Lan Astaslem, mo-foes.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 4, 2007 4:07 PM

Guess that Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly haven't heard about that part.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 4, 2007 4:11 PM

Hmmm...conform to my way of thinking or pay up. Trying to figure out if this sounds more like the mob's protection racket or the Rev. Jackson's.

I know...fine line.

Posted by: metalhead at December 4, 2007 4:19 PM

Use RICO laws.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 4, 2007 4:21 PM

"There is no compulsion in religion."

but, tell me the part again about that if I do not voluntarily convert, I may be summarily executed and my wife and children may be sold into slavery.

Posted by: David England at December 4, 2007 4:27 PM

So in other words, when Sharia is implemented, there is no compulsion in religion. Dhimmis are dhimmis, just as Allah wants them to be, and that's that.

Posted by Robert at December 4, 2007 3:49 PM

Well summed up Robert, but here is my summary:
- Convert to Islam.
- Accept Islamic domination to suffer whatever comes with it.
- Die (fight does not stop untill the unbeliever is killed or accept what is already rejected).

After any of the above, no compulsion in religion, is necessary. You see, in Islam, the end justifies the means, whatever they are, which can be made out to be whatever muslims want them to be, including 'no-compulsion-in-religion' propaganda, after the mission (one of the above three) is accomplished. To sum up the summary: In Islam, once your soul is acquired or you are dead, there is no compulsion in religion.....

Posted by: Alert at December 4, 2007 4:31 PM

Well, at least this guy is honest.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 4, 2007 4:33 PM

"(2: 256) This verse was revealed toward the end of the Prophet’s blessed life"

- 2:256 was revealed in AD 614, so that hardly makes it the end of Muhammad's life, since Muhammad didn't die for another 18 years. Not to mention that he only got his first revelation in AD 610, at 40 years old. This means that verse 2:256 was revealed only 4 years after his first revelation. During this time, Muhammad was still living in Mecca, and only moved to Medina in AD 622.

There is much to suggest that during Muhammad's time in Mecca, that the verses were purposely revealed as peaceful and somewhat tolerant, rather than violent and intolerant, because otherwise he would have been 'dealt with' by the Meccans.

Compare this with the much later verse of 9:5, which was revealed in AD 627, which places it 5 years after Muhammad's move to Medina, where he could get away with preaching violent and intolerant verses.

9:5 abrogates 2:256, it's that simple.

Posted by: Rogster at December 4, 2007 4:52 PM

The reality is that the connection between Islam and Shariaa contraindicate the compatability of Islam, and therefore Muslims to secular western society. Soon "We the People" will "abrogate" the Constitutional rights of Islam as a religion. Those that practice will be considered enemies of the state, and those that convert will be seen as traitors and convicted of treason. Hopefully very soon.

Posted by: ethoman at December 4, 2007 5:04 PM

"9:5 abrogates 2:256, it's that simple." Posted by: Rogster

You know, once you begin to study islam, it is very simple. You see clearly that islamic morality is not the morality that Westerners are used to.

Anything done to infidels is fair game. And even if you are muslim, there is no guarantee that some other muslim won't declare you "un-islamic" if they don't like something about you. And if he gets the rest of the crowd to feel that way along with him, you are a goner.

Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at December 4, 2007 5:07 PM

Speaking of Dhimmi's:

Today humanity finds itself in very perilous times. Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" thesis appears to many as a valid explanation for the conflicts between the West and the Islamic World. Mistrust and violent conflicts among and between the Children of Abraham (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) suggest that co-existence is nothing more than a fantasy. Yet, history proves otherwise. During the Middle Ages Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in harmony and brotherhood. Together they produced brilliant works of art, literature, poetry, architecture, and music. This civilization was known as Al-Andalusia or Islamic Spain. The history of Al-Andalusia gives todays people lessons how to live together in an atmosphere of progress and tolerance. Please join us for this important discussion.

