On Saturday I took up the claim made by an Islamic apologist that the verses of the Qur’an quoted in Geert Wilders’s film Fitna were “incorrectly translated.” My post was narrowly focused: it didn’t discuss the contexts of the verses or anything else about the Qur’an and the film. The claim was made that the translations of the verses were incorrect, which is not the same thing as saying they were ripped out of context. Accordingly, I took up that claim only, and simply presented 16 translations of the Qur’an, including all of those most commonly used in the English-speaking world, and showed that the versions of the verses presented in Fitna were accurate and consistent with the other translations.
In response came this post at the Pardon My Paradox blog (thanks to James), in which someone calling himself or herself “Lister” claims that my list of 16 translations actually did show that Wilders had misquoted at least one of the Qur’an verses in Fitna, 47:4:
This is about meeting unbelievers in battle. Yusuf Ali, Nooruddin, Dawood, Pickthall, Hilali-Khan, Shakir, Asad, Sher Ali and Muhammad Ali all mention battle directly in that particular line of 47:4
While other translators may not mention battle directly in their translation of that one sentence, I bet they do mention battle in a later line: “when the war lays down its burden”, which is included as part of 47:4 in the translation on WikiSource.
So the context makes it clear that this is about meeting in battle. Wilders gives no context. So there is no way to know that the context is battle. People could think that it includes meeting unbelievers for a cup of coffee. He gives no context as to the cause of battle.
Again, the original claim by apologist Ali Eteraz was that the verses were “incorrectly translated.” So when Lister acknowledges that “other translators may not mention battle directly in their translation of that one sentence,” he has destroyed his own argument: if even some of the Muslim translators (including Fakhry, whose translation is approved by no less an authority than Al-Azhar) leave “battle” out of that section, one cannot (at least if one has any interest in consistency or integrity) fault Wilders for doing so.
For the record, the Arabic doesn’t mention battle in the first part of the verse. Here is Qur’an 47:4 in Arabic:
فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ فَضَرۡبَ ٱلرِّقَابِ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَآ أَثۡخَنتُمُوهُمۡ فَشُدُّواْ ٱلۡوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنَّۢا بَعۡدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَآءً حَتَّىٰ تَضَعَ ٱلۡحَرۡبُ أَوۡزَارَهَاۚ ذَٲلِكَ وَلَوۡ يَشَآءُ ٱللَّهُ لَٱنتَصَرَ مِنۡہُمۡ وَلَـٰكِن لِّيَبۡلُوَاْ بَعۡضَڪُم بِبَعۡضٍ۬ۗ وَٱلَّذِينَ قُتِلُواْ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ فَلَن يُضِلَّ أَعۡمَـٰلَهُمۡ
I would translate فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ as “When you meet those who are unbelievers,” although I will readily grant that the context of the verse makes it clear that it’s talking about a battle, not about beheading unbelievers over coffee. Still, that is a question of context, not of the correctness of the translation, which is the only thing my post was about. But don’t believe me, since I am, according to jihad apologist myth, a venomous “Islamophobe” who knows no Arabic — Fakhry, Daryabadi, Arberry, Palmer, Rodwell, and Sale agree that “battle” is not mentioned, while Yusuf Ali, Hilali and Khan, and Asad add it in brackets, which is also a tacit admission that it isn’t in the Arabic.
And now — about that context. In “Verses from Fitna (The Movie), in Historical Context,” Rogster in his Telegraph blog (thanks to all who sent this in) takes it up at length. The only weakness of his post is that he doesn’t provide Islamic sources for his assertions, but I challenge any Islamic apologist to show from the early Islamic texts that anything he has written here about the contexts of the Qur’an verses in Fitna is inaccurate.
Because Rogster says that his post might be taken down, and because of its value, I reproduce it all here, although if he asks me to, I will remove it in whole or part.
Disclaimer:
1. This article is not an act of spreading/stirring hatred, as many Muslims who use the logical fallacy “˜Argumentum ad Odium” would argue.
2. This article is a report on the historical contexts behind the verses used in Fitna the movie, in response to those who dismissed the movie solely on the basis that the verses were being quoted “˜out of historical context”. In this article, I attempt to show that the historical contexts are in-line with the intended Fitna contexts.
