| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A terrific piece by Bill Warner at the Political Islam site:
After the Mumbai jihad a friend received a letter from someone who works in counter-terrorism. The friend is an apologist for Islam. The counter-terrorism friend poses their dhimmitude (apologies) so skillfully that it is worth countering their arguments.The argument goes on for a full page. The conclusion is that Islam is not anyone's enemy, but radical Islam is a threat to everyone. The argument does not include a single fact taken from Islamic doctrine. Everything is based upon what some Muslims have told them. In a court of law, such "proof" is called hearsay. In short, the argument can be summarized by: I know some good Muslims; hence, Islam is good.
The background for my argument is the doctrine of Islam. Every Muslim, without exception, will tell you that the Koran is the perfect, complete, universal word of the only god, Allah. The Koran insists that Mohammed is the perfect model, pattern, of behavior for all Muslims. Mohammed's behavior is so important to Islam that it has a special name, Sunna. The Sunna is found in two texts, the Sira (Mohammed's sacred biography) and the Hadith (the sacred traditions of Mohammed). All of Islamic doctrine is based upon three texts: the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith, the Trilogy.
I will not quote from the letter, but will summarize the points. They are the same points of all the other "experts."
"Moderate Muslims are not silent."
Well, we have to grasp the thick end of the wedge first. What is a "moderate Muslim?" What defines moderate? There are two references for moderation. The counter-terrorism friend's reference is "nice." A moderate is a nice person who won't harm a kafir (an unbeliever).But we are talking about a Muslim, so the only valid reference for moderation is Islam, not "nice." It is the model of Mohammed who determines what Islam is. So if a Muslim imitates the Sunna of Mohammed, then they are moderate. Sunna is the words and deeds of Mohammed, the perfect pattern for all Muslims. The Koran says over 70 times that all Muslims are to imitate Mohammed in every detail of their life. To that end Islam has an enormous literature about Mohammed in the Sira (his sacred biography) and the Hadith (his sacred traditions).
At this point we meet the main sticking point in understanding the doctrine of Islam. Muslims are to be Mohammedans and follow the Koran. But which Mohammed and which Koran do they follow? Mohammed preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and gained 150 followers. In Mecca the Koran is generally religious.
Then Mohammed moved to Medina and became a politician and warrior. In 10 years time he annihilated the Jews of Medina, who were half of the town's citizens. Then he turned to attacking all kafirs. In the last 9 years of his life he was involved in a violent event every 6 weeks, on the average. He died without a single enemy left in Arabia. The Koran in Medina is political in nature and very violent.
So there are two Korans-the Meccan Koran and the Medinan Koran. In the same way there are two Mohammeds-Meccan Mohammed and Medinan Mohammed. The confusing thing is that the two Mohammeds and the two Korans contradict each other. But the Koran gives a rule for resolving the contradictions-the later is better and stronger than the earlier. So Medina abrogates Mecca. The bad news is that jihad developed in Medina and all the "nice" verses are weaker than the intolerant verses.
But the earlier "nice" verses are still true. After all, the Koran is the exact words of Allah, who never lies. So Islam holds two contradictory positions on all politics. This is dualism. But the dualism is very confusing. Islam must be one or the other. Right? No. It is both at the same time. There is an Escher print that illustrates this dualism very well. Look at the print. Do you see angels or devils? Notice that you can't see both at the same time.
The Western mind has been trained that both sides of a contradiction can't be true. So the question arises? Which of the two Korans is the real Koran? Which of the two Mohammeds is the real Mohammed? We see this when people say: that is not the real Islam. Or: he is not a real Muslim. The entire question of which is the real Islam misses the point that Islam embraces both sides of the contradiction. Islam is killing kafirs. Islam is being tolerant of kafirs. Islam is both tolerant and peaceful and intolerant and murderous.Go back to the Escher illustration. Does it make any sense to ask if it is a picture of angels? Or to ask if the devils are the "real" illustration? No, it is about both and any attempt to argue one over the other misses the point. Both of them are needed for the illustration to work. In the same way, Islam can only be BOTH Mecca and Medina.
Let's return to the point of the "moderate" Muslim. Now we have to ask the question: is this Muslim a moderate of the Meccan variety or of the Medinan variety? Mohammed Atta, who was the lead jihadist on September 11, 2001, was a moderate of the Medinan sort. Just like Mohammed. Or is the "moderate" Muslim of the Meccan, generally religious and nice, type? The counter-terrorism expert does not make it clear which type she actually means, since it could be either.
