Recently in Koran Category

How did all these madrassa students and memorizers of the Qur'an misunderstand Islam so spectacularly as to think that jihad had something to do with a hot war against infidels?

"An Uzbek struggle in name only," by J Z Adams for Asia Times, January 25:

The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) in November released on its website, alfurqon.com, a list of its "martyrs" of 2011. The most striking aspect of the list, with its biographies and profile photographs written in the Cyrillic alphabet of the Uzbek language, is that only four of the 87 martyrs were from Uzbekistan.

The list shows how the IMU has evolved from being a group focused on overthrowing the "apostate" regime of Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan in the late 1990s and early 2000s into the global jihadi movement that it is now. Neither the biographies nor the preface to the list focus on Uzbekistan, and while 64 martyrs come from Afghanistan, 10 were from Tajikistan, six from Kyrgyzstan, with one each from Tatarstan (Russia), Germany and Pakistan.

Since the IMU left its bases in northern Afghanistan and took refuge with the Taliban in South Waziristan, Pakistan, after the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2011, the composition of IMU fighters has become so "indigenized" in Afghanistan-Pakistan that the IMU is "Uzbek" in name only.

The IMU's priorities are now one and the same with the Taliban. As shown by the biographies, the IMU is focused on expelling the US from Afghanistan and fighting the Pakistani and Afghan armies.

Only after the US and its allies are defeated in Afghanistan can the IMU return to its bases in northern Afghanistan and fulfill the goals of its leader from 2002 to 2009, Tohir Yuldashev, who envisioned the IMU overthrowing the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan and other Central Asian governments in order to establish an Islamic State in all of "Turkistan"....

The following are some excerpts from the list of martyrs about the IMU's focus on fighting international forces; its continued respect for Yuldashev despite the group's current Afghanistan-oriented strategy; the use of madrassas (seminaries) for recruitment; the challenges of pulling jihadis from their families; the role of revenge against the US in motivating IMU fighters; and the IMU's pride for multi-ethnicism within its ranks....

Qori Mirojiddin "Muoz" (Baghlan, Afghanistan): He was studying the Koran in the madrassas in Khoja District of Takhor Province. When the battle against the hypocrites and the apostates flourished in his region, he considered it a shame not to help his Muslim brothers. He immediately joined the mujahideen. When the hypocritical Afghan army troops became stronger, and the region was taken over by a pro-American government, together with mujahideen Mirojiddin moved to Baghlan province. His sacrifice was destined to be in the Burka district of Baghlan province. May Allah bless this martyr friend of ours.

Ammor (Afghanistan, Saripul): Ammor comes from the Arab population living in Afghanistan. Although he was born in Saripul, he received his education in a madrassa located in Kunduz. This is where he became interested in jihad. He took part in jihad activities and received military training at an IMU base. After completing his training he was sent to Saripul where soon after he was killed in a fight against infidels. His death had a huge impact on his relatives and friends and many of them decided to join the jihad. During the next fights they succeeded in destroying an American "Chinook" helicopter.

Qori Bashir "Mus'ab" (Afghanistan, Baghlan): Qori Bashir was born in 1987 in Burka. During his childhood years he went through an orphan's school lifestyle. In 2004, at the age 17 he was accepted to "dorul huffoz" (a madrassa meaning "Abode of Recitation"). He started learning Sharia. Despite his weak physical state and proneness to illness he joined the jihad movement. Few months afterwards he sacrificed himself to Allah.

Shoh Masud "Talha" (Afghanistan, Baghlan): Shoh Masud also comes from Burka. He was a regular student at a madrassa. With his love and dedication to jihad he joined the Movement. However due to his young age he was not accepted for a while. At the end he achieved his goal. He joined the Movement, participated in jihad, and became a martyr.

Mullo Fayzulloh "Muttaqiy" (Afghanistan, Baghan): Mullo Fayzullo from Burka was famous for his name "Muttaqiy" and spent most of his life in madrassas. It was a short time before he was about to finish the required studies and start wearing a white turban, but it did not happen .... He sacrificed himself in the name of the war against Islam's enemies.

Qori Abdul Hamid(Uzbekistan, Mingbulak): Abdul Hamid also was raised in our madrassa. At 17 he became a Koran hofiz [reciter]. Before that he learned to use weapons and took part in jihad because in our Movement young men start when they are 15-16 years old ...

Shamsur Rahmon "Yusuf" (Afghanistan, Tahor): Shamsur Rahmon was born in Tahor. He joined the Movement in the winter. As usually happens, his parents tried to convince him to go back home, however they did not succeed. Soon after he gave his soul to Allah....

Najmon "Muhojir sohib" (Afghanistan, Baghlan): Najmon comes from Kunduz province's Khanabad area. His father was a well-educated person and during the invasion by the Soviets he served as a doctor. He also was a mentor to Najmon. He had a family and children ... However, he had a strong desire to serve Islam and Muslims. This led to his decision to join the Movement. He regularly supplied the movement with weapons. His hotel (guesthouse) was always full of jihad fellows. At 30 he sacrificed himself to the Allah, Inshallah....

Leading with the family chin

The Qur'an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).

The Qur'an also declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282).

It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3).

It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).

Worst of all, the Koran tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).

It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures "shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated" (65:4).

Wife-beating, child marriage, devaluation of testimony -- where is all that in the Bible? There is polygamy, but it is superseded by monogamy. So what is Mavis Leno talking about, other than the fact that it is fashionable today to praise the Qur'an and Islam, especially while bashing the Bible and Judaism and Christianity?

"Women's activist Mavis Leno and CNN Muslim producer dialogue in Dallas," by Dina Malki for the Examiner, October 24:

At the 26th annual Dallas Women’s Foundation’s luncheon, Mavis Leno, wife of talk show's comedian Jay Leno, shared with the audience accounts about her journey into activism to help empower Afghani women and girls under the Taliban regime....

When asked about the role of Islam in the status of women in Afghanistan, Leno confirmed that “the Quran is more liberal with women than the Bible.” She added that Prophet Mohammad was married to a wealthy and powerful woman, implying that Islam has nothing against empowering women; on the contrary it is a religion that supports women’s rights. Culture, on the other hand, affects the interpretation of religious texts which results in assaulting women’s rights....

Fayzal Mahamad

I recently received this letter from the South African human rights activist Fayzal Mahamad:

To: Robert Spencer Jihad Watch

Dear Mr. Spencer,

I am a 56-year-old South African citizen, a secular humanist and an advocate of human rights.

On the 29th August, 2011 I filed a complaint with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) indicating that in my opinion Abdullah Yusuf Ali, author of the world-famous and renowned interpretation of the Quran entitled "An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran," advocates and propagates violence and unlawful conduct against women when he interprets / proposes a verse in the Quran, namely verse 4:34 as:

"As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance."

I requested the SAHRC and CGE to either stop the distributors located in Johannesburg from distributing Yusuf Ali's interpretation of the Quran or alternatively to censure the specific verse giving rise to my complaint.

I have requested the support of a number of religious organization (Muslims included) and secular organizations in my complaint to the SAHRC and CGE. None of the Muslim organizations have even bothered to reply to my request and a few Muslim organizations have even written to the SAHRC opposing my complaint.

My complaint if successful would be the first of its kind in the world where state institutions in a democracy are used to act against abuse of human rights.

Secularly yours
Fayzal Mahamed.
(Human Rights Activist)

Academic Qualifications:
Philosophy of Religion - University of Witwatersrand
Philosophy of Ethics - University of Witwatersrand
Islamic Studies - University of South Africa
Religious Studies - University of South Africa

This is reminiscent of The Calcutta Quran Petition. Fayzal Mahamad has a strong case, made even stronger by the fact that the word "lightly" was added in by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, and is not in the Arabic. And Abdullah Yusuf Ali is not the sole offender, as nearly all translations of the Qur'an into English render this verse in some way that denotes beating a woman. Of course, authorities are not likely to interpret the law objectively and fairly in this case. Here is the text of Fayzal Mahamad's complaint to the SAHRC:

Complaint to the Human Rights Commission – Violence & Discrimination against women.

On the 26^th August 2011 I purchased a book titled “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran” by author Abdullah Yusuf Ali from Al Huda Publications CC, an Islamic media publisher, distributor and bookseller in Johannesburg. (see attached invoice labeled DOC 1)

Yusuf Ali’s “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran” is not the only interpretation of the Quran but it is the most popular and renowned of all the English interpretations of the Quran. His interpretation is extensively used in Islamic religious schools throughout our country as well as in academia and universities. His interpretation is often quoted in Islamic Fatwas i.e. religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar.

In the book “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran” on page 118 and page 119 section 6 author Abdullah Yusuf Ali interprets / proposes verse 4:34 as follows: (DOC 2)

“As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance.”

Abdullah Yusuf Ali unambiguous interpretation of verse 4:34 proposes that in a domestic dispute women (wives) should, as a last resort, be beaten up in order to obey her husband.

The interpretation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali clearly advocates, sanctions, propagates and promotes violence or unlawful conduct against women in a domestic dispute and infringes the rights of women in a variety of ways, namely in respect of:

Equality.

Women (wives) are being unfairly discriminated upon when Yusuf Ali interprets / proposes that women be beaten up in a domestic dispute as men are not subjected to the same beating as women even though they (men) may be equally at fault in a domestic dispute.

Muslim women are being unfairly discriminated against when Yusuf Ali interprets / proposes that Muslim women be beaten since similar violent punishment against women are not interpreted or prescribed by the majority of other religious / cultural / secular beliefs.

Human Dignity

The interpretation / proposal by Yusuf Ali that women be beaten up in a domestic dispute or when they are “disloyal or display ill conduct” is an unlawful, inhumane act that is intended to bring fear and harm to women in order that they submit to the commands and the will of men (husbands). The act of beating women causes the dignity of women (wives) to be impaired, disrespected and disregarded in violation of the human dignity of women as proposed by our constitution.

Freedom and Security

The interpretation / proposal by Yusuf Ali that women be beaten up in a domestic dispute infringes /violates the freedom and security of women to all forms of violence from either public or private source.

Freedom of Expression

The interpretation / proposal by Yusuf Ali that women be beaten up in a domestic dispute violates / infringes the freedom of expression because Yusuf Ali advocates hatred that is based on gender and constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Intended Relief sought or expected outcome

For the SAHRC to demand / interdict Al Huda Publications CC stop distributing or supplying of Yusuf Ali’s “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran”.

Or alternatively

For the SAHRC to demand / interdict Al Huda Publications CC to remove the offending interpretation by blocking or alternatively covering the offending interpretation that violates the rights of women.

Or alternatively

For the SAHRC to use any action within its mandate to prevent the distribution or supply of Yusuf Ali’s “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran” and / or any Islamic religious interpretation / proposal that advocates the beating of women in a domestic dispute.

It is important to note that I am not asking the SAHRC to censure or stop the distribution of the Quran, the holy scripture of Muslims. From a religious perspective the Quran is a book written in Arabic in and around the year 632CE. As I understand it, the Quran in Arabic is a religious scripture protected by our constitution but the interpretations thereof are personal renditions offered by various authors and are not religious scriptures protected by our constitution but religious literature that fall within the ambit of our constitution and subjected to the rules of the constitution.