3. This article is not an act of racism, since a) Islam is not a race and b) Muslims are not a race, and c) This article has nothing to do with discrimination, see (2).
4. This article is not glorification of Jihadism / Islamic terrorism.
5. This article is not recruitment for Jihadists / Islamic terrorists.
6. This article is not intended to cause offence, albeit this article will likely be considered by the permanently-offended, to be offensive.The following verses are in order of appearance, with an explanation of the intended Fitna context, as well as associated historical context. I have also written a short explanation of the battle of Badr and battle of Uhud, in order to clarify the historical context surrounding the quoted revelations.
Historical Context: Battle of Badr (The historical context for 8:60, 47:4, 8:39)
1. A Quraysh caravan comes from Syria > Mecca, funded with the money raised from sale of the belongings, of those who went off to join Muhammad.
2. Muhammad intended to ambush/raid the caravan.
3. The caravan found out about Muhammad’s planned ambush, and so sent out a messenger to Mecca, to ask for reinforcements.
4. The Quraysh sent an army out, to defend the caravan.
5. Muhammad learnt of the Quraysh reinforcements, but forced his men onward, to prepare for the arrival of the Quraysh
6. Muhammad ordered his men to fill-in all but one water source, and then defend the remaining water source, forcing the Quraysh to attack, in order to gain access to it.
7. Muhammad’s troops took a strong defensive position.
8. The Quraysh attacked, but lost the battle to Muhammad, despite having an army x3 bigger than Muhammad.Note: Muslims and apologists often claim that the battle of Badr was “˜purely self-defence” against the aggressor/oppressor Quraysh.
As I have shown above, in (2), Muhammad intended to raid the caravan before the Quraysh even thought about attacking Muhammad. (3-4) The Quraysh then sent their troops “˜to defend the caravan”. (6) Muhammad provoked the Quraysh into attacking, by filling-in all the water sources (but one), whilst defending the last one from the Quraysh.
One can see that Muhammad was the true aggressor in this battle. The Quraysh were simply defending their caravan and were later provoked into attacking, in order to gain access to water.
So if we consider this historical context, the verses 8:60, 47:4 and 8:39 are all in relation to a battle in which Muhammad was the true aggressor and provoker.
Historical Context: Battle of Uhud (The historical context for 4:56)
1. The Quraysh desired to avenge their losses at Badr
2. The Quraysh also wanted to strike back at Muhammad, for raiding many Quraysh caravans and for generally being a mass-murdering marauder.
3. The Muslims readied for war, soon afterwards, and the two armies fought on the slopes and plains of Uhud.
4. The losses on the Muslim side, were far greater than at Badr, but they still gained victory.Note: Again, Muslims and apologists often claim that the battle of Uhud was “˜purely self-defence” against the aggressor/oppressor Quraysh.
Whilst technically the Muslims did act in self-defence here. The battle of Uhud was in response to the constant raids carried out by Muhammad as his followers (As in the case of Badr), as well as due to the fact that Muhammad was the true aggressor and provoker of the battle of Badr, thus making him a warlord as well as a marauder of caravans & people.
8:60 – “Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies”
Fitna context: The quotation of 8:60 in “˜Fitna”, is meant to show that through Qur’anic verse, Allah incites Muslims to terrorise, and that the terrorism carried out by Muslims today, is inspired by such verses, since Allah is literally commanding Muslims to terrorise their enemy.
Note: Unlike Islamic apologists will argue, this verse does not command Muslims to “˜frighten” their enemies, in hope that their enemy will retreat.
Looking backwards in this chapter, for more context on what is meant by “Strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers”, we refer to Qur’an 8:12, where we can see another example of this use of “˜Terror” against unbelievers, with Allah saying: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”.
The process is:
1. Allah terrorises the unbelievers, and then
2. Muslims carry out violent acts against the unbelieversThe process is not:
1. Allah terrorises the unbelievers, and then
2. Muslims watch the unbelievers retreatThere is a clear system here, which first begins with terrorism, and then ends in Muslims carrying out violent acts against the unbelievers. It is not, as apologists argue, that terrorism was used merely to make an enemy retreat, so as to avert having to fight any battle to begin with. 8:12″s use of terrorism, is specifically accompanied with acts of violence. So when we refer back to 8:60, where Allah commands Muslims to: “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies”, he is (specifically) giving Muslims permission to do the terrorising, unlike in 8:12, where it is Allah doing the terrorising.
