"...unfortunately being misunderstood in some quarters…”

Like those who beheaded the three young girls in his visitor's homeland.

"...actually read Snouck Hurgronje, Joseph Schacht, Arthur Jeffery, Richard Gottheil, David Margoliouth, Clement Huart, Edmnond Fagnan, W. St. Clair Tisdal, and a hundred others..."

Quite a list. I hope that someone on our president's staff has taken, or will take, the time to read a few of them. And failing that, maybe a brief review of the Qur'an, starting with 5:32.

Posted by: PRCS at November 28, 2005 1:21 PM

Hugh,

Thanks for this. Exposing the apologist-obscurantists about the "misunderstood" RoP.

PRCS,

I'm going to post a couple of my works in progress regarding the apologist presentation of "no compulsion in religion" (2:256) and "anyone who killeth..." (5:32). Just a disclaimer: I am an amateur at this, but I think the basic arguments are sound.

Posted by: Archimedes at November 28, 2005 6:59 PM

Archimedes,

I rediscovered your October 20 posting concerning 5:32.

I hope you don't mind, but I have plagerized it extensively--but for a good purpose.

Posted by: PRCS at November 28, 2005 7:20 PM

....and everyday I give thanks for the Internet so the truth can be broadcasted.

Which by the way was invented by our Defense Dept
as a result of the Cold War.

Posted by: learjet0450 at November 28, 2005 7:54 PM

"There is no compulsion in religion."

Apologists of Islam typically present this quote as a sentence fragment, as above. There are several problems with presenting such a cropped quote. For starters, often when a good verse from the Koran is cited, the “good” part is in reference to Muslims. The bad part, in reference to non-Muslims, is chopped off. In each case, it is necessary to understand what the Koran’s respective policies are for both believers and disbelievers.

2:256: “There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.”
2:257: “Allah is the protecting guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are the rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.”

Here is Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of verse 2:256.
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=6832
Readers can look up interpretation of any verse or passage on that site.

Regarding disbelievers, 2:257 comes as no surprise; there are over 250 such condemnations of disbelievers in the Koran. 2:256-257 warns believers not to slip into disbelief, and it warns disbelievers to become believers—or else. And despite those 250+ separate condemnations to hell-fire for the crime of disbelief, the Koran says many times that Allah is “Forgiving, Merciful.” So what are we to make of it when the Koran says “there is no compulsion in religion”? Clearly, there is compulsion in religion when we are dealing with Islam. The policy in Islam is ‘Believe it or else!’ This verse 2:256 has been annotated at this site http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm .

The sentence fragment from 2:256 is misleading when presented to those who have not read the Koran (e.g., most westerners), because the fragment belies the strong interrelationship between belief, obedience, fear, and submission to Islam. Those who present the quote likely are familiar with such verse as these:

8:1 “They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to
Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your
difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers.
8:2 They only are the (true) believers whose hearts feel fear when Allah is mentioned, and when His revelations are recited unto them they increase their faith, and who trust in their Lord.”

Do apologists expect us to believe that such verses as 8:1-2 (and many others like it) were produced by a different author than the one who produced 2:256? Obedience is a major aspect of belief in Islam (a.k.a. “the Surrender”). Iblis (Satan) first becomes a “disbeliever” when he refuses to bow prostrate before Adam in accordance with Allah’s orders (7:11, 20:116-117, 18:50, 38:74-76). It’s not that, in the story, Iblis denies the existence of Allah. It’s the disobedience, the defiance, that gets him into trouble with Allah.

And it is not simply the metaphysical threat of hell-fire that consititutes compulsion in religion. Non-Muslims are more concerned about the behaviour of some of Islam’s more zealous followers. This is illustrated by 59:13: “Ye [the believers] are more awful as a fear in their [the disbelievers’] bosoms than Allah. That is because they are a folk who understand not.” Actually, the fear arises out of a clear understanding of the threat. This is talking about real human behaviour, not the afterlife. According to the Koran, the worst possible sin is disbelief in or denial of Allah 10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 32:22. Disbelief or turning away from Allah is a persecution worse than warfare (2:217) or slaughter (2:191). (for a discussion of 2:191, see http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq/70.htm ). Disbelief is quite possibly punishable through jihad against non-Muslims, through execution of apostates, and through assassinating critics (see below). Obviously, the claim that there is no compulsion in religion doesn’t mean much to those who are the victims of Islamic intolerance and imperialism.