The term "moderate" Muslim has no meaning because it does not identify which side of Islam the moderate is.But we all know that what is meant is that moderate Muslims speak nicely and we are not afraid of them. They mean a Meccan Muslim when they use the word "moderate." Let's tackle his claim that the moderate Muslims are not silent. They may not be silent in dealing with kafirs, but they are silent in dealing with Medinan Muslims. Why? Two reasons. Medina was violent and most people are afraid of violence. That is the reason violence works. But there is a second reason. Remember that the Medinan jihadic Koran is better than the Meccan version. Medina trumps Mecca and Muslims know this.
"Radical Islamic groups"
What does "radical" mean? Killing, robbing, enslaving, assassination, torture, deceiving, jihad? As long as those behaviors occur with the kafirs on the receiving end, they are all acts that were performed by Mohammed. If Mohammed did them then they are not radical. Mohammed defines the middle of the road--normative behavior.What happened in Mumbai, India, the World Trade Towers and Beslan, Russia was not radical. Each and every action at those sites was based upon the Sunna of Mohammed.
It is time to dwell a moment on the word "kafir." The strict meaning of kafir is unbeliever, but unbeliever is a neutral term. The Koran defines kafir by its usage. Kafirs can be robbed, raped, crucified, tortured, deceived, enslaved, plotted against, insulted and more. Kafir is the worst word in human language. Our counter-terrorism expert is a kafir and does not know it.
"moderates are using the Koran to prove the radicals to be wrong"
Anytime anyone only references the Koran when they are talking about Islam, you are dealing with a deceiver or an ignorant person. The Koran is only 16% of the Islamic canon. The Koran does not have enough in it to accomplish even one of Islam's vaunted Five Pillars. The Sira and the Hadith compromise the 84% of Islamic canon that shows a Muslim how to be a Muslim.The Hadith devotes 20% of its text to jihad. The Sira devotes 75% of its words to jihad. Which "moderate" can deny those facts?
The Meccan Koran devotes 67% of its words towards kafirs, not Muslims. The Medinan Koran devotes 51% of its material to the kafir. Out of all this material in the Koran some of it in Mecca seems to promise goodness to the kafir, but the later Koran takes away the chance of goodness.
The "radicals," the Medinan Muslims, are right. The Meccan Muslims are deceivers, perhaps of themselves, but certainly deceivers without any doctrinal basis.
Let's vet the Muslim experts. If anything they say agrees with Mohammed then they are right. If anything the Muslim says disagrees with Mohammed then they are wrong. So who needs a Muslim? Go straight to Mohammed, the Sira and the Hadith. We don't need hearsay; we need facts, Mohammed's facts, and not Islamic gossip.I don't care about what any Muslim says, except Mohammed. Actually, there is one, and only one, Muslim who will give you the straight truth-an apostate, one who has left Islam. But apostates tell us that no one believes them. Obviously, our counter-terrorism expert has never talked with any apostates.
"I don't think maligning Islam's holy man is proper behavior"
Since when is quoting from the Sira and Hadith maligning? Mohammed gave out the rules for rape in jihad. He owned sex slaves, told Muslims it was good to beat their wives, laughed when his enemy's heads were thrown at his feet. It's in the book. Such behavior goes on for page after page, year after year. Why is referring to facts maligning?"The counter-terrorism expert is a Jew and gives two incidents of how Muslims have helped Jews. In Albania some Muslims did not turn Jews over to Nazis, some Muslims helped a Jewish kid on the NY streets and became good friends."
Sure, many Muslims have been good to kafirs. Dualism allows for that. But let's examine what Mohammed did to the Jews; that is Sunna.In the Mecca Mohammed portrayed himself in the line of Jewish prophets and that his angel was Gabriel, a Jewish angel. Large parts of the Meccan Koran are derived from the Old Testament, but all of the stories have been modified to preach that Allah destroys all of those who do not listen to his prophets. Other than that Mohammed is the Jew's best friend.
Then he moved to Medina, which was half Jewish, and they told him that he was not a prophet. Both Mohammed's and the Koran's attitude changed about the Jews. (It is interesting how well the Koran tracks Mohammed's political progress. This parallel might cause the cynic to wonder if Mohammed wrote the Koran.)