Furthermore, if we refer to Bukhari, we also find the Prophet Muhammad himself admitting that he has “been made victorious with terror” Bukhari, Vol 4, Book 52, No. 220 (The Hadith: “Fighting for the Cause of Allah”).
The historical context of 8:60 (And 8:12), places the verse(s) after the battle of Badr. The “˜enemies of Allah”, which are mentioned in the verse, were historically the Quraysh tribe (Who fought them at Badr). The verse does not simply apply to that time and people, but instead applies to “˜enemies of Allah” (generally) and applies for all time.
(Note: The reasoning behind the Quraysh attack upon the Muslims at Badr, is noted at the beginning of this article)
In a modern context, literally all non-Muslims can be argued to be “˜enemies of Allah”, one way or another; whether it be through governmental support of Israel, or even something as insignificant as cartoons about Muhammad, etc.
It has even be argued that non-Muslims are enemies of Allah by default, simply due to them not already being Muslims, or by refusing to convert to Islam, after being given an invitation (Like that which Ahmadinejad gave to the US, thus making the war against the US, a “˜just” war, since they did not automatically embrace Islam, after being invited). Note that the Muslims giving an invitation to a non-Muslim nation, to embrace Islam (Short of which, war is declared upon them), has been as constant hallmark throughout Islamic history.
4:56 – “Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in fire: Whenever their skins are cooked to a turn, we shall substitute new skins for them, that they may feel the punishment: Verily Allah is sublime and wise”
Fitna context: This verse is revealed shortly before two videos,
1. The first video is of an Imam, preaching from Bukhari (Vol 4, Book 52, No. 176-177), which is where Muhammad says that “The Hour” (ie. The Islamic Resurrection and End of Time), is literally dependent on the killing of Jews by Muslims, that the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and that the rocks and trees will yell out to Muslims, to come and kill the Jews.
2. The second video is of a child named Basmallah, who refers to Jews as “Apes and Pigs”, inspired not by some random hatred of Jews, but in accordance with Qur’an 2:62-5, 5:59-60 and 7:166.
These two videos relate to the quoted Qur’anic verse 4:56, in Fitna, because 4:56 is about Jews, if you consider that verses 4:44-59 are a general censure against Jews. Verse 4:47 talks of Jews being accursed by Muhammad and “˜being transformed” (Consequently into the “˜apes and pigs”, as noted above).
Thus, one can see that the Fitna usage of this verse, along with the following two videos, actually gives the verse context.
The historical context of 4:56, places the verse after the battle of Uhud. Again, just as in the case of Badr, it was the Quraysh army versus Muhammad’s army.
(Note: The reasoning behind the Quraysh attack upon the Muslims at Uhud, is noted at the beginning of this article)
The censure in chapter 4 of the Qur’an, against the Jews, is intended to denigrate them into the “˜apes and pigs” and generally make the Jews appear “˜less human”.
Again, since the Qur’an cannot change and that it applies forever, this censure remains a constant, and accounts for the modern anti-Semitism exhibited by Muslims today, exemplified by the two videos following the verse, in Fitna.
The historical context of providing a censure against the Jews of the Quraysh tribe, has been applied in a modern context, to all Jews, since the verse only states: “Those who have disbelieved our signs”, rather than “The Quraysh, who have disbelieved our signs”. This ambiguity was intentional, so that the verse would apply indefinitely to pretty much anyone who “˜disbelieves”.
Also, when 4:56 states that “Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in fire”, the verse has been interpreted today, to mean that Muslims should be the ones who “roast them in fire” (aka. By suicide bomb), rather than as a description of what others interpret as something which only happens to unbelievers in Hell.
47:4 – “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks, and when ye have caused a bloodbath amongst them, bind a bond firmly on them”
Fitna context: The quotation of 47:4, is meant to show that Muslims are required to carry out these violent acts (against unbelievers), and that this verse continues to inspire today”s Muslims to carry out these violent acts (against unbelievers).