When apologists cut out the information that applies to non-Muslims, they are committing the crime of hiding scripture. Here’s what the Koran says about those who hide the scripture:
2:174 “Lo! those who hide aught of the Scripture which Allah hath revealed and purchase a small gain therewith, they eat into their bellies nothing else than fire. Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He make them grow. Theirs will be a painful doom.”
(This crime may be pardoned, however, if the purpose of the deception by omission is to further the cause of Islam).

Abrogation

A skeptical assessment of 2:256, carried out by M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton, can be found at this link http://debate.domini.org/newton/tolerance.html . In that article, they argue that the seemingly positive sentiment in 2:256, if taken at face value, is abrogated by later-revealed 9:73. Verse 3:85, which states that only Islam is acceptable to Allah, also abrogates many earlier ‘religiously tolerant’ verses.

First of all, regardless of whether or not this verse is abrogated, taken together with verse 2:257, it is basically consistent with the entire Koran: Strict believers (who reject all religions except Islam) are safe, but disbelievers are going to receive the maximum penalty. All of the “compulsion” (persecution, subjugation, threats, etc.) directed against non-Muslims still applies. 2:256 doesn’t get non-Muslims off the hook, because 2:257 keeps them there.

Nevertheless, if we do accept the doctrine of abrogation—and it is generally accepted, later revealed verses abrogate earlier ones where an apparent contradiction arises in the meanings of the respective verses. Some apologists claim that verse 2:256 is not abrogated, but this is a highly dubious claim. Sura 9 is generally regarded as the last revealed. Sura 9 contains verses compelling believers to wage war against the disbelievers. Another verse, similar to 2:256-2:257 is 18:29.
18:29: “Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!”

Again, this is consistent with the overall message of the Koran. Even if the initial sentence fragment was intended to convey religious freedom, this would be abrogated by Sura 9. (Sura 109, which apologists claim shows religious tolerance, would also abrogated by much of Sura 9).

Compulsion In Islam? Let’s Count the Ways!

Here are a few of the verses from Sura 9 that I believe clearly abrogate the concept of no compulsion in religion (in addition to 9:5, and 9:73).

9:29 “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute [jizya tax] readily, being brought low.”

This verse orders that People of the Book be fought, killed, converted, or else subjugated (to dhimmi status, a humiliating, onerous, second-class citizen position, dhimmis can convert to Islam or else keep their religion and pay the jizya tax. Refusal to pay the jizya results in execution).

9:33 “He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.”

The ultimate, overriding goal of Islam. Note the “however much the idolaters may be averse.” Clearly, that is compulsion in religion.

9:38 O ye who believe! What aileth you that when it is said unto you: Go forth in the way of Allah, ye are bowed down to the ground with heaviness. Take ye pleasure in the life of the world rather than in the Hereafter ? The comfort of the life of the world is but little in the Hereafter.
9:39 If ye go not forth He will afflict you with a painful doom, and will choose instead of you a folk other than you. Ye cannot harm Him at all. Allah is Able to do all things.Some believers may be reluctant to fight, but if they don’t, they’ll receive a painful doom.

9:111 Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah ? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

Slay and be slain for Allah; you are bound by divine contract to do so.

9:123 O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you,, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

Religious Freedom

Religious freedom requires the ability to freely express criticism of a religion. Islam does not permit this. As everyone now knows, it is not possible to criticize Islam openly without risking being killed by an Islamist who wishes to obey the Koran and follow Mohammad's example. Here’s Mohammad’s/Allah’s policy with regard to freedom of expression:

Those who malign the prophet and Allah will be cursed _in this world_ and in the hereafter (33:57), those who malign Muslims will be doomed, hypocrites, those in whoe heart is a disease (this is has be interpeted to mean adulterers and those who harrass the Muslim women) refer and alarmists (or “agitators” in the City) will be slain wherever they are found (33:58-62). Sounds like a pretty tough punishment for being a hypocrite, adulterer, lecherer, or an “alarmist,” doesn’t it?

Here’s another passage along the same theme, where critics dismiss Mohammad mockingly as a mad poet’ (37:34-40), and are then threatened with damnation.