Speakers:
Patrick J. Moreo, Ed.D Professor and Chair of Food and Beverage Management
(UNLV)

Rabbi Sanford Akselrad Congregation Ner Tamid (Henderson)

John Curry Ph.D Professor of Near Eastern & Islamic History (UNLV)

Spoken Word Poetry:
Paria Bakhtiar

Date: Thursday, December 6, 2007
Time: 6:00pm - 7:30pm
Location: St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Newman Community Center (UNLV campus)
Street: 4765 Brussels Street

Event Sponsored By:
UNLV Muslim Students Association and the Nevada Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations

For More information Contact:

CAIR-NV Executive Director Yasser Moten, Tel: 702-448-8601,
E-Mail:ymoten@cair.com or Azam Bir UNLV MSA Outreach Coordinator (702)
202-8214, E-Mail:unlvmsa@gmail.com

Posted by: tresero at December 4, 2007 5:13 PM

"The Turkish sultan was desirous of sparing the blood of his soldiers; still more desirous of securing for his own use the Byzantine treasures: and he accomplished a sacred duty in presenting to the Gabours the choice of circumcision, of tribute, or of death" - Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chapter LXVIII.

If a British historian knew this in 1788 and was read by practically every educated person in Britain throughout the 19th century, why is it a such a surprise to anyone nowadays?

Posted by: wallyUK at December 4, 2007 5:26 PM

OOoooK.....got it. Lock and load.....in the crosshairs.................he never heard it coming.

"Kuffirs of the world, Unite!"
"Islam, abusing women since 622AD"

Posted by: OregonJake at December 4, 2007 5:48 PM

I had read elsewhere that "no compulsion in religion" is not considered abrogated, so I take the explanation in the article to be correct.

Posted by: StillBreathing at December 4, 2007 6:07 PM

StillBreathing,

"elsewhere"?

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 4, 2007 6:28 PM

Will Ibrahim Hooper or Salam Al-Marayati fire off a strongly-worded letter to Adil Salahi, calling him an "Islamophobe"?-Robert

"Islamophobia" reminds me of Howard Stern's "baba-abowie, baba-abowie,...". That's what they do when faced with logic-truth. "Islamophobia" is the same thing as "baba-abowie".

Posted by: Frank at December 4, 2007 6:38 PM

Davegreybeard, are you saying that there is no elsewhere (jihadwatch is the alpha and the omega of islamic scholarship) or are you asking where I read that? Assuming you're asking... I read an article by someone else in cyberspace, but don't know where.

Some posters here have suggested that "no compulsion in religion" was abrogated, and Richard Pipes has written that the phrase has many interpretations, including abrogation. But unless the good Robert smacks me down, I will hereafter accept that the phrase is still in effect, if only (as Hugh has said) referring to the inner experience of religion. Hugh's interpretation can co-exist with the interpretation described in the article.

Posted by: StillBreathing at December 4, 2007 7:15 PM

Well isn't that special. Muslims are pro choice. I feel so much better. And they continue to worry that Americans and the rest of the west just don't understand Islam. We're understanding it more by the day through the words and actions of its followers. Thank you Ibrahim and all the rest of you for your help. (sarcasm key is ON)

Posted by: Rick at December 4, 2007 7:21 PM

Here we always thought democracy and Islamania are not compatible-Mo offered three wonderful choices right from the start. From their viewpoint, it makes sense when they claim there's no compulsion in religion because everyone has options. This perspective really makes an infidel feel good about the Koran!

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 4, 2007 7:28 PM

StillBreathing,

I am really incredulous that anyone here would make a blanket statement like that without a direct quote to back it up. So yes I am asking for source and author.

“I read an article by someone else in cyberspace, but don't know where.” Is really a waste of everyone’s time. If you have an authoritative source for your statement I am interested in hearing what was stated and by whom, as I go to great lengths to hear all sides.

I have “heard” both sides of this issue and so far the overwhelming evidence is that “no compulsion” has been abrogated. “Rogster “ in his posting above, makes a brief but compelling case for abrogation and this is consistent with my own (limited) knowledge of Islam. Look it up, the article is plainly in error as to the claimed timing of the revelations - this totally destroys the argument and makes a clear case that 9:5 abrogates 2:256.

