is to "desist from unbelief" (8:38). This is what both the textual and historical context of these verses really have to tell us.
Facing the Global Jihad
The Roots of Holy War Within Islam Itself
by Carlos
November, 2004
http://www.peacewithrealism.org/jihad/jihad01.htm
Posted by: remote_control at November 8, 2006 1:19 PM
A title suggestion for this essay:
"Context, the Reason Islam Cannot be Reformed"
That is what I got out of this essay. Islam is not reformable; we will be forced to accept dhimmitude, death, or the other choice of reducing Islam to a footnote of history.
Posted by: Pelayo at November 8, 2006 4:55 PM
One of the way of circumventing the 'context excuse' is to ask to any follower of Koran following question, "We accept that Koran preaches love and peace and not hatred and violence. But if at all any conflict arises between the liberty, freedom, equality (as interpreted by the standard western scholars, founding fathers of constitution of different nations and not according to some Muslim clergy's claim that there is true liberty only in submission to allah and by forcing that liberty on us they are doing a favour) on the one hand and something preached by Koran on the other, where would there loyalty lies. Anyone, even thinking and wishing subconsciously imposition of sharia law in non muslim countries ( as there is one Muslim cleric eulogised by NYTIMES as progressive dreams) by whatever peaceful means should be considered as equally fanatic as 9/11 terrorists. Their whole explaination regarding Quran's content is futile, it will go forever, but the important issue is how far they can compromise if at all they conflict the guiding principles of modern civilization. And the only point is that can they accept that there may be something in Quran (or any religious text for that matter) which might be a reflection of the time when it was written and no longer relevant to modern times.
Posted by: pagan at November 8, 2006 8:50 PM
Wikipedia has decided - in its infinite wisdom - that Muhammad married Aisha when she was 14.
A worthless reference source if there ever was one.
Posted by: Cornelius at November 9, 2006 5:48 PM
The bottom line...What has islam done for it's followers and I use the term "followers" rather loosely because to follow would infer free will as in "I choose to follow". Context cannot hide the disgusting reality that when one submits to islam, the mind and soul are firmly in the grasp of the devil himself. No free will, no inovation, no progress, no charity, no mercy, no love, no life. Only a wasteland filled with revenge, brutality, hatred, violence, murder, death.
Muhammad was the most vile creature who ever walked the earth.
My grammar is not perfect but the message is clear.I will not be cowed by threats, fear or context.
Posted by: theantimike at November 11, 2006 1:01 AM
Your grammaer was fine- Mine however needs work lol- The chains of sin is what binds the soul of hate- True freedom comes in the form of love and acceptance of others- sad that some religions can't get that through their skulls. The evil one has blinded the minds of haters and convinced them that their 'way' is the correct one- to step over the line and commit murder against anyone is to completely shut out that still small voice that compells a person to morality. Those who brainwash their fellow citizens to convince them that Jihad is acceptable are the tools of the evil one and will pay dearly for deceiving and leading so many down the path of evil.
Now, here's soemthign I want ya'll to htink about- The world sees the evil of Radical fascist forms of Islam and they fear them and for good reason- however, as the bible points out, in the end times, there will be calls for peace, peace. I bleeive that in the end times, the radical Islamists will see that their message of hate will be better served by calling for peace (temporary of course) and the world will glom onto the offer with gusto- Thankful that the violence has abated for a season- The world will then turn their vitriol toward Christianity, whom they know will not resort to violence, and it will become illegal to practice Christianity which the world beleives is 'more dangerous than terrorism'. There are already people who are pounding home the message that Christianity is a dangerous, biggotted religion that has no tolorance for anyone elses beleifs.
It is already becomming illegal to express your faith in public- A Brittish soccar player was fiend and arrested for makiing the sign of the cross during a game for "inciting hatred", A woman was fired from her airline job for wearing a cross, Schools are making it illegal to have Christian symbols in School- Ten Yr. old boy told he couldn't read bible during recess- Principle bans the bible in school because a 12 yr. old girl read it during lunch break. on and on it goes.
The reality of this situation is that those accusing the Christians of biggotry and 'terrorism' (by 'forcing their morals on others supposedly) are the ones who are the true terrorists- enforcing their aitheism on society agaisnt hte will of the majority. It's only going to get worse & when Radical Islam declares 'peace' The world's attention will zero in on suppressing us Uppitty Christians. That's hwne the mark of the beast will be enacted because those who hate Christianity & God know Christians will never accept it.
I haven't fully explored all this idea- perhaps some could expound on it further.
Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...
Posted by: CottShop at November 11, 2006 12:08 PM
I pray to God that you are right.
Posted by: theantimike at November 11, 2006 3:38 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)