In the above passages, Mohammad condemned critics (e.g., who dismissed him as a “mad poet”) to a painful doom. In order to clarify whether Mohammad simply meant they should be damned in 37:34-40 (i.e., by Allah) or, in addition, actually killed by believers, it is necessary to turn to the Hadith. We find that he actually had many of them assassinated, see http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/index.html
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/free_speech.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm
Because the Koran states that Mohammad is an example that (male) believers should emulate (33:21), then the killing of critics and satirists of Islam is obligatory.

Historical Example of Death Penalty for Criticizing Islam

Here is an Islamic ruling that POWs and captured non-combatants, including the elderly, handicapped, and women and children, could be put to death for verbal expressions against Islam. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14964
This example, though in a different context, is at least consistent with Mohammad’s own divinely-ordained conduct in ordering the assassinations of critics, such as an elderly man (Abu Afak), and a mother of five children (Asma bint Marwan). (see above, answering-islam links). Therefore, it cannot be claimed that those scholars and jurists were misinterpreting the Koran and other Islamic texts.

Religious freedom entails that people be able to pick and choose the parts of the doctrine they like, and put aside what they don’t like. The Koran explicitly forbids this kind of practice. Those who fail to accept/follow everything in the Koran are disbelievers and will be doomed (4:150-151). Religious freedom also entails that people can interpret parts of the doctrine allegorically. Again, the Koran explicitly denounces this practice, saying in effect that Those who have doubt in their hearts, and seeking dissension, try to explain the allegorical parts of the Koran, which only Allah understands…But the parts containing clear revelations are the substance of the Koran (3:7). In other words, ignore the fables about talking ants, birds of clay, etc., and pay attention to clear commands such as in Sura 9.

Compulsory Jihad.

Believers must not turn away from fighting the unbelievers, otherwise go to hell (8:15-16). Believers must fight, or receive a painful doom from Allah (9:39). Believers must wage war for Allah, whether they like it or not (2:216).

Allah tests believers by compelling them to kill unbelievers (8:17); true believers will kill or be killed for Allah. Allah could punish the disbelievers directly, but instead he tests some people (believers) by using other people (disbelievers); those believers who are slain in battle will be rewarded (47:4). Allah uses the prospect of battle to find out what is in men’s hearts; disbelievers stay away from the fight, but true believers go into the fight. Those who die fighting for Allah will be rewarded (3:154-159; 3:167-172).

Islam’s Mission to the World

From Dr. Andrew Bostom,

“[The] Islamic institution of jihad itself, [is] expressed eloquently by the contemporary scholar Bassam Tibi:

[Tibi states] “At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. “We have sent you forth to all mankind” (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da’wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the da’wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam…Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur’anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of “opening” the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur’an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da’wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da’wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is “temporary truce” (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of “temporary”).”
Link. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14578

This policy is again confirmed in an article by Robert Spencer, who cites that

“The Shafi’i manual Reliance of the Traveller, which bears the endorsement of Sunni Islam’s most respected authority, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, stipulates that jihad is “a communal obligation” to “war against non-Muslims.” It teaches that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax . . . The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim” (o9.0, o9.1, o9.8, and o9.9).”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18732

There are (at least) 164 verses of jihad.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

Further references and discussion of Jihad in the Hadith and Sira can be found here.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/JenniferKing50710.htm

Here are some links related to Compulsion in Islam.

Forced Conversion
www.hraicjk.org/forced_co...ammad.html

Compulsion in Sunni Islam Sharia
http://boston.indymedia.org/news..._any/21475

Compulsion Under Islamic Rule Historically in Europe
www.americanthinker.com/a...le_id=5016

Apostacy

Apostates, those who reject their belief in Allah, will receive an awful doom “because they have chosen the life of the world rather than the Hereafter” (16:106-107). Apostates condemned, doomed (47:25, 47:32, 47:34). Some verses could be interpreted to mean apostates are to be put to death (e.g., 9:11-12). Those who turned back from the way of Allah (the hypocrites and apostates) should be slain wherever they are found (4:89-91), if they try to defend themselves (i.e., fail to surrender) or are not protected by treaty.
For more information on apostacy, see http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/apostasy.htm

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murtadd
2:217 may imply death penalty for apostacy, because it says disbelief is a worse persecution (against Muslims, Islam, Mohammad, Allah) than killing (a believer). Also, it says the apostates’ works have fallen in the world and the hereafter. Of course, several reliable Hadith show that the death penalty was used for apostacy (see above link).