Let us move on to the larger issue of “compulsion”. Just because someone emphatically tells you that he is not “compelling” you to do a thing does not necessarily make it so. As the article states, Infidels were given three choices: join Islam, accept subservient status and pay the jizyza, face war to the death. No compulsion here, no, no,noooo, not at all! says the Jihadi.

Even if we accept the (plainly false) idea that 2:256 has NOT been abrogated the clearly stated PRACTICE is to compel Infidels to join Islam while telling them that they are not being compelled – and some of them actually believe it!

Clearly, Infidels are fools.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 4, 2007 8:26 PM

There is a 4th choice: Get screwed, fools.

Which means preventing a known mind cancer from spreading its tentacles beyond Mecca.

Or pressing it back into those precincts whenever it does escape.

Islam has no place in Civilization as it is presently constituted.

Islam must reform or be prepared to be fought.

To its end.

Posted by: profitsbeard at December 4, 2007 8:55 PM

"the Gabours..."
-- from the quote from Edward Gibbon, in a posting above

"Gabours" means "giavours" or "giaours" (as in Byron's poem "The Giaour"), which is to say, "Infidels" in Turkish. It was a word frequently on the lips of Turks attacking and murdering Christian Armenians, circa 1894-1896 and then again, with even greater ferocity, in the period 1915-1920.

Posted by: Hugh at December 4, 2007 9:22 PM

"When Muslim armies swept through a large area of the world, they never forced anyone to embrace Islam."

Such a shame.. we could so easily sweep their armies through the world and we continue to act with this misguided arrogant restraint.

I sincerely hope that we won't one day really regret not using our full arsenal while we had the "hupper hand".

Posted by: DhimNukeU at December 4, 2007 9:24 PM

"And even if you are muslim, there is no guarantee that some other muslim won't declare you "un-islamic" if they don't like something about you. And if he gets the rest of the crowd to feel that way along with him, you are a goner."

Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at December 4, 2007 5:07 PM

All too true.

Once takfir is declared against you, all bets are off. It is not an outright accusation of apostacy from Islam per se, but simply an accusation of not being Islamic enough.

Many religious moral equivalence dolts like to use the angle that more Muslims are killed by Muslims than are non-Muslims. That factual data may be true, but the conclusion that those who are critical of Islam are merely "Islamophobes" based on the aforementioned reasoning, is a fast-shinking ship, at least to those in the world of the sane.

Posted by: awake at December 4, 2007 10:46 PM

tresero sez: (about his up-coming CAIR-Vegas seminar):

"Speaking of Dhimmi's:
Today humanity finds itself in very perilous times'"

Perilous, too, in Hispania after the Arabs moved in. I hope you cover the destruction of Visigothic civilization and slave exporting business that ensued. Why, Andalusia was a virtual paradise, right? All wondrous like Grenada and Generalife with their finely chiseled architecture and clever water features that only a bedouin could fully appreciate, and only a dhimmi under pressure could construct. Why, it was so lovely for the Christians that when Ferdinand and Isabella were busy driving the Muslims back into the sea, the average Spaniard was begging them to stay, right?

Posted by: Emerson Twain at December 5, 2007 12:15 AM

Thanks to Hugh for his timely and trenchant observation:

"Gabours" means "giavours" or "giaours" (as in Byron's poem "The Giaour"), which is to say, "Infidels" in Turkish.

Nothing like a little gloss on Gibbon to calm the nerves.

Posted by: Emerson Twain at December 5, 2007 12:29 AM

"They gave the people three choices: to accept Islam freely, which would mean that they join the Muslim community and become part of it; or to pay the jizyah, or tribute, to indicate that they will live in peace with the Muslims continuing to follow their own religions. If they accepted neither course then the only way left was to fight." --Adil Salahi

Salahi talks with great certainty about when these verses were revealed, even though the basis for determining chronological order is at best guess-work based on patchy, fragmentary, incomplete, ambiguous, dubious, inconsistent, partisan sources. Perhaps he could also tell us, for the purposes of historical accuracy, whether 2:256 was revealed before or after Allah split the moon into two pieces.*

*Which, according to Islamic orthodoxy, happened during Muhammad's prophetic career.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at December 5, 2007 2:20 AM

...and Islam is monolithic in that Muslims generally have quite a warped conception of what "no coercion in religion" means. At minimum, the monolithic Islamic policy is "believe Islam, or be burned and tortured for all eternity." Muslims are actually walking around with the belief that people should be burned and tortured for all eternity for mere disbelief--and the Quran says this--and that there is "no compulsion in religion." Down is up, night is day, wrong is right, and Teddy Bears named "Muhammad" constitute "oppression" (fitnah).

