| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
The day an Islamic apologist acknowledges that someone who has written about how jihadists use the Qur'an to justify violence has quoted the book in context, I will faint dead away.
"Indonesia: Islam film by Dutch MP 'mistaken interpretation' says expert," from AKI, May 5 (thanks to Twostellas):
Jakarta, 5 May(AKI) - An Indonesian expert on the Koran has released a book attacking Fitna, the controversial film by Dutch MP Geert Wilders that challenges Islamic teaching.Quraish Shibab released the book entitled "The verses of Fitna, a small part of Islamic culture in the middle of prejudice" on Sunday.
He said the Dutch film was based on a number of errors and a misinterpretation of Islamic teaching.
"The film of Geert Wilders, Fitna, is a collection of mistaken koranic interpretations."
In 90 pages, Quraish Shibab claims that Wilders has used quotes out of context to give weight to the film's argument that equates Islam and terrorism.
The book, distributed free of charge in several mosques in the capital and available on the Internet, adopts a calm tone and calls on Muslims "to respond to Fitna in a decisive way but avoiding any behaviour that is harmful to Islam or Muslims"....
Why Quraish Shibab is wrong:
How Wilders uses the Qur'an verses in Fitna
Posted by Robert at May 5, 2008 12:18 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
In other words, "it's a muslim thing.....we wouldn't UNDERSTAND........" B.S.
Posted by: n.a. palm![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 5, 2008 1:03 PM
What was the name of this imam's book? "Jizziah"?
Posted by: NamFrank at May 5, 2008 1:52 PM
Just as one example, "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" is the kind of verse that NO CONTEXT WHATSOEVER can make sound OK.
It's bad no matter how you slice it. And that's just one example; I could mention the slaying of infidels or the beating of wives too...
Posted by: Mo Foe at May 5, 2008 1:55 PM
Reading 5:32 - and then the context 5:31 through 5:36 - is a relevant antidote to this sillyness.
At least they try. Which turns the tables and permits us to show that their excuses are useless. Reading the books of Spencer is highly recommended. That'll beat the crap out of their tiny giveaway pamphlet.
Posted by: Henrik at May 5, 2008 1:57 PM
Oh, the old "out of context" argument.......
Since the Qur'an has no context to speak of, this evasion is invalid.
Posted by: tanstaafl at May 5, 2008 2:11 PM
"In 90 pages, Quraish Shibab claims that Wilders has used quotes out of context to give weight to the film's argument that equates Islam and terrorism."
what is the big deal?..The Muslim terrorists make the same comparison.
Posted by: pulsar182 at May 5, 2008 2:34 PM
Quraish Shibab released the book entitled "The verses of Fitna, a small part of Islamic culture in the middle of prejudice" on Sunday.
Rather like saying that human sacrifice on a mass scale was only a small part of Aztec bulture.
And even "small parts" can be vital, just as the spleen is only a small part of the human organism. But just as a person cannot live without a spleen, so Islam doesn't seem able to live without the subjugation and intimidation and/or killing of non-Moslems.
at May 5, 2008 2:36 PM
Oops, make that "Aztec culture".
Posted by: ebonystone at May 5, 2008 2:38 PM
And this is why I find 'moderates' so elusive - they worry more about us misconstrueing the koran and films like fitna while they do nothing to stop the jihadists. Riot and kill over cartoons and a film and do nothing over muslims slaughtering non-muslims worldwide.
Posted by: R_not at May 5, 2008 2:56 PM
Oh, the old "out of context" argument.......
Since the Qur'an has no context to speak of, this evasion is invalid.
Posted by: tanstaafl
Ah yes, it’s the the old ‘out of context’ trick, we should’ve seen it coming. How smart of them, to control our thoughts with chaos. But it can be good humor, if their interpretations are ‘out of context’, for the laugh of Allah. :)
at May 5, 2008 3:02 PM
OK. Dude. We are hip. The violent passage mentioned is in the context of WAR with the Meccans. Educated mohametans and jihadwatchers already know that. What about the ignorant illiterate masses of mohametans? What about the imams who either don't know this or who remove this historical context and make it a war with all non mohametans and for all time. What about them? Huh? And BTW, is this total war with everybody part of a mainstream interperetation? Enquiring minds want to know. (although nabi ZK, like, having awesome nabific powers, already, of course, knows. could it be otherwise? NOT even! Think about it.)
yours truly
his clairvoyant nabificness
nabi ZK (peace be upon me)(believe it or die)
Posted by: zonie kafir at May 5, 2008 3:08 PM
Apologies to Mr Spencer for stealing his argument. It is a good one and hard for a nabi to pass up.
nabi ZK
Posted by: zonie kafir at May 5, 2008 3:12 PM
Interesting that Quraish Shibab has written a book on how Wilders has lifted Koranic verses out on contex. Why not a book on how the terrorist are lifting verses out of context?