Attached (DOC 3) is a digest “Jihad Against Violence: Muslim Women’s Struggle for Peace” initiated by WISE (Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality). On page 6, 7 and 8 WISE acknowledges that the offensive interpretation of verse 4:34 by many Muslim authors contribute towards the violence against women and suggest that non offensive interpretations by Muslim authors such as Laleh Bakhtiar be accepted in place of offending authors.

I am appealing to the SAHRC to accept and act on my complaint in the manner that will hear the cries of WISE (Muslim Women’s Struggle for Peace) and stop the distribution of a book that advocates violence, propagates violence, sanctions violence and promotes violence against women.

Mohamed Fayzal Mahamed

...I read your book.

Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar; according to Answering Muslims, "Muslims love to quote Bart Ehrman, because Ehrman criticizes the New Testament....he holds that it hasn't been perfectly preserved, that it contains contradictions, and that it isn't the inspired Word of God..."

But in the video above (via Answering Muslims, with thanks to The Religion of Peace), he offers a very brief and simple explanation of why he doesn't undertake similar study of the Qur'an: he doesn't want to get murdered.

Well, no one wants to get murdered, but people who have not feared to go wherever the truth may take them are more worthy of emulation than those who cower before violent intimidation. It is true that there has been less critical study of the Qur'an and the origins of Islam than there has of the New Testament and the origins of Christianity, and this can largely be attributed to fear of violence.

But a small group of courageous scholars are pursuing such investigations of Islam, and in my next book, I discuss their discoveries. Yesterday I turned in the completed manuscript of my new book, Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins, to its publisher, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). It will be out in the spring. In it, I discuss the surprisingly shaky historical foundations of Islam, including in-depth examinations of the earliest records of Muhammad's life, and the little-known story of the origins of the Qur'an.

I expect that the book will be...controversial. But to those who might be moved by it to violence, I say, unlike Ehrman, that I will never, ever bow to violent intimidation. And also: Why are you so afraid of the truth?

Islam -- A (Jewish-) Christian Sect? (Part 4)
A short history-of-dogma examination
By Peter Bruns
Translated by Anonymous
Translation edited by Ibn Warraq
Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3

Pre-Islamic Christianity on the Arabian Peninsula

The Christian-Jewish as well as old Arabic and pagan environment in which early Islam arose is to a great extent without significance for Muslim historiography, since the historical writers subsume the epochs before Mohammed under the Jâhiliya[43] -- the time of darkness and barbarism. In his time, Julius Wellhausen[44] pointed out that the Christianity that had penetrated as far as Arabia was not the official, orthodox Christianity of the imperial church. We are sufficiently informed about the various Christianities on the Arabian peninsula[45] by literary (Syrian and Greek sources) and archaeological evidence. Before Islam, we encounter a Christian population predominantly in three regions:

-- The Ghassanids, who were allied with Byzantium, ruled the Syrian-Palestinian area and covered -- in approximately the old Nabataean territory -- Syria up to the Euphrates. While the Palestinian Arabs, whose spiritual needs had been met since the Council of Nicaea (325) by the so-called "tent bishops," remained true to the Chalcedonian majority faith of the empire, because of their proximity to the monasteries of the Holy Land and Sinai, the Banû Ghassân adhered in great part to the Miaphysite faith. Their tribal chief, al-Mundhir, had an occasionally tense relationship with Emperor Mauricius.

-- The Lakhmids, who were allied with the Persians, settled in the Northeast of the Arabian Peninsula, on the fertile bend of the Euphrates in the oasis al-Hîra (Syrian Hirtâ). Although the Zoroastrian Sassanids did not encourage Christianity in their empire, the individual Christian communities were vibrant; various bishops and doctors even rose (to be) advisers to the Great King. In their faith, the East Syrians demonstrated an extreme Diphysitism -- that is, they rejected the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Hirtâ had been the seat of the bishopric since 410, and its numerous cloisters served as a refuge for the upper clergy during the not infrequent persecution of Christians in the Sassanid empire. Also, several catholicoi of Seleucia-Ctesiphon are interred there among the Arabs.

-- Further support for Christian life is at the end of the Incense Road in the south, with the provinces Himyar and Hadramaut -- present-day Yemen. Greek Christianity existed on the Gulf of Aden from the fourth century. It consisted largely of merchants and spice dealers with contacts to India.[46] In the great trading metropolises of the south like Zafâr, San’â and Najrân, there were great churches and basilicas for the varied sects of the Ethiopians, Romans and Persians.

Beyond that, we come upon individual Arab tribes which were Christian in various ways, for instance, the Tanûkh, the Taghlib and the Iyâd as well as the federations of the Qudâ’a and the Rabî’a. The Tanûkh, who were settling in the fruitful Syrio-Mesopotamian land, had an industrious pastor in the philosophically trained Bishop Georgius (died 724). For the longest time, the Taghlib resisted Islamization and remained Christian to the time of the Abbasids. They produced several martyrs at the beginning of the eighth century under the Islamic pressure to conform. They refused as Arabs to pay the head tax and were slandered by Islamic propaganda as "wine-bibbers."[47]

Archaeological evidence[48] in the form of representative churches, inscriptions, bronze or mother-of-pearl crosses[49] are found in the Northeast of the Arabian Peninsula, especially in the oasis al-Hîra whose population was one-third Christian Tanûkh; in Qatar and Bahrain[50], as well as on the road from Hormuz to Oman (Mazûn), where Syrian and Persian merchants established a station on the way to India. Impressive church buildings, three-aisled basilicas in cross- or T-form with articulated adjoining rooms stood in Yemeni San’â[51]. Although their sectarian affiliation between Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian was debatable, they were productive from the prosperity and piety of their builders, who felt themselves to be superior to their relatives in the northwest of the Arabian Peninsula. The highly developed south was distinguished religiously and culturally in no small way from the paganism of northwest and central Arabia. Aside from the few exceptions -- like Queen Hind, wife of Aretha (Hârith), who funded a cloister -- the Kinda in the central part of the peninsula, as well as their cousins in the Hijâz, with the centers of Mecca[52] and Yathrib (later Medina), remained pagan.

Christianity trickled in here only sparsely and seems to have left no lasting traces. In Khaibar and Yathrib, Judaism was especially strongly represented -- perhaps a reason for the weak presence of Christianity in this region. Nothing is known of any bishops or bishops' sees. One looks in vain for large church buildings, as in the south or northeast. Wine merchants, traveling surgeons and tooth-pullers, now and then Christian as well, mostly "Nestorian" monks[53] settled for a short time in these regions, only to disappear again soon after. One of the classical poets of the Jâhiliya, al-A’shâ, is supposed to have been a Christian: "Where did al-A’shâ get his Christian ideas? From the Horensian wine dealers from whom he bought wine. They taught them to him."[54] However the history of the tradition may have proceeded in individual cases, the Koran author could not possibly have gained dogmatically precise information about Christianity in this milieu. However, a superficial knowledge of Christian customs, rites and doctrines, especially the stories of the Bible,[55] was current in Mecca at the time of Mohammed. Meccan merchants gathered their knowledge of Jewish and Christian religion on their long trips to Yemen, Abyssinia, Syria (Bosra)[56] and Mesopotamia (Hirtâ).

Peter Bruns is Professor at the Zentrum für Mittelalterstudien, Otto-Friedrich-Universität, Bamberg, Germany. This article appeared in German in Forum Katholische Theologie, 26 (2010) 1., pp. 1-23.

Islam -- A (Jewish-) Christian Sect? (Part 3)
A short history-of-dogma examination
By Peter Bruns
Translated by Anonymous
Translation edited by Ibn Warraq
Part 1 / Part 2

The investigations of Edouard-Marie Gallez[32] point in the same direction. The theses of this author may be called classical to the extent that they trace Islam from a Jewish-Nazarene sect which, as a branch of the old Jewish Christianity, ("Qumran community"), would have exploded the political-nationalistic Jewish Messianism and carried over the thoughts of election and sovereignty to the Arabs. Here, Islam becomes the ruler ideology of the Umayyads and Abbasids, as the figure of the historical Mohammed disappears in the fog of history, and must simply serve as the surface on which to project later Muslim claims to dominance.

Ideas like this are more likely to encounter in German scholars like Tilman Nagel and Hartmut Bobzin of Erlangen[33] reticence or even hostile rejection -- an astonishing phenomenon which Lüling once formulated sarcastically in connection to someone left nameless: "In spirit, all German Arabist-Islamists wear the turban."[34] In fact, against the background of some excesses of modern Bible exegesis, the fears of traditional Islam scholars are quite comprehensible. That is, when the figure of Mohammed is drawn through the acid bath of historical criticism, not much is left. In the end, the intended de-mythologization -- analogously to the research history of Bible exegesis -- becomes the victim of its own dialectic. "The new, critical Islam scholarship," by trying to emancipate itself from the premises of Muslim Mohammed interpretation -- with only hesitant successes -- comes to dubious conclusions. The only historically certain answer is paradoxically the elimination of the object of investigation, and in this very point it proves to be the twin sister of the liberal Jesus scholarship,[35] to which it is methodologically indebted. Demythologizing the historic Mohammed is most radically advanced with the Saarbrücken theologian and religious scholar, Karl-Heinz Ohlig.[36] But Ohlig, who has worked primarily in the field of Christology,[37] is only superficially concerned with Mohammed and early Islam. His preoccupation with Islam is merely a pretext to investigate in the Orient for testimonies of an anti-trinitarian Christianity,[38] which for Ohlig -- it is unknown on the basis of what criteria -- is supposed to be the authentic Christianity. Jesus is only a human being, not the Son of God but the servant of God. This is supposed to have been the original Christian as well as the original Islamic kerygma -- a thesis which Ohlig borrowed from Lüling.[39] The Saarbrücken religious scholar's hypotheses-friendly work suffers from the author's lack of philological competence, for which reason -- despite its Enlightenment pathos — it is discarded as dilettantish by recognized Islam scholars.

It is not possible to see, at the moment, how the impact of historical criticism predicted by Harnack could be cushioned. For the thing most desired by present-day Islam research is not yet fulfilled: the critical edition of the Koran. It should, however, be clear to all Semitists that the Cairo textus receptus now in circulation in no way satisfies critical demands. The project, Corpus Coranicum,[40] located at the department of Semitic and Arabic Studies at the Free University of Berlin, would like to work on two thoroughly untouched areas of Koran research: (1) documentation of the Koran text in its manuscript and oral form and (2) a comprehensive commentary which will interpret the text in the context of its historical text of origin. Since the writing system of early Koran manuscripts is somewhat ambiguous (to some extent because of the lack of vowel signs or diacritical marks to distinguish consonants),[41] the editors recommend a strict separation between manuscript finds on the one hand and orally transmitted versions on the other. According to a statement, the textual documentation should document and compare the two traditions. The intended commentary, so goes the statement, will view the Koran from a diachronic perspective, as a textual corpus which grew over the course of more than 20 years (sic)[42] which demonstrates differences in form and content and in which earlier text would be interpreted and re-interpreted through later references and additions. Beyond that, the editors promise a commentary that uses Jewish-Christian intertexts, whatever they may be. We may be curious, therefore, whether the contributions of Syrian, Coptic and Arabic Christian authors will receive appropriate consideration. The historian, however, must refute the editors' view that the text of the Koran is a document of late antiquity. With an edition in the eighth or early ninth century, we have reached the Middle Ages. Even a Greek apologist like John of Damascus can only be included in late antiquity with certain restrictions.