Slavery

permitted (4:3, 4:36, 23:6, 24:58, 30:28, 33:28, 33:50).

Treatment of Women

Treated very badly/unfairly/as inferior (2:223, 4:3, 4:11, 4:14, 4:15, 4:19, 4:20, 4:24, *4:34, 4:176, 24:31, 63:9, 64:14-15, 70:10).

*4:34 does say “beat” her (or hit, or scourge). Some apologists have tried to weasel out of this by claiming that the Arabic word does not say “beat” or means a light symbolic hitting (Yusufali added the adjective “lightly,” but this is his addition; it is not in the Koran). At least 10 available respectable translations of the Koran say “beat” (or scourge, or hit). In 4:34, beating is the last in a progression of increasing punishments named in 4:34. A discussion of 4:34 and the word “beat” can be found at http://answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm

Women are unclean. If a man has touched a woman at all before prayer time, he must wash up before doing the prayer. If he can’t find water, he should wash himself with dirt (5:6; 4:43).

Woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s (2:282).

Women (and children and the “feeble”) are unable to devise a plan (4:98).

Wives who are false (i.e., show the slightest sign of disbelief in Allah) to their husbands are to be killed by Allah (66:10). The wives of disbelievers will also be doomed with their husbands (37:22-31).

Allah (Mohammad) may replace wives who criticize their husband (66:5).

A Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man.

Women guilty of lewdness must be confined to the house until death (4:15).

Women must wear covering veils except when they are with their immediate family (24:31, 33:59).

Allows Muslim men to take girl-slaves for sex. (23:6, 33:50)

Marriageable age in some Islamic countries for females is nine years of age. Obviously, a child does not have the capacity to form a proper consent, and therefore this again must be regarded as a religiously-based compulsion. This follows Mohammad’s pedophilic example, because the age at which he consumated his marriage with Ayesha was 9. (He married her when he was in his fifties and when she was 6).

Ayesha said “I have not seen anyone suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” Bukhari. vol. 7, book 72, no. 715. The “green” adjective is in reference to the bruising from the beating.

“…He (Muhammad) struck me (Aisha) on the chest which caused me pain....” Muslim, book 4, no. 2127. Mohammad’s child-wife Ayesha tells of how the prophet struck her hard enough to cause pain (and an enduring memory of it).

"I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women....[because] they are ungrateful to their husbands and they are deficient in intelligence. " (The Prophet Muhammad) Sahih Bukhari vol. 2 book 24, no. 541

Women, who Mohammad calls unintelligent, are compelled to be obedient to their husbands--or else.

Posted by: Archimedes at November 28, 2005 8:59 PM

Does the Koran’s Verse 5:32 Prohibit the Killing of Non-Muslims? (Revised).

After every well-publicized major terrorist attack, Islamic apologists appear in the mainstream media, typically claiming that Islam is a religion of peace. To support their assertion, Islamic apologists often cite a sentence fragment from the Koran’s verse 5:32. First, here is the usually-cropped quote:

5:32 “…whoseoever killeth a human being… it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind…”

So far, so good. Sounds like a universal proclamation that all human life is highly valuable, and that murdering one person would be a terrible crime—like murdering all of humankind. To get a better understanding of the origins of this verse and its intended meaning, let’s go through the complete verses 5:32-37 (Pickthall’s translation), starting with 5:32:

5:32 “For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoseoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them become prodigals of the earth.”
See Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of 5:32 at http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13723 .
I will show that (1) the good part of 5:32 (i.e., the part that sounds like a prohibition against murdering any innocent human being) is taken from pre-Islamic sources, and (2) that the omitted parts of 5:32, when included, change the meaning dramatically, actually permitting killing of non-Muslims in a wide variety of circumstances.
(1) The verse 5:32 does derive from earlier sources.
In context, the decree doesn’t apply universally to all peoples. The verse refers to the Children of Israel in Biblical history (i.e., prior to the time of Mohammed). It is known that the good part of the verse is actually of Jewish origin, predating the Koran. This excerpt speaks for itself:
“When we turn to another Jewish record - the Mishnah Sanhedrin, we find the link between the story and what follows:
“We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, "The voice of thy brother's bloods crieth" (Gen. 4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race, but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved the whole race.”
Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4:5
“Here is a passage from the Mishnah! The Mishnah is a Jewish commentary on the Torah. How did a Rabbi's commentary make its way into the Qur'an and be quoted as word from Allah? Simple, Muhammad had heard these teachings from the Jews, and repeated them later as he recited "revelation".
“Because the word for blood is in the plural in Gen. 4:10, an ingenious Rabbi invented the supposition that all Abel's offspring had been killed with him which signified that any murder or life-saving act had universal implications. Clearly Muhammad had no knowledge of the source of the theory set out in the Mishnah but, in hearing it related, simply set out the Rabbi's suppositions as the eternal decree of God! Just think, some Jewish Rabbi's thoughts now are comprised in the Qur'an!”http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/cain.html
(2) When the omitted parts of the verse are included, the meaning of the verse changes, and permits the killing of non-Muslims under many circumstances.
Now, the argument a defender of Islam might make here, after reading the above excerpt, is “So what? Islam and Judaism have a common source, Allah, and it was Allah that guided the rabbi in his commentary, and then guided the prophet Mohammad with a more ‘correct’ version.” However, this more “correct” version, intended for Muslims, has an addition not found in the earlier source. That main addition is the “corruption in the earth” exception. (We don’t need to deal with the exception for manslaughter here, for this discussion).

Killing someone for “corruption in the earth/land” is permitted (see 5:33). “Corruption in the land,” the phrase that apologists typically remove (or hope people just gloss over), refers to the words and/or actions of non-Muslims that come into significant conflict with Islam. I should point out that I am not the first to observe this; other laypersons have noticed this, e.g., see http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001351.html .

The Koran says that the presence of disbelievers causes confusion and corruption in the land, and therefore Muslims must join together to oppose them (8:73). Ibn Kathir interprets 8:73 to mean that if the Muslims do not join together to protect themselves and their religion from the disbelievers, then “(…there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great corruption), meaning, if you do not shun the idolators and offer your loyalty to the believers, Fitnah will overcome the people. Then confusion [polytheism and corruption] will be rampant, for the believers will be mixed with disbelievers, resulting in tremendous, widespread trials [corruption and mischief] between people.” http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=8&tid=20667 . (Parentheses and [brackets] in original). Note that fitnah is “"Trial, testing." A term referring to antagonism toward individual Muslims at Islam's beginning. Now it is used to refer to threats to the health of the state.” http://www.answers.com/topic/fitnah . It can refer to civil strife, the presence of disbelievers, disbelief, or the drawing of Muslims away from Islam and into disbelief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna .

Let’s continue….

5:33 “The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;”

See Ibn Kathir’s tafsir of 5:33 here http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13751 .

5:33 states the penalties. Those who wage war against Allah/Mohammad and/or cause corruption in the earth will be brutally killed, significantly dismembered (to the point of being permanently disabled), or banished. (The severity of the penalty would presumably depend on the severity of the transgression against Islam).

Corruption in the land, or corruption/mischief on earth, is a huge category of offences, violent or non-violent, that significantly go against Islam. Google “corruption on earth” + “death penalty” to get an idea of the range of offences considered to fit the category today in some strict Islamic countries. These crimes vary widely, including criticizing or calling for changes in Islamic traditions; practicing “sorcery”; engaging in “charlatanism”; a non-Muslim man having sex with a Muslim woman; highway robbery; destruction buildings; terrorism against Muslims).

War against God, mentioned in 5:33 (below), is also the same kind of huge, flexible category that could include a wide variety of offences significantly against Islamic doctrine or Islamic society. Aqa Mahdi Puya comments: “Waging war against Allah and His prophet means hostility against His chosen representatives; or deviation from His laws by overstepping the boundaries laid down by Him; or letting loose a reign of terror to persecute and frighten innocent people in order to deprive them of their rights; or attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims; or activities to enslave, exploit and destroy human beings.” (Source: http://al-islam.org/quran/ ). There are a couple of potentially misleading statements in Puya’s commentary. It is instructive to point them out. First, the Koran does call, in jihad, for terrorizing the disbelievers (9:5), but never calls for terrorizing believers. Puya’s comments about “innocent people” could refer to Muslims, but the Koran does not consider the non-Muslims to be innocent—far from it (see below). Second, the Koran permits Muslims to have slaves (4:3, 4:36, 23:6, 24:58, 30:28, 33:28, 33:50). Otherwise, Puya’s commentary is consistent with other accounts). According to Ibn Kathir, disbelief is included in the category of crimes ‘war against God,’ see http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13751 ). What ‘corruption on earth’ and ‘war against God’ have in common is that each is a huge category encompassing a variety of violent and non-violent words and actions considered offences in Islam. The significant overlap between the two categories involves opposition to Islam, including non-violent opposition.