He knows he'll lose that one.
Posted by: rational at May 5, 2008 4:12 PM
How come these "scholars" never actually put these quotes in the proper context? They only say that they are taken out of context.
Posted by: one of the chosen people at May 5, 2008 5:14 PM
Since the aim of the Koran and Islam is world domination, who the hell cares about context?
I care about intent.
Posted by: profitsbeard
at May 5, 2008 5:28 PM
Hey Shibab, go tell it to the Jihadists!
Posted by: Jan Sobieski at May 5, 2008 5:46 PM
For one, he's wrong because Wilders does not "equate Islam and terrorism": he merely reports accurately on those muslims who essentially do just that.
Apparently truth is some sort of crime in this game...
I wonder if, in his 90 pages of fame, Shibab mentions the Muslims quoted in the film, condemns them and/or attempts to refute their use of the Qur'an.
Also, I wonder if someone can put a link here to his book, which it is claimed is available online.
I want to determine one thing: does it appear in Indonesian or Arabic? Somehow I suspect it is English-only, or perhaps English and Dutch. Why? Because I sincerely doubt this man has anything to say to fellow muslims, including the jihadists so carefully represented in the film or the masses who hold to their dogma. No, I doubt he regards them as perverters of Islam or in any way in need of re-education. I am quite sure that his only interest is in "educating" (=indoctrinating) the infidels of the West.
Like the language on the "Death to America" placards that cannot be read by the angry non-English mobs who brandish them for the TV cameras, this is a message for the west, and it is quite irrelevant whether fellow muslims see it at all. Shibab surely has no interest in actually engaging the jihadists in a struggle over the correct way to interpret these verses. This is why "moderate muslims" (if that's what folks like Shibab really are) are "losing" the battle in which they claim to be engaged.
Posted by: Archimedes2 at May 5, 2008 5:58 PM
"out of context" -- I laugh at that phrase now.
Along with the word "misunderstanding." Oh, I also laugh at "racist/bigot/hater."
All of the above are used by people who have no substantive arguments to offer.
Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2008 7:20 PM
>>He said the Dutch film was based on a number of errors and a misinterpretation of Islamic teaching."
It's actually funny how these people think we're idiots! The West - with all of our enormous achievements in EVERYTHING - yeah, we're idiots. Somehow, we just can't get a "religion" invented by an illiterate 7th century Arabian bedouin! LOL!
Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2008 7:25 PM
Muslims and apologists use the historical context arguement, because they know damn well that it requires an extra level of knowledge (Not just of Islamic history in general, but of exactly when and in what circumstances verses were revealed), which unfortunately most critics (of Islam) lack.
Die-hard users of the historical context arguement, simply won't accept the 'Ibn Warraq answer' (Featured in: "How to Debate a Muslim") to the historical context arguement.
The only thing you can do to counter such die-hard usage of the historical context arguement, is to actually investigate and expose the historical contexts behind quoted verses.
Fight fire with fire :)
Posted by: Rogster at May 5, 2008 7:25 PM
Archimedes2,
Also, I wonder if someone can put a link here to his book, which it is claimed is available online.
As you wish. However, Shibab is actually Shihab, and you'll have to be able to read whatever the hell language this is:
http://www.lentera-hati.com/katalog/Ayat-Ayat-Fitna-p-16168.html
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 5, 2008 9:58 PM
"to respond to Fitna in a decisive way but avoiding any behaviour that is harmful to Islam or Muslims"....wouldn't want to tarnish your reputation now would you. Silly Muslims.
at May 6, 2008 12:17 AM
Islam is a funy religion. It speaks in duality (contradictory) to conveniently allow any Muslim to pick and chose the translation that suits the Muslim in a given situation.
For example, if I want to speak in duality I would say something like:
I love you as an innocent human, I would never harm you. I respect you and respect your rights and go on and on... moments later I will say I should kill you and crush for not being a believer, I should cut yur tongue, your pennis and your fingers and so on...
Later if any one acuses me of saying bad things about you I can call them liars and say that it was taken out of context and show that I had said that I love you, respect you and repect your rights...
This is pure Islamic bull shit and it goes on and on! Muslims are stupid enough to fall for this shit. The world is smarter than that.
Posted by: Lebanese at May 6, 2008 10:27 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)