Peter Bruns is Professor at the Zentrum für Mittelalterstudien, Otto-Friedrich-Universität, Bamberg, Germany. This article appeared in German in Forum Katholische Theologie, 26 (2010) 1., pp. 1-23.

Islam -- A (Jewish-) Christian Sect? (Part 2)
A short history-of-dogma examination
By Peter Bruns
Translated by Anonymous
Translation edited by Ibn Warraq
Part 1

Until the middle of the previous century[20], a certain optimism prevailed about the historical applicability of Koranic as well as extra-Koranic materials. The results of Watt and the older Koranic scholarship by Nöldeke[21] and Schwally at the time appeared to be completely worthless, when the genuineness of the Koran itself and the historical existence of Mohammed were doubted. What is amazing, in fact, is the monstrous naïveté of Western students of Islam relative to the Muslim fairy tale of the redaction of the Koran established under the "rightly guided" Caliph ‘Uthmân in 653.[22] Those same exegetes who would indignantly reject the reports of bishop and church writer Eusebius on the origin of the Gospels and New Testament literature, follow much more blindly the claims of late Muslim tradition. Thus the modern juxtaposition of Bible and Koran, Jesus and Mohammed suffers from the contemporaneity of what is not contemporaneous, or put otherwise, the asymmetry of the methodological procedures: hypercriticism and basic mistrust of church tradition on one hand, blind trust in the late literary sources of Muslim historians on the other. A preliminary glance into contemporary church historical writing can teach modern historians better. In 1930, Fritsch states: "The knowledge and concomitantly the refutation of the Qoran does not begin for Christian authors until the 8th century because it was not yet literarily fixed."[23] According to Mingana's[24] investigations from the early 20th century, Christian writers of the 7th century, like Katholikus Ischojab III, the chronica minora, as well as Johannes bar Penkaje,[25] are not yet acquainted with any Muslim holy book. The same can be said of Coptic author Johannes of Nikiu. A systematic refutation of the Qoran begins only with Johannes of Damascus (died ca. 750) and the Nestorian Katholikos Timotheus I (died 785), as well as the Melkite Theodor abû Qurra (died around 800). Christian criticism aims at both a textual tradition as well as content. It had not escaped the Christians that the Koran did not have an established and generally recognized textual form from the start. The apologist ‘Abd al-Masîh (Christodoulos) al-Kindî[26] in the 9th century proves especially well informed about the origin and collection of the Koran. Al-Kindî belongs among the sharpest Koran critics. In particular, he distinguishes three forms of the law: the complete law of divine mercy and love which Christ has brought, the law of balance, which is that of Moses (eye for an eye, etc.), and finally the "satanic law of the use of violence" (see "satanic verses"!), as derived from the Koran and the "ridiculous tales" of Mohammed (Hadîth). Other refutations of the Koran, like those of Abû Nûh an-Anbârî (9th century), have not come down to us. Muslim apologists, meanwhile, brought great embarrassment to the convoluted textual history, since they were accustomed to accuse Jews and Christians of a forgery (tahrîf) the Bible[27], while they themselves were not one bit better off with their holy book.

A change of direction in Koran scholarship appeared under John E. Wansbrough[28], who made a radical break with the previous schools of thought. In his view, what is presently called the Koran developed during a time period which reached into the ninth century. This would accord approximately with the statements made by al-Kindî. Within these two centuries, the different text fragments -- differently formed -- would have grown in the framework of an anonymous editing process into a sacred text. Therefore, the Koran cannot be valid as the ipsissima vox Mahometi, to say nothing of Dei. The question Tilman Nagel posed to himself -- how to explain the abrupt transformation in Mohammed's biography from patient sufferer to power-seeker (or put another way -- how the Mecca phase relates to the Medina phase)[29] reveals pure illusion, since the figure of Mohammed is fictitious and its relation to the literary product, "Koran", is not given. Preparation for Wansbrough's hypothesis were Lüling's investigations, expanded by Luxenberg to the reconstruction of a non-Arabic, Syriac basic text. The hermeneutic key, or rather general key for this kind of Koran exegesis is the postulation of a pre-Islamic-Christian archetype, a Syriac "original text," which only became an Arabic text in the course of a long editing process. Utterly surprising is the return of an old apologetic motif in a new costume. From the history of Muslim-Christian polemics[30], it is sufficiently well-known that Arab Christians turned the tables of written proof by invoking individual Koran citations against the Muslims as proof of the truth of their own religion -- thus striking the enemy with his own weapon. For traditional Koran exegesis, of many Western Islam scholars as well, insight into the history of text and tradition of the Koran, at any rate, means a great shock which has not yet been digested.

The theories of the Oxford scholar fell on fertile ground in the French scholarly world, in the case of -- among others -- Dominique and Marie-Thérèse Urvoy. Their study, "Psychological action of the Koran", investigates the rhetorical example of Islamic propaganda and of the didactic purposes in the Koran. Regarding the Koran and its origin, the authors summarize:

"The history of the Koranic text is marked by a series of socio-political choices: progressive establishment and imposition of an official version, eliminating other versions -- rallying of intellectuals around the agreed-upon version, even if it constitutes -- in the case of the philosophers -- a simple concession in numbers; hardening by the theologians of that unanimity by means of an interpretation privileging the cultural criteria of one group (Arabs) within the unity of the Muslim world. In this respect, the Koranic text appeared as the result of a veritable collective shaping."[31]

Peter Bruns is Professor at the Zentrum für Mittelalterstudien, Otto-Friedrich-Universität, Bamberg, Germany. This article appeared in German in Forum Katholische Theologie, 26 (2010) 1., pp. 1-23.

Jewish Christianity and the Origins of Islam and the Koran
by Ibn Warraq

Professor Peter Bruns of the Otto-Friedrich-Universität (Bamberg, Germany), provides a very useful, critical survey of recent research on Islamic origins, but from an important dogma-critical perspective. He reminds us that not only Günter Lüling and Christoph Luxenberg’s pioneering philological approach, but also the historical one which pays proper attention to tracing the origins of Islam by examining the history of the Christian church, will lead to insights and pay scientific dividends. There is a crying need, argues Professor Bruns, to interpret the Islamic sacred texts in the respective context in which they have developed -- something quite common for Christianity but unexplored territory for Islam. “Much remains to be done in this area,” says Bruns, “and therefore an initial, rough, broad-brush sketch of problems from the perspective of dogma history is indicated, without losing ourselves too much in philosophical details. Finally, in evaluating the rich source materials, we must not completely lose sight of later polemic literature between Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages.”

Bruns also takes to task Christian scholars such as Martin Bauschke, whose efforts, in their ecumenical frenzy to please Muslims in putative Muslim-Christian Dialogues are “attempts at new interpretation or re-interpretation of fundamental doctrines amount to the self abandonment of Christianity in the name of Christian-Islamic dialogue.”

Bruns mentions William Montgomery Watt, who is one of the first modern apologists of Islam -- even in its fundamentalist mode – who were Christian scholars who perceived a common danger in certain economic, philosophical, and social developments in the West: the rise of rationalism, scepticism, atheism, secularism; the Industrial Revolution; the Russian Revolution and the rise of communism and materialism. Sir Hamilton Gibb writes of Islam as a Christian "engaged in a common spiritual enterprise". [1] But let us beware of skepticism: "Both Christianity and Islam suffer under the weight of worldly pressure, and the attack of scientific atheists and their like," laments Norman Daniel. [2]

Hence the tendency amongst Christian scholars to be rather uncritical; a tendency not to wish to offend Muslim friends and Muslim colleagues. Either there were explicit apologies if the writer felt there was something offensive to Muslim eyes, or to use various devices to avoid seeming to take sides, or to avoid judging whatever issue was under discussion.

Christian scholars such as Watt, who was curate of St. Mary Boltons, London, and Old St. Paul's, Edinburgh and ordained Episcopalian minister, and who was one of the most influential Islamic scholars in Britain of the last fifty years, and Sir Hamilton Gibb saw skepticism, atheism and communism as the common enemy of all true religion. They followed Carlyle in hoping for spiritual inspiration from the East. Here is Watt: "Islam - or perhaps one should rather say, the East -- has tended to overemphasize Divine sovereignty, whereas in the West too much influence has been attributed to man's will, especially in recent times. Both have strayed from the true path, though in different directions. The West has probably something to learn of that aspect of truth which has been so clearly apprehended in the East."

However, Bruns points to a number of recent Christian scholars who have dared to examine the Koran with a critical eye, scholars such as Dominique and Marie-Thérèse Urvoy, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, and Edouard-Marie Gallez. Along the way, Bruns examines pre-Islamic Christianity on the Arabian Peninsula, and summarises fascinating research into the religious development of the Yemen. Bruns has some scathing observations on Christian surrender in the section From Jesus to ‘Îsâ : Christology in the Wake of the Christian-Islamic Dialogue. Bruns is quite right to point to the research into Jewish Christianity as of great importance in helping us to understand the Sectarian Milieu out of which Islam emerged: writings such as the Pseudo-Clementines, or the works of Epiphanius, and the Ebionites all give clues to the various sources of the Koran. Bruns clearly hopes that research into the Sectarian Milieu will provide new insights into the origins of Islam and the Koran, and ends with a quote from Hans Joachim Schoeps, who wrote as early as 1949:

"Although the exact demonstration of the connection may not be realized, the indirect dependence of Mohammed on sectarian Jewish Christianity is beyond all doubt. And a paradox of truly universal historical magnitude, is the fact that Jewish Christianity disappeared, to be sure, into the Christian church, but was preserved in Islam and reaches into the present day with some of its driving impulses."

[1] This early work was published in the Beigaben zum Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, vol. II., Die Entwicklung des kirchlichen Dogmas I. (Tübingen 41909, Darmstadt 1990), 529-538.
[2] Cf. HARNACK, Lehrbuch II, 529.

Professor Bruns' piece "Islam -- A (Jewish-) Christian Sect?" will follow in the coming days at Jihad Watch.

Why not roses and lilies? From our Beyond Parody Department: "Why not Islamist radio station in Somalia giving guns, bombs to children," from the San Francisco Examiner, September 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

An Islamist militia-run radio station in Somalia said it is awarding guns and bombs to three children who won a Quran recital contest. Andulus radio station — operated by the al-Qaida-linked al-Shabab rebels — announced that the first prize winner in the contest received a rifle and $700, the second prize winner got a rifle and $500, and the third prize winner received two bombs. All three children also received Islamist books.

Yesterday evening I spent an enjoyable hour taking questions from a Qur'an study group, and the estimable Amy Peikoff recorded the whole thing for posterity. Many thanks to all who submitted questions. You can find the whole thing at Amy's blog here.

I am all for reading the Qur'an. I've written a book that is a guide to reading it and a full commentary on the whole thing. I think non-Muslims should ponder the true, peaceful meaning of Qur'an verses like these:

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter..." -- 2:191

"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them..." -- 4:89

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies..." -- 8:60

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." -- 9:5

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." -- 9:29

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens..." -- 47:4

Qasim Rashid never mentions any of those or others like them, of course.

"Do critics actually read the Koran?," by Qasim Rashid in the Washington Post, August 8:

Ramadan is upon us - a time of fasting, charity, prayer...and fighting off Islamophobia. Norweigian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik killed 76 innocent people in a demented campaign to destroy Islam. Comedian Bill Maher recently called the Koran a “hate-filled holy book.” Evangelical atheist Sam Harris insists, “on almost every page the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers .” And Peter King continues his anti-Muslim campaign to become the 21st century Senator McCarthy.