Scholar and apostate of Islam, Ibn Warraq, does not interpret 5:32 to be a peaceful verse, pointing out that, in light of 5:33, the verse contains a warning to the Jews (i.e., warning them not to commit mischief/corruption). This point is partly in reference to this part of 5:32: “…Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them become prodigals of the earth.” Note that “prodigals of the earth” is not a compliment. It means that many of the Jews were reckless, exceeding limits in the land, despite having been given clear instructions from the prophets of Allah. Ibn Warraq says, "The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. 'Behave, or else' is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses [5:32-33] aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated, and banished!" [brackets added]. (From Ibn Warraq, ed., (2003) _Leaving Islam_ p. 401. Amherst, New York: Prometheus). This interpretation is confirmed by Ibn Kathir http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13743

A more direct question is simply, what did Mohammad consider acceptable killing? We know from the Islamic texts (Koran, Hadith, Sira) that he had critics and satirical poets assassinated for their words against Islam (Sources: http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/index.html , http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/free_speech.htm , http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm . The Koran is clear that (male) Muslims must emulate the example of the prophet Mohammad (33:21). If this is acceptable killing according to Islam, why should anyone take 5:32 seriously as a peaceful verse? How can this be a peaceful verse if it allows Muslims to kill anyone simply for doing or saying anything against Islam?

5:34. “Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

See Ibn Kathir’s interpretation here: http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13783

Those who surrender (convert) to or repent (return to Islam), submitting (or renewing) their allegiance to Allah will not be killed. (Keep in mind that Mohammad was, and encouraged his followers to be, ever wary of hypocrites—those who are merely pretending to repent or submit themselves to Allah).

These passages may also be taken as having a wider application than dealing with individual transgressions. In battles or raids, the Koran states that captives should not be taken until a slaughter has first been made (8:67). Allah’s followers cannot be very “merciful” if some people must be slaughtered before they have a chance to surrender to Islam, but this too is considered acceptable killing. Let’s also keep in mind the general Islamic policy of acting hard against the disbelievers but being merciful to other believers (48:29).

5:35. “O ye who believe! Be mindful of your duty to Allah, and seek the way of the approach unto Him, and strive in His way in order that ye may succeed.”
5:36. “As for those who disbelieve, lo! If all that is in the earth were theirs, and as much again therewith, to ransom them from the doom on the Day of the Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them. Theirs will be a painful doom.”
5:37. “They will wish to come forth from the Fire, but they will not come forth from it. Theirs will be a lasting doom.”

A disbeliever is anyone who doesn’t believe in the one Allah (with no partners or rivals), Mohammad’s validity as a prophet, the eventuality of the Last Day, or who significantly transgresses Islam. The disbelievers are non-Muslims, including non-religious people generally, anyone who strongly questions or criticizes Islam, and generally people of all other religions (including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.). They are doomed to hellfire, and there is nothing that can be done about it—except, of course, to convert to Islam exclusively, before it’s too late. Verse 3:85 says that Islam (the “Surrender”) is the only acceptable religion. Those who deny Mohammad’s revelations are evil (7:177). Over 250 separate verses in the Koran condemn non-Muslims to hell-fire/eternal doom.

The worst possible sin is disbelief in or denial of Allah (10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 32:22). Disbelief or turning away from Allah is the worst crime and is a persecution worse than warfare (2:217) or slaughter (2:191). (For a discussion, including tafsir, of 2:191, see http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq/70.htm , by Ali Sina). How can non-Muslims be considered innocent civilians if they are “guilty” of disbelief (45:31, 83:29)—the worst crime? The Koran says that non-Muslims are against Allah (25:55); on the side of the Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); “evil” (16:27, 2:91, 2:99); the “wrong-doers” (2:254, 5:45); the “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); hypocrites (4:61); “unclean” (9:28); the “worst of created beings” (98:6); “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55); “the worst beasts in Allah’s sight” (8:55), “apes” and/or “pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166). Verse 60:4 says followers of Allah will hate the disbelievers forever, until disbelievers come to believe in Allah only.

