Many Muslims, like American and European liberals, think in reverse. They start with a conclusion, then work back to rearrange the facts to support their conclusion, which is too often simply emotional. Polluted with cultural relativism and philosophical subjectivism, our self-proclaimed "intelligentsia" serve as willing fools furthering the aims of Islam: our destruction and their world conquest. As a result, the jihaddis play our intellectuals like Wurlitzers. Show me a journalist, including an editor, and I will seldom lose money betting that he or she is one of those non-objective souls I have just described.

You can make the Trib attitude work for you. All you have to do is not be a racist and hold Islamic believers to good accountability standards.

Concerning this passage:

"Whoever wants to believe will believe, and whoever wants to be a kafir will be a kafir. So this verse has also stated that faith and rejection, iman and kufr, can only be chosen by oneself, they cannot be forced upon one by others. So Islam does not say that others must be forced into Islam; that if they become Muslims, well and good, and if they do not, they are to be killed, that the choice is theirs. Islam says that whoever wants to believe will believe, and whoever does not want to, will not."

I think that you have misunderstood the writer's poorly expressed meaning:

"So Islam does not say that others must be forced into Islam; that if they become Muslims, well and good, and if they do not, they are to be killed, that the choice is theirs. "

This seems to say the opposite of what the writer intends -- based upon the online article that you linked to. Here is what I take to be the intended meaning:

"So Islam does not say that others must be forced into Islam; [Islam does not say] that if they become Muslims, well and good, and if they do not, they are to be killed, that the choice [between conversion and death] is theirs. "

Look carefully at the website (http://www.al-islam.org/short/jihad/2.htm), and read the passage in its context, and I think that you'll see what the writer really meant.

However, whatever this writer may have meant, my understanding about the "no compulsion" verse is that it has been abrogated, that it was intended for the time of Islam's weakness, and that there now is compulsion in religion. My understanding is that orthodox Islam has generally maintained that the so-called “sword verse” of Sura 9:5 annuls the 124 verses that originally encouraged tolerance.

On the abrogation of the Qur'an's tolerance verses, see: Abu Bakr Mohammad Ibn ’Abd Allah, known as Ibn al-’Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an, Volume 1, 232-234; al-Nahas, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, 80; Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-’Elmeyah, 1986), 27 and 42; Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Abridged Volume 4, Surat Al-A’raf to the end of Surah Yunus, 375 and 377.

Jeffery Hodges

Thank you. Actually, as I explain in my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers," traditional Muslim exegetes generally hold that Sura 2:256 ("No compulsion") is not abrogated, but refers to the dhimmi status offered to Jews, Christians, and other "People of the Book" after jihad has been waged against them -- as directed by Suras 9:5 and 9:29, which do abrogate other tolerance verses.

It appears to me that liberals would rather listen to someone telling them what they want to hear than to spend the time and energy doing their own research. In this particular case, the Qur'an and hadiths, combined with reports of current events, are readily accessible.

jay

Any serious student of Islam must recognize something called the "doctrine of abrogation", which is written into the Qur'an (2:106, 16:101-102). This literally permits Islamic clergy to rewrite the Qur'an in their own image, even to the point of believing two mutually contradictory things. Abrogation explains why Qur'an 2:256 ("no compulsion") is refuted by other ayats like 9:29 ("fight/subjugate/convert/tax unbelievers"). Further, the Qur'an also compels belief in the Judeo-Christian Bible (2:85, 2:121, 16:89, 40:70-76 among many others), while Islamic governments abroad treat just possessing a Bible a serious felony.

The bottom line is Islam literally is not living by its own rules.

This hypocrisy, duplicity and dishonesty is beyond the present understanding of our secular media -- an attitude that needs a fast adjustment.

-- DSE

Deran:

"Further, the Qur'an also compels belief in the Judeo-Christian Bible (2:85, 2:121, 16:89, 40:70-76 among many others), while Islamic governments abroad treat just possessing a Bible a serious felony."

While it is true that the Qur'an assumes the existence of a Torah and Gospel that are from Allah, the disagreement of the actual Torah and Gospel with Islamic theology have led most (but not all) Muslim theologians to consider the Bible of Jews and Christians to be have been corrupted. That's why owning it is illegal: it is not considered the pure word of Allah, but only a tampered remnant of that word.

Robert's comment:
While it is true that the Qur'an assumes the existence of a Torah and Gospel that are from
While it is true that the Qur'an assumes the existence of a Torah and Gospel that are from Allah, the disagreement of the actual Torah and Gospel with Islamic theology have led most (but not all) Muslim theologians to consider the Bible of Jews and Christians to be have been corrupted. That's why owning it is illegal: it is not considered the pure word of Allah, but only a tampered remnant of that word.

Why can't the Quran be considered "hate speech" or "hate literature" in the EU, in Canada or in the USA? What it preaches can also be found in Neo-Nazi literature which is banned in the EU.

I know that in the USA, there is the freedom of religion and the separation of the state and religion...but if the book on which one religion is founded is actually HATE based and incites the killing of USA citizens, doesn't the USA Givernment have the duty to protect those USA citizens from being injured, harmed, even murdered by followers of that religion?

jihan

yes, I know that I will hear all about the so-and-so fundamentalists of this and that religion - from everything but Islam - but what % of all of those other religions are causing world-wide conflict, world-wide murder in the name of the most benevolent and peaceful god which one knows.