And in case I missed these public events, my readers remind me with private emails.

“The Koran contains much anti-Jewish language,” explained Leonard. “The true lovers of the Koran show their kindness by butchering non-Muslims,” added Angel. A tenured preacher in Richmond, Virginia (who asked to remain anonymous) wrote to me admitting, “I don’t know much about the Muslim doctrine, but your holy book certainly does not teach peace or pluralism.” For someone who admittedly ‘didn’t know much’ about Islam, he banked pretty confidently in his conclusion.

So here’s the $1 million question: Do critics actually read the Koran?

Well, I couldn’t find any reports indicating Bill Maher has actually ever read the Koran. That’s not to say that he hasn’t. Though, even during his recent interview of Congressman Keith Ellison, Maher largely quoted what Sam Harris told him to believe about the Koran, but never actually mentioned he read it himself. And Sam Harris, well he had to have actually read it. How else could he so effectively pick and choose parts of verses to successfully develop his argument? It’s not like he’s making money off it…oh, right. Does Peter King actually know any Muslims? As for Breivik, he and bin Laden now share two characteristics -- mass murdering and Koranic illiteracy.

But stay with me, I promise to address the criticism and not just criticize the critics. First things first, critics aside, why should non-Muslims in general even care to read the Koran?

Well, consider our American leaders as an example. On the surface, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama might seem vastly different in policy. But, these presidents have each read the Koran. Jefferson, a Founding Father, valued his personal Koran. Bush, a conservative Republican, called the Koran “a very thoughtful gift.” Obama, a Democrat who is not a Muslim, studied the Koran, even as a child. Jefferson, Bush, Obama—why not follow their example?

But the problem runs deeper. Pew reports the American Muslim approval rating is well below 50 percent. Pew also reports that less than half of Americans surveyed even know a Muslim personally. And, at least 17 states have proposed legislation to ban Shariah Law, i.e. the law of the Koran. For as much as we don’t know about the Koran, one-third of our nation’s states are banking it doesn’t promote peace and pluralism…sound familiar?

In a time of soaring unemployment, international strife, and plummeting public education, and a debt-ceiling crisis from...a very hot place, one out of every three states is spending tax dollars on what basically amounts to a Koran ban. I wonder, then, how many have bothered to read the Koran to learn about Islam firsthand? The optimist in me believes this is due to a lack of access, not promotion of malice. But the realist in me asks, ever heard of Google? In fact, here’s a free pdf copy.

And if nothing else, long live the Golden Rule. Muslims read the Bible and the Torah and Islam proudly testifies that previous scriptures contain truth. (I personally own—and study—a copy of each). Let us do unto Muslims…

But unfortunately, all we hear from the critics is that the Koran is a “hate-filled holy book” and that “Muslims are dangerous” are verse excerpts like this: “And kill them wherever you meet them…” (2:192). While critics scoff at the “you’re taking it out of context” argument, any judge in any court in any country in any era will explain the uncompromising importance of context when interpreting laws. And that is one thing the Koran is -- a book of laws.

The verse previous to 2:192 states: “And fight in the cause of God against those who fight against you, but do not transgress,”—specifying that fighting is defensive, not preemptive. The rest of 2:192 adds: “and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing,”—explaining the right to reclaim rightful property. While the aforementioned verses permit Muslims to fight defensively, the subsequent verses (2:193-94) demand Muslims desist fighting immediately when their opponents desist, “But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors.”

"Aggression" is often defined by Islamic commentators as a refusal to accept Islam or allow for the establishment of the Islamic state. Hence the renowned and respected Islamic scholar Maulana Maududi, in his commentary on 9:29, says that non-Muslims have "absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines." If they do, "the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life."

He said it. I didn't.

This principle is re-iterated throughout the Koran. In fact, 22:40 establishes the rules of war, “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged.” Then, 22:41 commands Muslims to protect all houses of worship—cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques—to secure universal religious freedom. Such intolerable hatred, no?...

As long as the People of the Book "pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29). They are, after all, the "most vile of created beings (98:6). Such tolerance! Such love!

Groomed for jihad

This group, clearly well-groomed for jihad, used the Qur'an and invited this prospective convert to a mosque. How odd that those in the mosque who understood their peaceful religion correctly didn't explain the True, Peaceful Islam to this hirsute quartet.

"Police officer infiltrated group who ‘groomed men for jihad’, court told," by John Scheerhout for the Manchester Evening News, May 10 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A police officer has told a terror trial he went undercover to infiltrate a gang of alleged radical Muslims accused of urging British men to fight holy war.

The officer, known in court as ‘Ray’, said he adopted the Islamic name Abdul Rahman during a 12-month operation into the activities of a group of four men.

The men deny allegations that they urged undercover cops to carry out Jihad – or holy war – in Afghanistan.

The Crown allege Munir Farooqi – said to have fought alongside the Taliban in 2001 – and three other defendants used stalls in Longsight and central Manchester to convert people to Islam. The prosecution say they tried to groom both Ray and a second undercover officer, known in court as ‘Simon’, to fight and if necessary die in Afghanistan.

Ray – who gave evidence from behind a screen on the third day of the trial at Manchester Crown Court – said he spent two or three weeks establishing himself in Longsight before getting to know Mr Farooqi.

He said: "I was playing the part of someone who has very low social ties, who did not have a social background as such. Somebody who was for want of a better word down on their luck. Somebody who was looking to be befriended or speak to somebody."

Apparently Farooqi tried to convert Ray to Islam and make him a jihadist:

Ray said he had approached Mr Farooqi’s stall and the pair had exchanged pleasantries.

He said Mr Farooqi then asked him if he was a Christian, the jury heard.

"I asked him what he meant by that," said Ray. "He asked me if I was an atheist and I asked what he meant by that. He said, ‘Do you believe in God?’

"My reply to that was that I believed in something, and the conversation went from there.

"He asked me if I knew what the Koran was. I think I explained it was the Islamic version of the Bible, or words to that effect, and the conversation went from there."

The jury heard the pair exchanged mobile phone numbers and Ray was handed a series of Islamic leaflets, a copy of the Koran and some DVDs.

Ray then told the jury the pair discussed the difference between a church and a mosque before Mr Farooqi invited him to a mosque in Ardwick.

Mr Farooqi, 54, and his son Harris Farooqi, 27 - both of Victoria Terrace, Longsight - are charged with engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism by attempting to recruit others to engage in violence abroad.

Matthew Newton, 29, and Israr Malik, 22, face the same charge....

Liaquat Ali Khan teaches commercial law, arbitration and international law at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas. He argues here that Muslims should petition Congress to outlaw the burning of the Qur'an because doing so incites violence -- in contrast to the burning of the American flag, which, he says, the Supreme Court declined to outlaw because "no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur."

And so here we have a vivid example of how the stealth jihad and the violent jihad go hand-in-hand, support each other, and are two aspects of the same effort. Muslims go crazy and kill innocent people over a burned Qur'an, and their useful idiots in the mainstream media blame the Qur'an-burner instead of the Muslims who behaved violently and irrationally. Then a smooth and rational voice -- a law professor -- says that because burning the Qur'an leads to violence, it must be outlawed.

The whole thing is based on a false premise: that someone who burns a Qur'an is responsible for the violent actions of someone protesting the burning of the Qur'an. That is not remotely true. Just the other day a Muslim woman wrote that a couple of my books should be burned; making fun of the conventional wisdom on who bears the responsibility for Qur'an-burning, I said that if she did burn my books and I killed some people after that, the blood would be on her hands. And that is just as absurd as saying that the freedom of expression should be limited because some people react violently at some forms of freedom of expression. They should be called to behave rationally and responsibility, rather than restricting the freedom of expression, which is a free society's foremost defense against tyranny.

But restricting the freedom of expression regarding Islam is a foremost Sharia objective, and is being pushed aggressively today by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and its minions. That is the agenda that this calm law professor, Liaquat Ali Khan, is serving.

"Petitioning Congress on Qur’an Burning," by Liaquat Ali Khan in MWC News, April 19:

[...] In the language of law, Qur'an burning would be an expressive conduct. The First Amendment is generous in protecting oral and written word. It is less so with respect to expressive conduct. The First Amendment shelters expressive conduct if it does not threaten to disturb the peace. The United States Supreme Court declined to outlaw the burning of an American flag because, "no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur."

The flag precedent does not apply because Qur'an burning is an expressive conduct that incites actual violence. So far Qur'an burning has produced instantaneous violence outside the United States. Given the presence of a growing population of American Muslims, Qur'an burning threatens domestic peace. Media and blog invectives may have forced Justice Stephen Breyer to retract his otherwise sound intuition that the First Amendment would not protect Qur'an burning.

Invoking their constitutional right, American Muslims should petition the United States Congress for a redress of grievances. They must demand constitutionally sound legislation that outlaws desecrations of the Qur'an. For Congress, such legislation will demonstrate to American Muslims that the United States is prepared to break away from the medieval custom of assaulting the dignity of the Qur'an. It will also send a powerful message to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and the entire Muslim world, that the U.S. is neither Islamophobic, nor anti-Islamic, a move that can undermine terrorist threats to homeland security.

To their credit, Western European nations have adopted anti-hate statutes, which would proscribe burning of the Qur'an. A few days ago, the British government arrested a Welsh politician who allegedly burned a copy of the Qur'an. The British government has also banned Pastor Jones from entering the United Kingdom.

So what is a pious Muslim supposed to do with his worn-out copy of the Qur'an? Traditionally these have been burned, but that is a highly charged practice these days. And obviously you can't give them to the paper mill to be recycled. "Three Afghans held for disrespecting Qur’an," from the Gulf Times, April 19 (thanks to Twostellas):

Three people have been arrested as officials probe claims that a paper mill in Afghanistan recycled copies of the Holy Qur’an into toilet paper, the attorney general’s office said yesterday. Around 1,000 angry demonstrators, some throwing stones, held a protest on Monday at the mill on the outskirts of Kabul, leaving the building partially destroyed. Copies of the Qur’an were found inside the factory, Kabul police spokesman Hashmat Stanikzai said, adding that no-one was injured in the protest. “The attorney general’s office and Kabul police have jointly tasked a delegation to investigate the alleged disrespect to our holy book in that factory,” a spokesman said.

As we have seen in the case of Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar and many others, any Muslim believer can read the Qur'an and decide that he has a responsibility to wage jihad warfare against unbelievers. There is simply no way to make sure that that will not happen, even if it only happens once in a great while, because of the Qur'an's many plain exhortations to do just that.

More on this story. "Indonesia attack shows 'individual jihad' trend: ICG," from AFP, April 19:

A suicide attack at a mosque in an Indonesian police station last week fits a pattern of "individual jihad" aimed at local targets by small groups of extremists, a think-tank said on Tuesday.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) said a trend was emerging that favoured targeted killings over indiscriminate bombings, local over foreign targets and individual or small group action over more hierarchical organisations.

In a new report entitled "Indonesian Jihadism: Small Groups, Big Plans", the Brussels-based ICG said the two approaches were complementary.

Larger jihadi organisations have the networks and funds to support religious outreach by radicals espousing extremist principles through the media and religious study sessions, the report said.