In Medina Mohammed attacked, robbed and exiled the first two Jewish tribes. The third tribe was enslaved, sold for profit to be used for jihad and the 800 male members were executed in one day. Before that Mohammed had two different Jews assassinated for speaking against him. After every Jew was gone in Medina, Mohammed went 100 miles out his way to attack the Jews of Khaybar. They had done nothing to Mohammed. (Does this remind you of the Jews in Mumbai?)
After he had crushed them, he tortured the Jewish leader to death (does this remind you of Mumbai?), took their land and made the Jews Islam's first dhimmis. Dhimmis had no civil rights and had to pay a tax of half of all their income to Islam. Then on his deathbed, Mohammed banished the Jews from Arabia. His annihilation of the Jews in Arabia was 100%, better than Hitler
.
Hitler hated Jews, but it was not until the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem gave him the idea of extinction (taken from the Sunna of Mohammed when he annihilated the Jews of Medina), that the death camps were planned. Only 6.8% of Mein Kamph is Jew hatred, whereas, 10.6% of the Medinan Koran is involved in Jew hatred. So the Koran of Medina has more Jew hatred than Mein Kamph, but who is counting?That is the Sunna of Mohammed.
Andrew Bostom's seminal encyclopedia, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, is 766 pages of disgusting bigotry by Islam. But for this Jew in counter-terrorism, his three examples show that Islam is the friend of the Jews.There are 14 verses in the Koran that say that a Muslim is not the friend of the kafir. Here is one about the Jews:
Koran 5:51 "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
But let's be clear here. Isn't it strange that people assume that a Muslim is only influenced by Islam? Every Muslim actually has three parts: Meccan Muslim, Medinan Muslim and kafir-Muslim.
To the degree a person is ruled by Islam, they are not a kafir's friend. But "Muslims" are also influenced by the Golden Rule (the Golden Rule is not part of Islamic dualistic ethics) and can actually be a friend of a kafir, because the kafir-Muslim is not following Islamic ethics, but kafir ethics.
So if the Muslim is actually your friend, then in that moment he is not Islamic. But there is another possibility. Mohammed repeatedly told Muslims to deceive kafirs when it would advance Islam. So the friendship may be deception. Tragic, isn't it? (Please do not respond and say that Islam has a Golden Rule. Give me the quote from the doctrine. Islam has two sets of rules-one for Muslims and a second for kafirs. The very word for all non-Muslims, kafirs, denies the Golden Rule. Mohammed treated Muslims one way and kafirs another way. Ethical dualism is Sunna.)
The counter-terrorism expert is not unique. Their arguments are the same as Bush, Kennedy, Pelosi, the FBI chief and the rest of the politicians, media experts and religious leaders. His arguments are standard Government Issue.
Here is the problem. All of my arguments are based upon the actual doctrine. When I talk about Islam I use the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Their arguments are based upon hearsay and opinion. But according to the media and university intellectuals I am a hate[-]filled bigot and they are a beacon of goodness. Lies are good. Truth is bigotry. Can we say Orwellian?
I can defend my statements. I believe in critical thinking and facts. I want our government "experts" to give an argument to defend their doctrine of hearsay and opinion. What is the argument for not reading the Koran, Sira and Hadith? What is the argument for deliberate ignorance?
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at January 3, 2009 7:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
That is terrific. Many thanks.
The "deliberate ignorance" Warner notes is ubiquitous and deeply malign. I have a friend who is a tenured professor of political science (specializing in international relations) and has repeatedly refused my entreaties to at least take a look at what is in the Qur'an. She insists that "experts" with "impeccable credentials" (e.g., Karen Armstrong) can tell her all she needs to know about it. If you tried to make such an argument with regard to the work of, say, Edward Said or Jacques Derrida, she would spit in your eye.
We must indeed get louder.
Posted by: Papa Whiskey![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 3, 2009 8:43 AM
It is sad that so many people do not want to know the truth about islam. But it is outrageous that those who are a part of our security apparatus are so arrogantly ignorant. These are the ones we must 'attack' relentlessly with information bombs.
Posted by: the poetess at January 3, 2009 10:38 AM
If you tried to make such an argument with regard to the work of, say, Edward Said or Jacques Derrida, she would spit in your eye
Posted by: Papa Whiskey
Papa, you literally shake her world to the core when you ask her to consider logic and facts. She is afraid to look directly at what you point out in fear that it might destroy her fundamental belief, the very essence of her being that, "all cultures are equal". Better to cocoon yourself in the comfort of cognitive dissonance than to discover the very foundation of your philosophy is false.
