![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||
|
Has Lee Smith of Slate been reading Jihad Watch? In this article (thanks to nevermindlv for the link) he quotes two Qur'anic verses sanctioning beheading that I quoted here, and he points out, as I have many times, that the media, American Muslim spokesmen, and their dhimmi allies routinely lie about what the Qur'an really says about this. Read it all.
If reporters bothered to open up a copy of the Quran, say, N.J. Dawood's Penguin Classics translation, they'd find at least two relevant passages:God revealed His will to the angels, saying: "I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers." (Sura 8, Verse 12)
"When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads." (Sura 47, Verse 4)
For anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, who wants to put some distance between contemporary jihadist practice and the beliefs of ordinary Muslims, there are a range of arguments that might attenuate the force of these passages. For instance, it could be argued that these excerpts need to be put into context; they don't literally mean what they seem to say; or that they're the product of a particular historical moment, now passed. What's more, some might say that beheading is not really Islamic at all but is in fact an unfortunate holdover from pre-Islamic times, when the warring tribes on the Arabian peninsula decapitated their rivals and left them unburied in the field for predators to devour.
Some commentators claim that centuries ago beheading was simply the easiest way to kill people. That's not quite accurate. Even the old Arabs knew it was a spectacularly vicious way to send people to their deaths, so savage that sometimes the executioner would pay the consequences for his murderous zeal. In fact, there's a famous story in pre-Islamic literature about a decapitated head having its revenge. Shanfara was a great warrior who boasted that he would slay 100 of his enemies. After he had killed 99, he was struck down in battle, decapitated, and his head tossed away. When one of Shanfara's enemies passed by and kicked his skull, the man injured himself and eventually died from the wound. So, even in death, Shanfara had his hundred.
Now, instead of many warring Arab tribes, there are just the infidels and the Muslim faithful, and it seems that there aren't many of the latter willing to break ranks by admitting that beheading is in the Quran. As I noted earlier, there are a number of arguments that might contextualize decapitation and distinguish it from the mainstream beliefs of contemporary Islam, but it is simply wrong to say that the Quran does not mention beheadings or that there is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies decapitation. Islamic history is giddy with heads separated from their bodies, a tradition detailed in news outlets that are generally considered right-wing and on conservative Web sites, but apparently whitewashed in the mainstream press.
Why? It can't be that decapitation is too unbearably horrifying, since the image—from the head of John the Baptist to the grisly end of Gwyneth Paltrow's character in the movie Seven—is familiar enough in Western culture. No, the press' sensitivity seems to be triggered by the combination of Islam and beheading. Why? Do newspaper editors and TV producers worry that their audiences could turn into genocidal mobs ready to murder their American Muslim neighbors if they knew that Allah encourages beheading in the Quran?
If the press recognizes that most Muslims don't want to behead infidels, then infidels should be given the benefit of the doubt as well. Of course we won't kill our Muslim friends and neighbors, but we really wish the Muslims who are lending their expertise to our infidel press would tell the truth. Otherwise, this conversation between cultures isn't going to work. We are surely destined for a very violent clash of civilizations if one dialogue partner will lie about something that is written down for anyone—even American journalists if they make the effort—to read.
Posted by Robert at July 2, 2004 2:36 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The L.A. Times had an article similar to the ones the Slate author was responding to, "Beheading for Sake of Fear, Not Islam" (June 22, 2004) in which the claim was made: "There is nothing particularly Islamic about decapitation, no exhortation in the Koran to carry out beheadings. . . ."
I fired off a letter to the editor about this. They did not print it, but printed someone else's letter along the same general lines. It really is ridiculous. They don't even bother to check, they just parrot whatever some Muslim spokesman tells them.
Posted by: TMF
at July 2, 2004 4:19 PM
Gee, TMF, they didn't print your letter? Wonder why? :-)
Perhaps Lee Smith's next article should be on the Muslim practise of taqiyya and kitman. That ought to explain the bit about one dialogue partner lying during this conversation between cultures. I doubt the LA Times would print letters about that either, so maybe don't bother TMF.
Posted by: feralee
at July 3, 2004 1:51 AM
The reason the media wont tell the truth, they are afraid that most Americans will then start killing all the American Muslims. Which means that the liberal media thinks that we Americans are to backwards and dumb to think for ourselves. So they are not here to report news, they are here to control information and keep it from stupid Americans. That’s right Al gore invented the internet. So tell me how smart are the liberals ? There would be some losers that would hurt some American Muslim’s. We cant stop those losers now.. You have to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.
Posted by: Bar
at July 3, 2004 2:26 AM
Ah, the traitorous press. Why don't the print the full truth? Why only half truths or total distortion. Perhaps they want to protect us from ourselves as some have proposed. Better still, the press wants to control American thinking, and they will incite (control) us at the time and place, and against whom they think is appropriate. Of course, if we are told the truth, we would be able to make up our own minds about issues. They can't have that!
Posted by: epg
at July 3, 2004 8:47 AM
The fact that "Slate" is regarded as a left-leaning journal makes this an important precedent.
Posted by: Rubisco
at July 3, 2004 9:19 AM
test
Posted by: DCWatson
at July 4, 2004 10:56 AM
This article is a perfect example of why Jihad Watch, Frontpagemag.com, WorldNetDaily, Anti-CAIR, etc. are so vital to the country and anyone that can access the sites from around the world.
The truth about the machete blood cult comes out for everyone to see on these sites, and judging by the amount of hits these sites see every month, it's working, thank God.
Posted by: DCWatson
at July 4, 2004 10:59 AM
The Lying Media.
I have developed a little mailing list.
Whenever I see one of these articles which is so obviously lying or ignorant in favour of islam I make an effort to find their e mail address out.
I then continuously e mail them news from respected sources which proves them wrong.
It takes time but after a while you will get some sort of a response.
It is worth the effort.
I have a question for my American friends
Do you think it would be viable to set up a collection fund to place ads in major us papers, directly quoting from the koran ?
It could have the URL's for anti islamic web sites.
We could never do it in the UK, to dammed PC.
I am sure that there are alot of wealthy iranian ex moslems out there who might contribute.
Regards
AI
Posted by: apostate_islam
at July 5, 2004 12:03 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.)