Groups like regional terror network Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) and hardline Islamic group Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT) are placing greater focus on local "enemies" seen as "oppressors", including the police, Christians and the minority Islamic sect Ahmadiyah....

Local resident Mohammed Syarif, 32, detonated explosives strapped to his body at a mosque inside a police station in Cirebon, West Java province, on Friday as worshippers began their prayers, killing himself instantly and injuring 30 others.

Police are still investigating his motives and links with terror groups. The attack was the first suicide bombing inside a mosque in the world's largest Muslim-majority nation of 240 million people.

Last month, bombs hidden in a hollowed-out books were sent to several addresses including those of liberal Muslim figures and a counter-terrorism official, but no one was killed....

Jihad Watch reader James sends me this gem from "riss's photos" at Plixi.com. I am thoroughly honored by Rissa's declaration, and invite her to go through with it; in fact, if she would like to burn copies of my book The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran in bulk, I will contact Regnery Publishing on Monday and see if I can get them for her at a special discount rate.

And I promise that if she does torch The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, whether one copy or many, I will not riot, I will not kill any innocent people (or any guilty ones, for that matter), and I will not demand that her freedom of speech be curtailed. Rissa, you have my solemn word on all that.

As noted here yesterday:

"Would they have been arrested for burning a Bible? A Bhagavad-Gita? A Torah? A Talmud? The Analects of Confucius? The Tao Te Ching? Why not? Absurdities lie on either end of the spectrum of enforcement: either admit there is a double standard and the Qur'an is protected unlike any other book, or exhaust resources protecting all religions' holy writ from physical desecration, from the most ornate King James Bible to a paperback copy of Dianetics."

Indeed, the British blogger "Archbisop Cranmer" has called attention to this work of "art", a desecrated Bible sitting on proud display (including the words "F--- the Bible" scrawled in it) at taxpayer expense while a Welsh assembly candidate (party affiliation is immaterial to the question of free speech) got hauled into jail for burning his own copy of the Qur'an.

If authorities do not abandon their double standard, they admit they are already ruled by fear. They will fold like a tent on the issue of free speech when threatened with violence.

"BNP member arrested for burning the Qur'an in his own garage," from Archbishop Cranmer, April 10:

...Contrast the response of the police over this man's decision to burn a copy of the Qur'an with their complete indifference to the desecration of the Bible. The response to that 'exhibit' was measured, but the offence to many Christians was no less palpable. But Sion Owens has been arrested under the Public Order Act.

Since when has it been possible to commit a public order offence in the privacy of one's own garage?

The Home Office is reported to have ‘absolutely condemned’ the book-burning incident. A statement said: ‘It is fundamentally offensive to the values of our pluralist and tolerant society.’

Curious, that. For there are some who would say precisely the same about the Qur'an. Indeed, Dr Richard Dawkins might even say it of the Bible.

The state permits freedom of artistic expression, and the Bible is considered fair game. One cannot coerce the non-believer to revere that to which he or she is completely indifferent and, in an increasingly post-Christian and secular context, the Bible is perhaps no more sacred than the latest Harry Potter book.

But we are reminded time and again that the burning of the Qur'an is one of the most offensive acts to Muslims that could be imagined. Certainly, it is sacred to many millions, who assiduously wash even before touching it and keep it on the very top shelf in a place of supreme honour: they take the word of Allah very seriously indeed. And yet, for millions more non-Mulsims, it is nothing but a book, and for some of these millions, a vile book indeed. Certainly - how shall His Grace put it? - not everyone agrees that it is 'God's guidance' on any matter whatsoever.

In the UK, there is now pressure even upon public libraries to set aside the Dewy [sic] Decimal Classification and place the Qur'an on the top shelf.

His Grace has said many times that he is not one to condone the burning of books; that is, unless he is cold and has run out of logs. And he certainly would never condone causing gratuitous offence.

The right to do so must exist, or freedom of speech is a hollow platitude.

But there is an emerging state coercion here which is moving perilously close to the need for an 'I am Spartacus' moment: not, in any sense, either to support the odious BNP or to cause offence to Muslims; but to stick two fingers up to the ubiquitous, illiberal totalitarianism which denies freedom of expression by negating the right to offend against the supposed sensibilities of minorities. The doctrine of the state is compelling respect and enforcing reverence for that which the majority may consider profane....

A partial, but perhaps temporary victory for sanity, in an update on this story. How many suspected jihadists are now under surveillance in the U.K., and police "continue to investigate" a man for burning a Qur'an in his garage? "'Koran burning' charge dropped," from the Associated Press, April 11 (thanks to Twostellas):

A British National Party election candidate accused of publicly burning a copy of the Koran was freed today when the charge against him was unexpectedly dropped.

Sion Owens (41) of Bonymaen, Swansea, South Wales, was arrested and charged at the weekend under Britain's Public Order Act.

The BNP candidate in next month’s Welsh Assembly elections spent the weekend in custody before appearing at Swansea Magistrates’ Court.

He was warned today that police are continuing to investigate the alleged incident and to expect further action.

It is understood that his release was due to a technicality regarding the Act under which he was arrested and charged.

An unconfirmed source in court today claimed that the permission of the Attorney General must be sought before such a charge can be made. In the case of Mr Owens, it was not.

His arrest and charge came after the Observer newspaper reported it had handed police a video which appeared to show Mr Owens dousing a copy of the Koran with paraffin before setting it alight.

Bryn Hurford, prosecuting today, read out the charge after Mr Owens was brought into court from a custody suite.

He said that he was accused of having in his possession “a record of visual images or sounds showing you burning a copy of the Koran whilst saying ‘I am burning the Holy Koran and I hope that you Muslims are watching.”’

The mock trial and torching of the Koran which controversial US pastor Terry Jones staged on March 20th precipitated days of mob violence and the deaths of at least two dozen people in Afghanistan.

No, people who were given a free pass and exempted from the responsibility to exercise their free will to control themselves precipitated "days of mob violence."

Yet another circus of political correctness and claiming victim status for Muslims, without any honest discussion of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism. More on this story. "Hearing on Terror Includes Heated Debate on Islam," by Thomas Kaplan in the New York Times, April 8:

In a local reprise of a polarizing Congressional hearing last month on the question of Islam and terror, state lawmakers warned in grave terms on Friday of the threats facing the New York area, while other lawmakers and interfaith groups criticized the proceedings as anti-Muslim and incendiary.

The hearing, which was convened by the State Senate’s homeland security committee, was something of a spectacle: Security was ramped up at the office building in Lower Manhattan where state legislators have work space, and television cameramen easily outnumbered lawmakers.

Adding to the theatrics, the hearing began to great fanfare with testimony from the lawmaker who convened the Congressional hearing, Representative Peter T. King, a Long Island Republican, who has promised further federal inquiries into what he describes as the radicalization of American Muslims.

Mr. King prefaced his comments by noting that “99 percent” of Muslims in the United States are “outstanding Americans” and not terrorists.

It would have been refreshing if King had spoken about stealth jihadists and Islamic supremacists, who are not terrorists, but he still apparently has only a rudimentary understanding of what we're really up against.

“But the fact is: The enemy, or those being recruited by Al Qaeda, live within the Muslim community, and that’s the reality we have to face,” Mr. King said. “This is not to put a broad brush over a community, but you go where the threat is coming from, and that’s the reality today.”

Mr. King testified at the invitation of Senator Gregory R. Ball, a Putnam County Republican who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs. Mr. Ball was criticized by Muslim and interfaith groups as well as a group of Senate Democrats for his inclusion of Islamic law as one of the hearing’s topics; they accused him of exploiting the threat of terrorism to incite a fear of Muslims among the broader public.

But on Friday, as reporters crammed into a low-ceilinged meeting room for the daylong hearing, Mr. Ball defended the scope of the committee’s inquiry, saying that he asked lawmakers to propose other witnesses but received very little input.

“There are some who are more concerned about the front-page press than today,” Mr. Ball said. “I understand politics. But we cannot allow our homeland security to become a political football.”

Among the witnesses whose scheduled testimony provoked the most criticism was Nonie Darwish, an Egyptian-born American who is president of a group called Former Muslims United, and Frank Gaffney, a former Defense Department official who has often criticized Islam.

Ms. Darwish testified on Friday that young people in the Arab world are taught as children to hate America and to look favorably on terrorism. “The education of Arab children is to make killing of certain groups of people not only good,” she said. “It’s holy. It becomes holy in our culture.”

Her testimony was met with an angry rebuke from Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat, who held up a Koran and said that Ms. Darwish was “bringing hate and poison” to the hearing. Mr. Ball tried to quiet Mr. Adams, and their back-and-forth descended into a shouting match, with Mr. Adams suggesting that Mr. Ball was condoning bigotry and Mr. Ball accusing him of pandering to the news media....

Note how Adams uses the familiar Islamic supremacist tactic of accusing that those who report on the hate and poison of jihadists and Islamic supremacists of spreading that hate and poison. He did not, and could not, refute what Nonie Darwish said about the education of Arab children, so he decided instead to shoot the messenger.

And as for a critic of Islam bringing hate and poison into the hearing, which Adams countered by waving around the Qur'an as a talisman, one wonders if he ever bothered to open the book even once. Adams is worried about hate and poison? How about this for starters:

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust." -- Qur'an 5:51

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans..." -- Qur'an 5:82

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!" -- Qur'an 9:30

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." -- Qur'an 9:29

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks. At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens." -- Qur'an 47:4

"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures." -- Qur'an 98:6

What is amazing is that anyone blames the Florida pastor for any of these deaths, and that no one is calling on anyone in the Islamic world to speak out against this madness. Everyone seems to take it for granted that if Muslims are offended, they will murder innocent people, and that instead of calling that irrational violence what it is, we should take pains not to offend Muslims, and blame those causing the alleged offense to the Muslims for the irrational violence.

"5 Die in Quran Burning Protest," from VOA News, April 2:

NATO officials in Afghanistan say insurgents wearing women's clothing have attacked a coalition base in Kabul, as deadly protests against the burning of a Quran in the U.S. spread to the south.

NATO says three militants - two of them suicide bombers - were killed Saturday morning when they attacked Camp Phoenix in the Afghan capital. Three NATO service members were slightly wounded.

Meanwhile, in southern Afghanistan, officials say a protest in Kandahar against the burning of a Quran turned violent, killing five people and wounding 46.

On Friday in the north, the United Nations said seven foreign staff members were killed in an attack against its compound after a demonstration against the burning.

The U.N. peacekeeping chief Alain LeRoy said the dead in Friday's attack included a Swede, a Norwegian and a Romanian staff member as well as four Nepalese guards at the compound in Mazar-e-Sharif, the capital of Balkh province. He said no Afghan staffers were among the dead....

Ellison trots out Qur'an 5:32, about how killing one innocent person is like killing the whole world. He doesn't mention that it was addressed as a warning to the "Children of Israel," or that many Muslims do not consider any non-Muslim to be innocent. Nor does he mention 5:33, which mandates crucifixion or amputation of the hands and feet on opposite sides for those who make war against Allah and his messenger, or spread discord in the land.

Ellison also mentions Qur'an 2:256, "There is no compulsion in religion," without, of course, mentioning Qur'an 9:29, which stipulated that the People of the Book (primarily Jews and Christians) must be fought against until they "pay the jizya [poll-tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." That is, they're not compelled to become Muslims, but they're denied equality of rights in the Islamic state.