Posted by: KrazyKafir at January 3, 2009 11:49 AM
"Hitler hated Jews, but it was not until the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem gave him the idea of extinction (taken from the Sunna of Mohammed when he annihilated the Jews of Medina), that the death camps were planned."
-- from the article above
Antisemites of the murderous kind in Europe, before Hitler arrived to do things on an industrial scale, for many centuries both preached and practiced diabolical persecution of Jews, and when the spirit moved them, indulge in the odd massacre of Jews (Little Hugh of Lincoln and similar charges of ritual murders, could lead to whole communities being wiped out or expelled from a country), and in the general desarroi, economic and political, of the late 19th century, there was greater fervor, and the Jew provided an easy scapegoad, an Explanation for The Univerise and its woes, and in Czarist Russia, many behaved in the Pale beyond the Pale, the Black Hundreds who enaged in large-scale pogroms (see systematic and large-scale pogroms that had no natural end-point, save that occasionally the government, having allowed the "letting off of steam" through the killing of Jews, would step in and then put a stop. Anyone who takes in, for example, the impassioned Malcolm Hay's "The Foot of Pride" (also published in the United States under the title "Europe and the Jews") would have no trouble seeing the ideological roots of Hitler's mass-murdering. Hitler had formulated his ideas, his hopes and dreams, early on, and put them into "Mein Kampf." After he had come to power, he hardly had to hear from the Mufti of Jerusalem that there was always the option of killing as many Jews -- millions of them, as it turned out --as he and his regime could get their hands on. Nor did Stalin, who had he lived beyond March 1953 might have done something similar (with the Doctors' Plot,and the killing of Mikhoels and a few dozen other prominent Jews, he was off to a good start, when Stepmother Nature intervened), need to meet Hajj Amin el-Husseini.
When such extreme claims are made, claims which many will find reveals an inattention to, or ignorance of, the history of antisemitism in Western Christendom, other doubts naturally arise. A reading of Malcolm Hay, Frank Manuel, Gavin Langmuir, Leon Poliakov and many other historians of antisemitism make Hitler explicable and understandable, place him in his tradition, and there is no need to make that extreme reach to Hajj Amin el Husseini. This doesn't mean that Hajj Amin el Husseini didn't approve of, didn't egg Hitler on. Of course he did. And so did many others. But Hitler needed no egging on.
Wopuld anyone maintain that, had Hitler not met Hajj Amin el Husseini, or had Hajj Amin el Husseini never existed, that Hitler would not have engaged in the mass killings of Jews? Just as there are those who suggest that Muslim antisemitism of the kind now seen cannot have its roots in Islam, and must be a product imported from Europe (see Bernard Lewis, see Matthias Kunzel), and that has been rightly held up for critical examination by a number of people, so the obverse of the same medal, or possibly the mirror image, the claim that Hitler's annihilationism depended on his meeting Hajj Amin el Husseini, invites, and does not withstand, criticism.
When this kind of thing is asserted, without gooing into the history of antisemitism in Western Christendom so as to demonstrate that "but for" Hajj Amin el Husseini and Islam Hitler could never have come up with such an idea, though that idea was both obvious and logically followed from everything Hitler so fanatically believed about Jews, it causes other points made, points for which there is or may be better evidence, less convincing. Such a claim undercuts, or vitiates, the main point being made, which is the same one that has been made many times before, at greater or lesser length. See, for example, at this site, "Ten Things To Think When Thinking Of Moderate Muslims." and Nonetheless, it is a point that needs to be made again and again. And that point is this: the texts of Islam -- Qur'an and Hadith (those deemed most "authentic") and the Sira -- are immutable, and what they contain offers thin gruel to sustain a "moderate" Muslim in his repairing to textual authority. That means that "moderate" Muslims always and everywhere are at a great disadvantage. Both the theory of Islam, as seen in the texts and tenets of Islam, and the practice of Islam, as observed in the history of Islamic conquest of non-Muslim lands, and subsequent subjugation of every kind of non-Muslim, sustain the "immoderate" Muslims rather than those who are called "moderate."