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at December 5, 2007 2:30 AM

Islam can't reform. For anything to reform you need substance.

Islam has only hatred, misogyny. murder, extortion, slavery, abuse, pedophilia, raids & booty plus killing & dying for the moon-god on offer, how can you posibly reform that?

Ali Sina is right: this is a propaganda war. If we play it right and rub it in their face, on every occassion, without ever falling for their BS and turning the propaganda war into high gear the whole Islamic sand-castle will collapse.

Of course this has to go hand in hand with a complete stop of immigration, deportation of all illegal Muhammedans, shutting down the mosques and madrassah's and no more students from Islamistan in our countries. Cheap economic considerations will not help our survival.

Keep in mind: If we don't feed them who will? They have to sell oil because they produce nothing, and we have to use their very own extortion tactics to sell them the goods and services they need.

Without us the Arabs will bite the dust.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 5, 2007 5:48 AM

REALITY VS. FANTASY

Mass Muslim deportation from the West will not happen.

A ban on Muslim immigration will never be instituted.

While alternative energy is desirable and should be pursued, the world economy will remain overwhelmingly dependent on oil for the rest of our lifetimes and beyond.

The ONLY effective weapons the civilized world has against Islam are:

An unshakable belief in human freedom

A capable and dominant military

A robust and unceasing education campaign, to the world, that reveals the truth about Islam and how it compares to Western style Democracy

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 5, 2007 1:09 PM

Well, look at the bright side...
for once, arabnews is actually telling the truth about islamist intentions...
covert, submit, or die.

The truth is out now.
It doesn't get any better than that.

Posted by: jcom972 at December 6, 2007 12:26 PM

There are two senses to the word 'compulsion'.

One is coercion, in which someone realistically threatens some harm as the result of not abiding by his or her wishes. In this case, one must choose whether to sacrifice and undergo the harm, or abide by the wishes of one making threats.

The other sense is the more striaghtforward sense of compulse, in which one is made a Muslim through no act or agreement on one's own part. This would be if someone were to pronounce you Muslim, and you didn't have any say at all in the matter, not even the choice of death. There is, in this case, no choice made whatsoever.

This latter sense is the sense in which there is no compulsion of religion in Islam. It is quite different from saying no coercion.

Westerners who confuse the two senses are either careless with language and meaning, or dishonest, or both.

How I take it, I don't think that lack of strict compulsion makes the rampant coercion any better.

It is like saying someone's refusal to pick pockets makes him good while his armed robbery is no big deal, because the latter introduces an element of choice.

Posted by: hope_and_justice at December 6, 2007 1:28 PM

hope_and_justice wrote:

“This latter sense is the sense in which there is no compulsion of religion in Islam. It is quite different from saying no coercion.”

What reference can you site that this is indeed the intended meaning?

“Westerners who confuse the two senses are either careless with language and meaning, or dishonest, or both.”

I think most “Westerners” understand and use the word "compulsion" in the sense of being compelled (as in “coerced”) to do a thing or suffer unpleasant consequences. This is a logical understanding of the meaning of this word, in this case, since the choice of death may be selected BEFORE one chooses to be a Muslim. Certainly, one of the definitions of "coerced" is “compelled”

I see nothing “careless with language and meaning, or dishonest, or both.” In any of this. I will allow that PERHAPS there is a misunderstanding of the intended meaning of a word between two cultures - but I strongly suspect that if there is any INTENDED dishonesty it originates with the Qur’an, in order to deceive Infidels.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 6, 2007 4:33 PM