Maher calls Ellison on the tired "out of context" excuse, but he isn't ready with any illustrative passages from the Qur'an that would have proved his point, and he lets Ellison get away with the boldfaced lie that Islamic terrorists explain their motivation in political, not religious terms. See here and here for two recent proofs of the contrary, and there are many, many more where those came from.

Here we go again: a Muslim attempts to mass-murder non-Muslims, and Muslims turn out to be the victims. In a sane world, Irie Price would be writing about how the Muslim community in Lubbock was working hard to prove its loyalty to American Constitutional values, instituting programs to teach against the understanding of Islam manifested by Khalid Aldawsari, etc. Instead, they're the victims, as always. Mainstream media journalists are drearily predictable in their readiness to retail this line. It is remarkable how it never seems to occur to any of them to ask even the most basic probing questions about what these poor victims actually intend to do on their side to try to prevent future Khalid Aldawsaris, and thereby head off this frightening "backlash."

The mainstream media story about Muslim fears of a backlash (that never seems to materialize) after the uncovering of a jihad plot is so common that I pasted that entire paragraph above from an earlier Jihad Watch post about backlash fears in Portland after the arrest of would-be jihad mass murderer Mohamed Mohamud. All I had to do was change the names. The mainstream media procedures in these cases are locked in place and utterly foreseeable -- as are the deceptive talking points of the Islamic spokesmen quoted in the "backlash" stories.

"Lubbock Muslim community braces for backlash," by Irie Price for the Morris News Service, February 25 (thanks to Twostellas):

Members of Lubbock's Muslim community reacted with surprise and dismay at the news of the arrest Wednesday of Saudi-born Lubbock resident Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari on charges of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.

They are shocked! Shocked! To hear of jihad terror plotting going on in their community!

Imam Samer Altabaa of the Islamic Center of the South Plains had just begun to contact people in the Saudi community when contacted for comment Thursday. He said he did not know Aldawsari and had not heard of him before the arrest. He also said that no one in the Saudi community seemed to know Aldawsari, who identified himself as Muslim on his Facebook page.

Of course. It is a staple of these stories that the leaders and members of the local mosque say they never knew the jihad plotter, never saw him, never breathed the same air. No one in here but us benign and gentle peace-lovers!

"They are shocked," he said of the people he contacted.

Shocked! Shocked!

Yet even though they don't know Aldawsari, they're ready to stick up for him:

Ben Chidmi, M.A.K. Lodhi and Adil Farooq, who all came for the 2 p.m. prayer at the Islamic Student Center, said they did not know the suspected terrorist.

Chidmi and Lodhi tempered their comments with the caveat that Aldawsari is still a suspect and has not yet been proven guilty of the charges.

"They are just allegations," Chidmi said. "If it's true, I think the Muslim community condemns any action like that."

"We condemn violence and terrorism without reservations," said the Texas Tech University professor.

If the charges against Aldawsari are true, Altabaa said, the suspect's absence from the local Muslim community is no surprise.

The suspect would "want to stay away from everyone if he is really planning for something bad," Altabaa said.

"We like to give (a) plain message to everyone that Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion against terrorism or terrorists or any person who wants to terrify any human being," Altabaa said.

"These terrorist people, they never come to a mosque because they don't belong there," Altabaa said.

Of course they don't. Who ever heard of "terrorist people" hanging around in a mosque? Except, of course, for those occasions when mosques have been used to preach hatred; to spread exhortations to terrorist activity; to house a bomb factory; to store weapons; to disseminate messages from bin Laden; to demand (in the United States) that non-Muslims conform to Islamic dietary restrictions; to fire on American troops; to fire upon Indian troops; or to train jihadists. No, none of that has anything to do with "terrorist people." It's jihad, you see.

Then follows the predictable hand-wringing over the "backlash" that never materializes, in yet another patently transparent attempt to claim victim status for Muslims and deflect attention away from how Islamic jihadists use the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify jihad terror activity.

The Muslim community is bracing itself for possible retaliation. The Islamic Student Center has been vandalized multiple times, and Altabaa said Lubbock police have agreed to provide security in the coming days for the Islamic Center and the Islamic Student Center.

Altabaa said that retaliatory acts are often committed by people who do not know about Islam.

"We faced this before. We are afraid because there are some people that are ignorant or that don't have enough information about Islam."

This is a tired talking point, and increasingly absurd. People are afraid because they have eyes, and can see that Aldawsari and so many others plot violence against non-Muslims because they are Muslim, explaining and justifying their actions by reference to Islamic texts and teachings. Such people are not ignorant. Such people know too much.

Altabaa added, "They don't know that (Aldawsari) is an alien to Islam ... He is the enemy of humanity, not only the religion."

Aldawsari himself clearly doesn't know that. What is Altabaa doing to make sure that other young Muslims don't misunderstand Islam so drastically and lethally?

Lodhi, a professor of physics at Texas Tech, said that many Muslims have become accustomed to occasional acts of aggression directed toward them. Once, he said, an elderly man confronted him at the Islamic Student Center saying, "You Muslims should not be around here. You should go away."

"I try to explain that there is no threat, that Muslims are just as good as citizens in this country, as anybody could be," Lodhi said.

Nevertheless, Lodhi described his experience in Lubbock as being positive overall.

"I personally come across people who are very helpful, considerate and understanding," Lodhi said.

Farooq, a mechanical engineering student at Texas Tech, also had faith in the Lubbock community to act with nuance.

"My experience in Lubbock thus far has been good," he said. "These are just individual acts of violence that we should all work together and speak against."

Altabaa expressed appreciation for the role intelligence sources had in capturing the suspect.

"They are keeping our country safe from these terrorists," he said.

When asked about the Quran's stance on violent and terrorist acts, Altabaa responded, "The Quran always calls all Muslims to commit to peace, to live with peace, especially with non-Muslims."

Except for the passages in which it is telling Muslims to kill non-Muslims. A sampling:

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." -- 9:5

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter..." -- 2:191

"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them..." -- 4:89

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies..." -- 8:60

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." -- 9:29

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens..." -- 47:4

He added, "God sent (Mohammed) to have mercy in the world, and to spread mercy on all creation of the world."

Quoting a translation of the Quran, Altabaa said, "Whoever kills one person, (it is as) if he killed all human beings; he is equal to a person who killed all human beings. And whoever saves one person's life, (it is as) if he saved all human beings. The Quran makes it clear to every Muslim."

"Muslims are people of peace," said the imam, "because this is what Islam means."

Actually, Islam means "submission," not "peace."

So what if they commit to memory verses calling for them to "slay the pagans wherever you find them" (9:5; cf. 4:89 and 2:191), calling Jews apes and pigs (2:62-65; 5:59-60; 7:166), and saying that Jews and Christians are accursed (9:30) and should be warred against and subjugated (9:29)? (And there are many more where those came from.) What could go wrong?

"Kuwaiti prisoners may be set free if the memorise Quran," from the Irish Sun, February 4 (thanks to Twostellas):

Kuwait's Endowments and Islamic Affairs ministry has said that prisoners who can memorise the Quran might be eligible for the annual pardon.

The decision will be part of efforts to rehabilitate inmates and help them re-integrate society driven by high values. According to the ministry, 137 inmates were last enrolled in the memorisation programme.

"Kuwait adopts a religious preaching programme as part of its rehabilitation policy for inmates," the ministry said.

"Under the programme, prisoners attend lectures and study the Quran in order to instill greater discipline in their attitudes. Their success should allow them to be covered by the Amir's pardon," Gulf News quoted the ministry, as saying.

There are currently no definite regulations that allow inmates who memorise the Quran to be included in the pardon, the ministry of justice has said.

However, the Endowments and Islamic affairs ministry is working on a proposal that makes those who can recite the Quran eligible for amnesty in the future.

Several religious groups in the Muslim world have called for shaving time off prisoners' sentences if they can memorise all or parts of the Quran.

There is nothing in the Qur'an about cutting your daughter's heart out. However, one wonders why the peaceful verses of the Book of Peace didn't pacify this mother and deter her from this horrific murder. "'Mother cuts out the heart of her daughter, four, as she listens to recording of Koran in ritual killing,'" from the Daily Mail, December 18 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A mother has been arrested after a four year old girl was found stabbed to death with her heart and other organs cut out and strewn around her flat.

The 35-year-old woman was allegedly sitting in a her kitchen chanting verses of the Koran as her daughter's disembowelled corpse lay next to her.

The little girl's heart and other organs were found in different rooms around the flat in Clapton, east London.

Police suspect she she carried out the killing as a religious offering as she listened to the Muslim holy book on an MP3 player at full volume.

The mother, who is understood to have two teenage children of 14 and 16, has since been sectioned under the Mental Health Act and is in a secure unit.

The gruesome scene was discovered by the girl's father when he arrived home to the flat on Thursday to find his partner clutching a kitchen knife.

The man, believed to be a Muslim convert, dialled 999 and paramedics pronounced the girl dead at the scene. Police said next of kin have been informed....

Yesterday another shocked resident, a mum in her 30s, said the mother always wore a black headscarf with a veil.

She added: 'Usually you could only see her eyes.

'I often heard shouting coming from the flat as she and a man argued.

'Their quarrels would become very heated.'

Why is this deemed worthy of a news story? Does The Oregonian think that the general public is anxiously looking for reassurance about the safety of this would-be jihadist mass murderer? Is it trying to head off claims of mistreatment from the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)?

And it sure is a good thing that he has the Qur'an in his cell, isn't it? The book that probably inspired him to try to kill large numbers of Infidels is now his sole and constant companion -- how reassuring! Now Mohamud has hours and hours to ponder the true, peaceful meaning of Qur'an verses like these:

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter..." -- 2:191

"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them..." -- 4:89

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies..." -- 8:60

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." -- 9:5

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." -- 9:29

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens..." -- 47:4

"Jailers hold Mohamed Mohamud, accused in plot to bomb Portland tree lighting, in 'protective custody,'" by Bryan Denson in The Oregonian, December 17 (thanks to Darcy):

The teenager accused of plotting to bomb thousands of Christmas revelers at Portland's holiday tree lighting ceremony three weeks ago is jailed in protective custody to prevent someone from harming him.

Mohamed Mohamud has a cell to himself at the downtown Justice Center jail, where he eats all of his meals alone and doesn't mix with the general inmate population, said Chief Deputy Michael Shults, who heads corrections for the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office.

There are good reasons for the isolation, Shults said Friday. A lot of the jail's inmates had friends and family at the city's annual tree lighting, he said, and jailers want to make sure none of them could harm Mohamud.

"That's a concern of ours," he said. "But there's no known threat ... no known persons ... in our system that (are) actively trying to harm him."...

No threat to him? Never mind. You never know when that "backlash" that so terrifies Muslims in this country might actually show itself.

Within a couple of days of his arrest, Mohamud obtained a copy of the Quran from the jail's chaplain, Shults said. The young man keeps the sacred book of Islam in his cell.

Members of Mohamud's family paid him several visits in the first 16 days of his confinement, according to an inmate visitation log obtained by The Oregonian under the state's open records law.

Mohamud's father, Osman Barre, visited him the day after his arrest and put some cash in his inmate account, records show. Barre visited at least three other times, including twice on the same day as his wife, Mariam H. Barre. The couple is separated but remains in the Portland metropolitan area....

The teenager's defense team, including the top two lawyers in the Federal Public Defender's office and their investigators, have paid him regular visits, said Shults, who also has looked in on Mohamud to make sure he was getting everything he needed.