And that word "moderate" has to be held up for examination, as it has been at this website many times, beginning with the article "Ten Things To Think When Thinking About Moderate Muslims." Is that word "moderate" used to describe a swell fellow, an individual Muslim who is all smiles and wiles, but thinks quite otherwise than his outward demeanor would lead one to suspect? Is it a word that describes someone who smiles and is affable, and seems to take a deep interest in one's wellbeing, never failing to ask about the family, say, and always so much more ostentatiously, deliberately warmer than his non-Muslim colleagues, even if that smiler-wiler has never been pressed, by his Infidel acquaintances and colleagues, as for example being required to discuss, and not avoid discussion, of the figure of Muhammad, and what he thinks of the decapitation of the Banu Qurayza, the attack on the Khaybar Oasis, the murders of Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan, and the marriage to little Aisha when she was nine.
Ibn Warraq's oft-quoted "There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate" -- stands, unchallenged and unchallengable.
There is no need to invoke Islam to explain Hitler's annihilationism, which is the apotheosis of Western Christendom's antisemitism, and explicable within that tradition, without looking for an explanation, a little too exculpatory, I'm afraid, in the advice supposedly whispered by Hajj Amin el Husseini to Adolf Hitler when they met in Berlin. Hitler didn't need any advice or encouragement whatsoever.
Posted by: Hugh at January 3, 2009 12:11 PM
What an excellent piece of writing. Definitely in the "Save" file, to be read again and passed to others.
Thank you for posting this, Robert. I, for one, would not have seen it otherwise.
at January 3, 2009 12:15 PM
The Mahdi(Antichrist)is the person Satan use's to wage war, fight God over the souls of humans. Islam is the tool or instrument to deceive. There are 1.2 billion people(Muslims)that have been deceived by the Antichrist. My guess is that there are 2 billion or more kafirs that do not understand the dualism that Islam teaches, therefore they have been deceiced.It does not matter if your Christian,Jew,Hindo or an Atheist, if you accept Islam as a religion of Allah, you have been deceived! Bill Warner has explained this deceiption in his artical, the best I have read. I'm not a hate-filled bigot. I love Muslims,I pray for Muslims, and all people that have been deceived everyday, and all people includes "Kafirs".
Posted by: casey92 at January 3, 2009 1:02 PM
Like Hugh, I think the claim above, regarding Haj Amin el Husseini being the source motivating Hitler's genocidal policy toward the Jews, is irresponsible and does more harm than good.
There is certainly more than enough evidence to refute the nonsense coming out of the Middle East and from apologists in the West that the Arabs were blameless when it comes to the Holocaust. The Grand Mufti was a supporter of Hitler and formed the Bosnian Muslim SS. Pro-Nazi parties formed thought the Middle East and Arabs would have been more than happy to enact Hitler's final solution if they had the opportunity. And they still would today if Israel if given the means. One only needs to look at Arab media over the past 3/4 century to see how highly regarded Hitler and his plans are. But once you say that without the Mufti, there would have been no Holocaust, then you lose the ability to effectively make the case about Islam, including Muslim support for the Nazi cause.
Furthermore, it is insane for people to claim that modern anti-Semitism in the Muslim world originated in Nazi Germany. The reason that Nazi propaganda and Jew hatred found such fertile ground in the Muslim world was that antisemitism was as natural in those parts as day, night and ignorance. The Arabs may have borrowed some antisemitic themes and images, but they were so easily incorporated into their culture because they were a natural fit.
at January 3, 2009 1:33 PM
I loved this article. I have tried to say in words what Mr. Warner has said very eloquently.
I do have one problem - the time that mohammed was in Mecca was not that peaceful when mohammed was trying to start up islam. The elders went to mohammed's uncle for him to temper mohammed down since mohammed was being a 'pill' to them.
This behavior can be compared to many of the so called 'moderate' muslim's behavior when they start up their demands, etc while we think of them as not being violent (well, usually their jihadists are already at work doing their violence but our countries don't recognize it as such).
Ishaq:119 "'Abu Tabib, your nephew Muhammad has cursed our gods [at this point he had cursed all of them, including Allah], insulted our religion [more correctly, insulted them by trying to steal their religion], mocked our way of life and accused our forefathers of error. Either you stop him or let us get to him. For you, like us, are in opposition to him. He gave them a conciliatory reply. They returned a second time and said, 'We have asked you to put a stop to your nephew's activities but you have not done so. By Allah, we cannot endure having our fathers reviled and our customs mocked.' Muhammad thought that his uncle had the idea of abandoning and betraying him, and that he was going to lose his support. The Apostle broke into tears."