Killing disbelievers is not, in itself *(Note), a crime. This is confirmed in Tabari, e.g., “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us…” Tabari IX:69. In fact, many verses in the Koran order the killing of various kinds of disbelievers (33:61, 4:76, 4:89-91, 8:12, 9:41, 9:5, 9:29, 61:11, etc.). Believers must honour their duty to Allah and fight the disbelievers in battle, or be punished in hell (2:216, 8:15-16, 9:39). Nowhere does the Koran say that disbelievers should not be killed, except where there are benefits to Islam to let the disbelievers live. They could be spared as slaves to be bought or sold; they could become dhimmis (subjugated second-class citizens); they could be ransomed; women could be taken forcibly as wives or sex slaves. Abul Kasem, an apostate of Islam, has cited and discussed Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of 5:32 (see link above), indicating that non-Muslims are not protected by 5:32; only Muslims are protected ( http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem50808.htm ).

Some non-Muslims could be protected by treaties with the Muslims, if this was beneficial to Islam, but even these treaties could be broken at any time (e.g., see 9:1-17) to serve the larger goals of Islam (see below). (For a discussion of this broken treaty in Sura 9, see Ali Sina’s commentary at http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Waqasp3.htm . In that article, Sina also cites 8:58, which allows Muslims to break treaties even if they only suspect or fear treachery from the other side). This type of treaty violation is roughly consistent with Islamic holy war policy, as pertaining to the condition where Muslims are in a strong position militarily, e.g., Muslims should not call for peace when they have the upper hand (47:35). Another reason to seriously doubt the validity of such treaties, regardless of the relative military strength of the Muslims, is that the Koran orders Muslims not to believe the non-Muslims (3:73). For further evidence that such treaties have been interpreted by Islamic scholars, historically, to be merely temporary tactical manoeuvres that could be overruled within the overriding strategic, global jihad, see Dr. Andrew Bostom’s article at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14578 . Robert Spencer’s article at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18732 also cites Sunni Islamic scholarly endorsement of the obligatory global jihad against non-Muslims for the purposes of making the whole world Islamic. Generally speaking, the jihad policy involves giving non-Muslims a choice: (1) convert to Islam, or else (2) remain a non-Muslim but become a (subjugated) dhimmi and pay the jizya “protection” tax, or else (3) be put to death.

Intentional killing is a crime (i.e., murder) when one of Muslim mankind is the victim (4:93). More precisely, taking the rest of the Koran into account, 5:32 may only protect strict, Koran-adhering Muslims, or “single-minded slaves of Allah.” Many verses suggest that weak, casual, or mere nominal Muslims may not be protected. This is strongly suggested by Sura 9. Nevertheless, killing a believing Muslim in a terrorist attack, according to the above, could constitute corruption on earth and war against Allah. On that interpretation, because such terrorists (e.g., bin Laden, Zarqawi, et al.) have also killed Muslims (not just inadvertently, but deliberately, e.g., attacks in Saudi Arabia), those terrorists could be penalized in accordance with 5:33.

Quoted fully and with the understanding of the context, and, indeed, the overarching message of the Koran, 5:32 was never intended as a sanction against the killing of disbelievers. The ultimate goal of Islam must be understood before any verse can be interpreted. This must always be kept in mind. Allah sent Mohammad (and his followers) to conquer all other religions (9:33, 48:28, 61:9). To achieve this ultimate goal, Muslims must convert, subjugate, or kill all disbelievers until all religion is for Allah (2:193, 8:39). This is the context that contains and overrules all contexts in Islam.

Conclusions:

1. The verse 5:32 is derived from earlier Jewish sources. Mohammad added the “corruption on earth” exception, changing the original concept in order to permit the death penalty for significant violations against Islam.

2. Even if we assume the verse is authentic, corruption on earth is so broad a category that almost anything that disbelievers say or do that is judged to be significantly “against Islam” could be used as grounds for administering the harsh penalties--including death--described in 5:33. In other words, 5:32 permits what most non-Muslims would consider to be murder. Therefore, 5:32 is of no worth to non-Muslims and should not be presented as if it were a good verse.