"He's cooperative," Shults said. "He wants to be safe, and we want to keep him safe."

You know the old saying: you can't have your Qur'an and eat it, too. You'll have to find another perfect gift for that special mujahid in your life. Here is yet another Insult to Islam for your list, which will come in handy when the blessings of Sharia descend upon the West: "Don't put Quran verses on cake: Top Saudi cleric," from Emirates 247.com, December 8:

Saudi Arabia's top Muslim cleric has warned against writing Quran verses on cake, saying this constitutes an insult of the Holy Book.

Quoted by Saudi newspapers on Wednesday, the kingdom's Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Shaikh said he had noticed that Quran verses are written on cake during social events and other occasions at homes and schools.

"Writing Quran verses on cake or any other edible items amounts to an insult of the Quran and is unacceptable," he said.

"Appreciating and respecting the Quran should not be done by eating its verses but by reading or listening to them and by sticking to their content...Quran verses must not be used in decoration of cake and eating it."

Newspapers said the Mufti was responding to questions about the growing phenomenon of using Quran verses by some Quran memorisation centres in the Gulf kingdom to adorn cake at graduation events.

I don't think the Qur'an should be burned. I think it should be read. But this is a question of whether Britain will preserve the principle of the freedom of expression, or implement Sharia norms regarding reverence for the holy book of Islam. This is an example of the latter. "Girl, 15, arrested over 'Facebook Koran burning video,'" from the BBC, November 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A teenager has been arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred after allegedly burning an English language version of the Koran.

The 15-year-old, who lives in the West Midlands, allegedly posted the video, filmed two weeks ago on her school premises, on Facebook.

The video was reported to the school and subsequently removed, police said.

A 14-year-old boy was arrested on Tuesday on suspicion of making threats. Both have been released on police bail.

It is thought the girl, who lives in the Sandwell Council area, was allegedly filmed setting the booklet alight while other pupils watched.

Two Facebook profiles have also been removed from the site, police added.

It is understood that the group who published that version of the Koran have since been to the school to talk to pupils....

Well, that's a relief.

Here is a small object lesson in why there are plenty of disingenuous Islamic supremacists masquerading as modernists and reformers (cf. Reza Aslan), but so few actual reformers. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd tried to develop a "humanistic hermeneutics" of Islam, and for his pains was hounded, exiled, barred from countries, charged with insulting Islam, and of course threatened with death. The Islamic supremacists even got his marriage annulled on the grounds that he was an apostate and could not be married to a Muslim woman.

Islamic Tolerance Alert: "The thinker that strove to a kinder, gentler Islam," by Israel Schrenzel for Haaretz, October 29

In July, Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, one of the greatest liberal Muslim philosophers of our time, died in Egypt, just short of his 67th birthday. He was known mainly for developing what is called a "humanistic hermeneutics" of Islam. There would be no reason to mention the fact that he died in his homeland had he not been forced into exile during the mid-1990s, after a major public scandal there.

In 1992, when he was a candidate for promotion to full professor in Cairo University, one of the members of the confirmation committee claimed that his writings constituted a clear insult to Islam. An activist in a fundamentalist Islamic organization exploited this view (which was a minority opinion even within the committee itself, which confirmed Abu Zayd's appointment in the end) and submitted a request to sharia court to annul the scholar's marriage, arguing that his views made him an apostate, and that because of this, his Muslim wife (a professor of French literature at Cairo University ) was not permitted to be married to him.

At first the request was rejected, but it was later approved in an appeals court, in the spirit of the extremism that prevailed at the time - and is still in evidence - with respect to intellectuals and artists suspected of liberal and secular views.

The higher court's ruling aroused a profound public debate and was for the most part perceived as deviating from accepted procedure. At the same time, fundamentalist organizations exploited the ruling and threatened Abu Zayd's life. He and his wife moved to Holland, where he taught at Leiden University, an important center of Middle Eastern studies. There he continued with intensive academic activity, which included writing many books and articles in Arabic and other languages, and he also won a number of prizes and honors from Western organizations, which were happy to be identified with such a "positive" Muslim personality, especially in the wake of September 11, 2001.

In his autobiographical "Voice of an Exile: Reflections on Islam" (Praeger Publishers, 2004 ), Abu Zayd describes his acute homesickness for Egypt, and his dream of being able to return and to teach there once again. He did in fact visit his homeland several times during his exile, keeping a very low profile, but he didn't stay. His description of his first visit is very moving: "As soon as the plane landed, it seemed as though I had left Egypt only the day before .... A customs official asked me, 'Do you have anything to declare?' I simply answered no. He then produced a hint of a smile before saying, 'Welcome back, Professor.' I liked the sound of it" (translation by Esther R. Nelson ).

On the other hand, conservative circles managed to prevent his entry into Kuwait in 2009. After he fell ill during a visit to Indonesia this past summer, he was treated in Egypt, where he died on July 5 at the age of 66. He was buried in his village.

Anyone perusing Abu Zayd's writings will not find a passionate heretic, as his opponents attempted to portray him, and yet it is quite clear why his philosophy was anathema to the religious establishment and to fundamentalist organizations in Egypt and elsewhere. His main activity was the study and interpretation of the Koran. In his youth he learned the sacred book by heart, and for a short period was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. As his academic career proceeded, though, he developed independent views. He initially focused on relating to the Koran as a text, arguing that the most modern methodology of textual research and exegesis should be applied to it, in the spirit of the disciplines of linguistics, hermeneutics and semiotics.

He later took a more dramatic step (under the influence of Russian-Jewish semioticist Yuri Lotman ), and suggested that the Koran first and foremost constituted a form of oral discourse and communication between a divine source - whose existence he never denied - and its "recipient," the prophet Mohammed. The language of the Koran originated, Abu Zayd believed, in the form of an oral message, and only after the prophet's death did it become a text per se. In other words, it is a shared entity created as a result of a "horizontal" relationship between God and the prophet (and not as a "vertical" imposition from above ).

To his mind, then, the Koran's text has a distinct human dimension, since Mohammed had to adapt the divine message to his particular audience in the seventh century. For that reason, its words do not fully or exclusively represent that message, Abu Zayd maintained, and as a human creation its sacred text is open to the interpretation of each and every generation in accordance with its historical circumstances, general cultural perceptions and other considerations. In other words, after the basic "contextualization" of the Koran to suit people living centuries ago, modern-day Muslims are obligated to carry out a "re-contextualization" that will suit this era.

Divine, absolute, perpetual truth

Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd thus sharply opposed the orthodox views that prevailed in effect since the early days of Islam, according to which the text of the Koran represents divine, absolute and perpetual truth, which is valid for all Muslim communities regardless of time and place, and therefore only clerics are permitted to adapt it to the changing circumstances. Due to such opinions, he said, the Koran had become a sacred and frozen object that was not to be touched after being sealed in the seventh century.

Clerics turned the Koran into a primary source of sharia, Muslim law, and as such their interpretations achieved a divine status - which is something Abu Zayd rejected: If the Koran is a human creation, he proposed, then sharia is even more so. He showed in his works, among other things, how the traditional religious approach attributed importance only to a very small number of verses in the book, which deal directly with laws and regulations, and ignored important components outside the legal dimension - in other words, the spirit and principles that inspired the rest of the text.

Furthermore, Abu Zayd claimed that even those parts of the Koran that seem to deal with religious law were not formulated as enduring legal principles, but rather reflected a response to the concrete needs of the prophet's "audience" in his lifetime, a response that also took Jewish, Roman and pre-Islamic Arab views into consideration. Even Mohammed himself, and certainly God, Abu Zayd said, did not intend to perpetuate these views, and the orthodox scholars are therefore mistaken in attributing divine significance to a historical product of human thought. In his words: "If everything mentioned in the Koran must be obeyed literally as divine law, then slavery must be reinstituted ... In our times the amputation of limbs cannot be considered a religious punishment that has divine approval."

From certain verses of the Koran and from what he saw as the overall spirit embodied in the sacred book, Abu Zayd also sought to find an interpretation that would support democracy, equality and human rights in general - particularly, the rights of minorities and women. In so doing he was following in the footsteps of such Islamic modernists of previous generations as Egyptian philosopher Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905 ), who was one of the first to maintain that the Koran was not a historical or scientific work, and to offer his own contemporary, liberal interpretation of it....

It's very interesting that Abu Zayd's contextualized reading of the Qur'an is not infrequently presented by Islamic spokesmen in the West as if it were axiomatic among Muslims, but when Abu Zayd presented it in the Islamic world, he was hounded, ostracized, and threatened.

It seems wildly unlikely that any Israeli (or American) soldiers would do this, given the tendency for Muslims to react to such incidents, whether real or imagined, with irrational violence. And remember: in this conflict, one side wants to stir up that irrational violence and start a new intifada, and one side wants to maintain peace. Which side, then, is more likely to have barbecued these Qur'ans? "Israeli troops blamed for Korans burned during arrest raid," from AFP, October 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):

JAYYUS, Palestinian Territories (AFP) - A Palestinian woman on Monday accused Israeli troops of burning two Korans when they came to arrest her husband during an overnight raid in the northern West Bank.

Sahar Beida, 40, said the troops confined her and her daughter to a separate room when they detained her husband Ismail in the town of Jayyus near Qalqilya.

"When I came out I was shocked to find our Korans were on the front step and had been burned," she told AFP. "They took the Korans from the house and burned them in the alley.

"We didn't see it happen because my daughter and I were in another room. They locked the door and would not let us talk or move or do anything."

An AFP photographer was shown charred pages from a Koran during a visit to the house....

He is right, of course, but the likely response, if he isn't ignored, will be calls for him to apologize for his intolerance. "Vatican: Koran encourages 'killing Christians,'" from AKI, October 22 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

Vatican City, 22 Oct. (AKI) - The Koran is a text that encourages Islam to impose itself with force and permits the killing of Christians, said Lebanon's Catholic Patriarch of Antioch Archbishop Raboula Beylouni, addressing a Vatican meeting of Middle East bishops.

"The Koran gives Muslims the right to judge Christians and kill them with Jihad," he said. "It gives orders to impose religion with force, with the sword. For this reason, Muslims don't recognise the freedom of religion among themselves or others."...

Now is the time for all the great Western moderates to step up to the plate and explain how Iran's Supreme Leader is Misunderstanding Islam, and how the Islamic Republic of Iran is not truly Islamic at all. Imam Feisal? Honest Ibe? Anyone? Anyone?

"'Enemies of Iran will have the same fate as Saddam,'" from the Tehran Times, September 23:

TEHRAN - Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has stated that the assertion that the Islamic Revolution is over is only a delusion.

The enemies of the Islamic Republic of Iran will have the same fate as former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the Leader said at a meeting with members of the Basij volunteer forces held in Tehran on Wednesday to mark the beginning of Sacred Defense Week.

Saddam, who had the financial, political, and military assistance of the global aggressors to confront the late Imam Khomeini, the Islamic Revolution, and the Iranian nation, died such a humiliating death, and history can repeat itself, Ayatollah Khamenei observed.

"The enemies pretend that they have targeted Iran, but in reality they have targeted Islam and the Quran, since they have realized that spirituality and the Quran are the engines of progress... of Iran," he stated....