Tabari VI:93 "The Quraysh went to Abu Talib and said, 'Your nephew [Muhammad] has reviled our gods, denounced our religion, derided our traditional values, and told us that our forefathers were misguided [and burning in hell]. Either curb his attacks on us or give us a free hand to deal with him, for you are as opposed to him as we are.' They said, 'We asked you to forbid your nephew from attacking us, but you did nothing. By Allah, we can no longer endure this vilification of our forefathers, this derision of our traditional values, and this abuse of our gods.' This breach and enmity with his tribe weighed heavily on Talib. 'Abu Talib, you are our elder and our chief, so give us justice against your nephew and order him to desist from reviling our gods, and we will leave him to his god.'"
Tabari VI:95 "Abu Talib sent for Muhammad. 'Nephew, here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe. They have asked for justice against you. You should desist from reviling their gods and they will leave you to your god.'"
Tabari VI:96 "Abu Talib said to Muhammad, 'Nephew, how is it that your tribe is complaining of you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other?' The Messenger said, 'I want them to utter one saying. If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the jizyah [submission tax] to them."
Posted by: R_not at January 3, 2009 1:41 PM
The Kuran, Surah 9.5: "And when the forbidden months have passed, slay the unbelievers everywhere they are found; beisege them; capture them; torture them; prepare every stratagem of warfare against them; levy the tax upon them pending their conversion to the merciful ways of al-lah." As we can see from this teaching of the Kuran's (and innumerable others just like it)
Islam is legalized, institutionalized first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder.
Any apologist for Islam therfore is in effect an accomplice to first degree murder (whether knowingly or not). Legitimizing Islam can clearly be seen as being tantamount to legitimizing first degree murders committed by Muslims. This is just simple logic here (something US politicans apparently no longer believe exists, have almost stopped practicing altogether, and have consigned to the 'fiction' category... like the Tooth Fairy). This is not a good reflection on the ethical behavior of the political leftists who are usually the apologists who have been falling all over each other making one lame excuse after another for the endless unprovoked homicides and episodes of barbaric behavior being perpetrated by Muslims.
I'd like to see one of these apologists for Islam tell me in which Islamic countries are there NOT Muslim populations actively engaged in homicides and plots to commit future homicides (against the "kufr"). The answer as we all know is "none"-- Islam's bloodlust knows no end or geographical boundaries.
If Islam really WAS 'peace', why would this ugly reality of widespread Islamic homicide be the case? (You'll never get a straight answer to this question from an Islamic apologist, though, believe me).
Posted by: pythagoras at January 3, 2009 2:29 PM
This is a superb distillation of the core tenets of Islam- really useful for people (like me) who are trying to educate themselves, but don’t have enough time to devote to studying it in detail. It should be compulsory reading for every kafir (and every genuinely “moderate” Muslim).
Why can there not be a move to reform Islam along these lines- just as it is- by calling on Muslims to explicitly identify themselves as "Meccan" (vs Medinan). I know this is grossly simplistic, but would it not allow Muslims a route for unambiguously rejecting and condemning jihad, without becoming apostates? Would it not give this group a legitimate “voice”, without having to entirely reject their “faith”?
Maybe that is too optimistic anyway. Even if it were possible for them to do so (without fear of persecution/ slaughter by jihadists), I wonder if many would choose to be "Meccan".
(I have a question too- is Sharia law considered to be derived predominantly from the Medinan period? Can it be "separated" in this way?)
Posted by: infidelgal at January 3, 2009 7:22 PM
Warner is a brilliant and creative synopsizer of Islam. I've read some of his other stuff on Islam and often felt about Warner's writing the same way I feel about this piece by him. He is extremely good at giving powerful overviews without oversimplifying. He's one gifted educator.
at January 3, 2009 11:22 PM
Honestly this piece is simply amazing. Thank you Robert, Ive never seen the scriptures quantifies so completely in this sort of compendium.
Posted by: ethoman at January 4, 2009 12:28 AM
Traeh, Hugh - perhaps you should contact Warner and warn him that his representation of Hitler as deriving from Al-Husseini the idea of total annihilation of Jews, is historically incorrect and detracts from an otherwise excellent essay.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 4, 2009 11:39 PM
Thank you for this brilliant article. It should be required reading for every kafir!
Posted by: Guy Macher at January 7, 2009 9:00 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)