*Note: Historically, killing a dhimmi or a slave could be considered a crime because this represented a loss to Islamic society—the destruction of one of the Muslims’ sources of labour and revenue. (That’s why it could potentially be a crime; killing of a disbeliever itself is not the crime). Even in these cases, the penalities were relatively minor (e.g., several lashes with a whip). That is not the hardest interpretation. In a harder interpretation, some jurists were of the opinion that even women and children and other non-combatants could be killed simply on the grounds that they were disbelievers. For presentation of these historical Islamic interpretations, see Andrew Bostom’s article http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14964 .
An excerpt, from Dr. Bostom’s article:
"Both Muslim and non-Muslim sources document countless episodes of the pillage and massacre of non-combatants during jihad conquests and raids. And there is ample juridical justification for such acts. For example, the great Maliki jurist and philosopher Averroes (d. 1198) asserted,
"Most scholars agree that fortresses may be assailed with mangonels, no matter whether there are women and children within them or not. This is based on the fact that the Prophet used mangonels against the population of al-Ta'if."
The much lionized Sufi theologian Al-Ghazali (d. 1111) made a similar pronouncement:
"...one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...""
(End of excerpt).
The killing of women and children in jihad is specifically allowed, in accordance with the prophet Mohammad’s own example. You will also find in Bostom’s article citation of a ruling that non-combatants captured in jihad (such as women, children, the elderly, the handicapped) could be put to death for verbal expressions against Islam. Indeed, a Muslim who killed a non-Muslim could be excused if he could convincingly claim that the non-Muslim had committed corruption on earth or war against Allah. In contrast, killing a Muslim was a crime punishable by death.

Posted by: Archimedes at November 28, 2005 9:20 PM

Compulsion in Islam: Links

These links didn't show properly in my post on 2:256. Here they are.

Forced Conversion
http://www.hraicjk.org/forced_conversion_and_prophet_muhammad.html

Compulsion Under Islamic Rule Historically in Europe
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5016

My apologies.

Posted by: Archimedes at November 28, 2005 10:44 PM

Archi refers to Mishnah Sanhedrin as the source of the heartwarming part of Quran 5:32. This quote is also found in the Order Neziqin of the Mishnah.

The quote, more or less: He who slays a single soul is like one who slays a whole world; He who saves a single soul is like one who saves a whole world.

Emile Dermenghem, a French apologist for Islam wrote a book on Muhammad back in the 1950s, which was translated into English and included in a series called: "Men of Wisdom." Dermenghem quotes basically only parts that appear originally in the Mishnah. He leaves out the unpleasant stuff in the context that Archi quotes.
E Dermenghem, Muhammad and the Islamic Tradition (London: Longmans, Green, 1958), p 96

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 29, 2005 7:20 AM

Archimedes...That was really informative. You went to a lot of trouble to do that one. I'm going to re read it. Thank you.

All this info is really useful if you are going to debate someone, or want to dig deeper for the truth. I dont debate about Islam because in my view there is nothing there to debate about. It's like debating the relative value of petrified pig manure. So to me, once you get the drift of Islam, you got it. The rest is just details. But the details can be interesting and pertinent. There is tons of material for intellectuals to pour over. While they are doing that the jihadist/terrorist is hiding behind the backstop sharpening his sword. So it looks like putting Islam back in its place, requires a two prong attack. One is to smack Islam upside the head with well researched and well spoken truth, as you have done, and take that sword away from the jihadist at the same time. DC Watson could handle that, I would be happy to assist if we can find a jihadist with a sword. Next time I'm near a ballfield, I will check behind the backstop. If there's a jihadist there with a sword, I'll call DC...Have a good day and thanks a lot for that fine research...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 29, 2005 9:33 AM

Clarification:
Tractate Sanhedrin is part of Order Neziqin of the Mishnah; it is one of several tractates of Neziqin. Sorry if I misled anyone.

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 29, 2005 2:48 PM

Eliyahu,

Thanks again. I'll put that source in my files.

duh-swami,

Thanks. (Note: 2:256 is still quite rough, but has some good sources and links).

Posted by: Archimedes at November 30, 2005 12:28 AM