The crack Sharia Squad of the East Lansing, Michigan Police Department has gotten its man: they've "positively identified" the clown who burned the Qur'an on September 11. Now they just have to figure out what to charge him with, since burning a book is not illegal in the United States. But rest easy, Islamic citizens! Your religious feelings will no longer be hurt by this dastardly individual! And remember -- if you're more concerned about the Lebanese "Chicago man" and his bomb, you're just a racist!

An update on this story. "Police Identify Individual Responsible for Qur'an Desecration," from the City of East Lansing, September 16 (thanks to Comic Relief):

Police have positively identified the individual responsible for the desecration of the Qur'an on Saturday, Sept. 11.

The individual voluntarily surrendered to police officials on Wednesday, Sept. 15 following the establishment of a $10,000 reward fund. None of the reward funds were paid out to obtain the information leading to the individual's identity. The individual continues to cooperate with police and FBI officials. The investigators have determined that this was an isolated incident.

It is expected that the police investigation will be completed early next week. The case will be forwarded to the Ingham County Prosecutor's Office for review. No further information will be released until a decision is made about filing charges.

What charges? Littering?

When did it become illegal to burn the Qur'an? Sharia Alert from East Lansing, Michigan: "$10,000 Reward In Koran Burning Case," from WLNS.com, September 15:

The East Lansing Police Department is seeking the publics [sic] help to find who is responsible for burning and desecrating a Koran. The incident happened on September 11. It was found at the front door of the Islamic Center of East Lansing.

The department is offering $10,000 for any information that would lead to the identification and prosecution of those responsible for this act.

Those with information are asked to call Det. Sherief Fadly at 517-319-6814.

Is Detective Sherief Fadly more interested in enforcing American law, or Sharia? Does he know that Americans have a right to freedom of expression, including that which others find obnoxious or offensive?

Our freedoms hang by a slender thread. Five justices can decide to interpret away a basic right by hedging it all around with exceptions, and that right would be essentially obliterated. The Organization of the Islamic Conference has been trying for years to compel Western nations to restrict the freedom of speech by introducing "hate speech" laws and criminalizing "incitement to religious hatred." The problem is that "hatred" is a matter of interpretation, and hate speech laws can easily become tools in the hands of authoritarian rulers to silence dissent.

So when Breyer says this, it sounds immediately sensible, because Qur'an-burning probably appears to most people to be simply an obnoxious act, an unnecessary provocation. One problem here, however, is that if burning the Qur'an is singled out as a crime of greater magnitude than burning the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or the Granth or what have you, the Sharia goal of establishing Muslims and Islam as a superior class with rights and privileges beyond those of ordinary citizens has advanced to a significant degree. And that would be the kind of law that Breyer must envision, because he is speaking about forbidding something that would provoke violence and mayhem -- and burning the Bible or other holy books doesn't do that. Breyer is also here essentially encouraging Muslims to make more threats and commit more irrational acts of violence against innocents. After all, if it gets them what they want, why not?

"Justice Breyer Suggests That Burning a Quran Could be Like Shouting 'Fire' in a Crowded Theatre--Thus Not Protected by 1st Amendment," by Chris Neefus for CNS News, September 15 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

(CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said on Tuesday that globalization may change the way the First Amendment applies in the United States, and he suggested that Pastor Terry Jones' proposed Quran-burning may or may not be protected under the First Amendment.

Breyer -- appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America" to promote his book "Making Our Democracy Work" -- made the comments to anchor George Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton when Breyer was elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994. The ABC anchorman asked the justice to explain whether globalization, and Jones's ability to broadcast his actions, poses "a challenge" to the First Amendment.

"[W]hen we spoke several years ago, you talked about how the process of globalization was changing our understanding of the law," Stephanopoulos began. "When you think about the Internet and when you think about the possibility that, you know, a pastor in Florida with a flock of 30 can threaten to burn the Quran, and that leads to riots and killings in Afghanistan, does that pose a challenge to the First Amendment--to how you interpret it? Does it change the nature of...what we can allow and protect?"

"Well, in a sense, yes; in a sense, no," Breyer replied. "People can express their views in debate, no matter how awful those views are -- in debate, a conversation, people exchanging ideas. That's the model so that, in fact, we are better informed when we cast that ballot."

While the "core values remain," Breyer continued, "how they apply can change" over time, he suggested.

Breyer pointed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion in a 1919 case testing the limits of First Amendment protection. Holmes argued that shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater would not be protected speech because people could be trampled in the rush to escape a burning theater.

"And what is the crowded theater today?" Breyer asked. "What is being trampled to death?"...

Well, increasingly, it is the freedom of speech and expression, and other rights and freedoms that Westerners enjoy that are denied by Sharia.

"This incident and previous incidents clearly show that what the global arrogance is attacking today is the foundation of Islam and the Holy Koran." And yet the global arrogance has bent over backwards to make sure that no one got the idea that it is attacking Islam or the Qur'an. Khamenei assumes that the global arrogance is behind Terry Jones because in his country, no Terry Jones-like figure could arise without government backing.

Here again, the American government has a chance to condemn the madness of murdering and threatening murder over someone saying he was going to burn the Qur'an, and to stand for the freedom of expression. But it will once again squander this opportunity.

"Ayatollah Speaks of Plot to Abuse Koran," by Robert F. Worth in the New York Times, September 13 (thanks to Benedict):

DAMASCUS, Syria -- Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, delivered a fiery address on Monday accusing the United States government of orchestrating desecrations of the Koran by right-wing American Christian groups last weekend, Iranian state news agencies reported.

The speech appeared to be part of an effort by Iran's hard-line leaders to amplify Muslim outrage over scattered gestures to burn or tear pages of the Koran, in the wake of the threat -- later withdrawn -- by Terry Jones, a Florida pastor, to burn the Koran on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In Tehran, about 1,000 protesters chanting "Death to America" and "U.S. pastor must be killed" clashed with the police and threw stones at the Swiss Embassy, Reuters reported. The Swiss have handled American interests in Iran ever since the United States severed diplomatic relations with Tehran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

After Iran's state-owned Press TV ran reports about Koran desecrations in the United States, India blocked local cable operators from broadcasting the station in Indian-controlled Kashmir, where angry anti-American protests have taken place in recent days.

In his speech, Ayatollah Khamenei said "the leaders of the global arrogance" -- a code for the United States among Iranian conservatives -- had engineered the plot to desecrate the Koran, Press TV and other agencies reported. He added that "Zionist think tanks which hold the most influence in the United States government and its security and military organizations" were also involved.

Ayatollah Khamenei warned people not to believe that isolated right-wing American Christians were to blame, calling them "puppets" of the government. "This incident and previous incidents clearly show that what the global arrogance is attacking today is the foundation of Islam and the Holy Koran," he said....

Of course! Who else could be behind it? "Iran says Quran burning shows new Zionist conspiracy emerging," from the Iranian Students News Agency, September 14 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

TEHRAN (ISNA)-Iranian Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Sadeq Amoli Larijani condemned insult to the Holy Quran, saying that a new Zionist conspiracy is emerging.

"Insult to the Holy Quran in front of the White House was an organized measure in line with war against Islam and it was an insult to monotheistic religions," he said in a statement.

"The disgraceful measure of insult to the Holy Quran was something beyond an unwise action by some ordinary operatives, it showed a new plot by the World Arrogance led by international Zionism to cover its military and political failures in international particularly in regional scene to secure its illegitimate interests."...

This is madness -- and yet the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, to say nothing of Barack Obama, continue to focus their ire on the ones doing the Qur'an-burning, rather than on the ones committing acts of irrational hatred and violence because of the alleged Qur'an-burning. "Reports: Upset over Michigan incident, Muslims attack church in India," by Niraj Warikoo for the Detroit Free Press, September 13 (thanks to Twostellas):

Muslims in India reportedly attacked a church late Sunday night after they heard reports that a Quran had been burned in Michigan, according to Indian media outlets.

Curfew had to be imposed in Malerkotla, a town in Punjab, India, after a group of angry Muslims set on fire the only church in the town. They were reportedly upset that a Quran, a holy book for Muslims, was burned in East Lansing over the weekend and left near the Islamic Center of East Lansing.

According to the Times of India, stories about the Michigan burning of the Quran circulated through text messages. A mob then gathered and went to the church, where they set a wooden plank on fire.

"The protesters also tried to torch a (police) motorcycle and policemen had to fire in the air to control the situation," said a story in the Times of India....

These killers are monstrous. They have assassinated innocent people for something that did not happen, and that the murdered people couldn't conceivably have had anything to do with. And yet instead of calling them monstrous and demanding that Islamic leaders stop inciting and approving of such behavior, Barack Obama and David Petraeus urged pastor Terry Jones to drop his plans. It is, apparently, the West's responsibility to make sure the Islamic world behaves in a civilized manner. How paternalistic and ethnocentric of Obama and Petraeus. "Two Afghans killed as Koran protests simmer," by Paul Tait for Reuters, September 12:

KABUL (Reuters) - Two people were killed on Sunday in a third straight day of violent Afghan protests sparked by a U.S. pastor's threat to burn copies of the Koran.

Hundreds of Afghans kept up the angry demonstrations, some apparently unaware that pastor Terry Jones had dropped his plans. Two protesters were shot and killed in the eastern province of Logar, a district official said, taking the death toll since last Friday to three.

The furor over Jones's plan -- a grave insult to Muslims who believe the Koran to be the literal word of God -- overshadowed the lead-up to commemorations of the September 11 hijacked airliner attacks on the United States....

It's in the Qur'an: "We ordained therein for them: 'Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.' But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers." -- Qur'an 5:45

Now you will tell me, "Wait a minute, Spencer, that's in the Hebrew Scriptures, too." So often I hear that the Bible and the Qur'an are equivalent in their messages -- something that only someone who hasn't read either one could say. But in any case, it's true: "an eye for an eye" appears in Exodus 21:22-25, Leviticus 24:19-21, and Deuteronomy 19:21. However, this phrase has always been understood in Judaism as limiting excessive vengeance, not encouraging it, and has never been taken in Jewish tradition as being a warrant for maiming anyone. It is likewise limited in Christianity by Jesus' statement: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:38-39).

But in Islam, the literal force of the Qur'anic passage is paramount.

"Saudi court mulls verdict to cut defendant's spine," from Emirates 24/7, August 19:

A court in Saudi Arabia is seeking medical advice on whether it is possible to cut the spinal cord of a man as a punishment after he was indicted of causing paralysis to another man during a fight, a local daily reported on Thursday.

The court in the northwestern province of Tabuk has sent letters to hospitals in the kingdom asking them whether the punishment to cripple the defendant by severing his spine is medically possible, the Arabic language daily Okaz said.

The unidentified defendant hit Abdul Aziz Al Mutairi, another Saudi, with a cleaver during a fight more than two years ago and the trial has been delayed because Mutairi is insisting that his attacker suffer the same injury.

"The General Court in Tabuk has sent several letters to hospitals in and outside the region asking doctors about the possibility of cutting the spinal cord of the defendant after he was indicted of causing paralysis to another man," it said.

The paper quoted the 22-year-old Mutairi as saying the defendant had confessed in court to hitting him with the cleaver during their fight in Tabuk.

"King Khaled Hospital is of the opinion that it is possible to cut the spinal cord and cause paralysis medically through specialist centres," he said.

According to the paper, the verdict is pending responses from hospitals to the court's letters.

So there's no discussion of whether it is cruel and unusual punishment. After all, it's in the Qur'an.