To put the verse into a modern context, there are several subsequent videos (After the verse is quoted), which give modern examples of how said verse is being applied today, by Muslims.
The first video is about the murder of Theo Van Goth, who was murdered by a Muslim, who murdered him for what he admitted were religiously (Islamic) motivated reasons.
The second video features a protest, by Muslims, on the streets of London, in which (If I”m correct) the voice of Anjem Choudary is shouting that the British people should “Take lesson from Theo Van Goth” and from other examples, that we will “pay with our blood”. These two videos are examples of how the “cause a bloodbath amongst them” part of this verse, applies today.
However, it is the third video with which this verse is particularly relevant, since it features Ken Bigley, whom was “˜tied up” and “˜beheaded”, in line with verse 47:4.
The historical context of this verse, places the verse before the battle of Badr, that is, before Muhammad and his army, defeated the first Quraysh attack.
(Note: The reasoning behind the Quraysh attack upon the Muslims at Badr, is noted at the beginning of this article)
This verse gives the Muslims permission to behead the Quraysh, to cause a bloodbath amongst them, and to take prisoners (In pre-emption of the battle). All violent acts, of which the Muslims do, during the battle of Badr…
The process is:
1. Allah gives Muslims permission to a) Behead unbelievers, b) Cause a bloodbath amongst them, c) Take prisoners.
And then…
2. The Muslims act upon said verse, in the battle of Badr, by a) Beheading unbelievers, b) Causing a bloodbath, and c) Taking prisoners.
Perfectly consistent with the verse.
Today”s Muslims, who look at the verse and the associated historical context, will emulate it by doing exactly what the Muslims did, when the verse was revealed to the Muslims of the time – They will go out and behead unbelievers, cause a bloodbath amongst them and take prisoners.
Just like what they did with Ken Bigley and so many others…
4:89 – “They but wish ye should reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they, so take not friends from their ranks, until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take no friends or helpers from their ranks”
Fitna context: By quoting this verse, the intention is to show that it is forbidden to leave Islam, and that if after becoming Muslim, someone converts from Islam or betrays the Muslims, then Muslims are required (By Allah’s command, and also consequently by Islamic law itself) to capture them and kill the apostate, wherever the Muslims find them, without taking any friends or helpers (From amongst the unbelievers) in accomplishing this task.
The first video after the verse, shows a Muslim man stating that: “Islam is a sacred religion. The best religion there is. If someone converts to Christianity (From Islam), he deserves the death penalty”.
From 4:89, apostasy laws are derived – “If they turn renegades, seize them and kill them, wherever you find them”.
The movie also shows another side to Muslims – Their “˜superiority complex”, which places Islam (In their minds) above all other religions. In the first video, the Muslim man says that Islam is: “The best religion there is”. Whilst in the second video, (I think) Trevor Brooks, aka Omar Brooks, aka Abu Izzadeen, talks about Islam being “˜superior” to all major religions. The apostasy death sentence, directly influences this superiority complex, because if Allah himself commands apostates to be killed, then Islam must be “The best religion there is”, since otherwise Allah would not command Muslims to kill apostates.
The historical context of this verse, places the verse after the battle of Uhud, with the “˜people” mentioned in the verse “They but wish ye should reject faith as they do”, being the Bedouin tribes, which lived in Medina (and also the countryside).
At the time of this verse, there was much distrust over the Bedouin, who inhabited Medina. Some Muslims were hoping that eventually the Bedouin would become Muslims (Which is the foundation behind Dhimmitude), whilst some Muslims wanted to take a harsher stance towards them.
The verse continues this trend of distrust: “So take not friends from their ranks, until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them”, thus commanding the Muslims not to be friends with the Bedouin, until they become Muslims, and that if the Bedouin (after accepting Islam) leave Islam, or betray the Muslims, then the Muslims are required by Allah, to capture and kill them.
Again, since the Qur’an is not limited to a specific people or place, and the verses apply for all time, Muslims in a modern context, can use 4:89, replacing the historically contextual Bedouin, with any modern denomination they feel like (Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc).
If a Muslim is to refer to the historical context to gain insight into how 4:89 was implemented upon the Bedouin, it is clear to see from Islamic history, that the Bedouin were treated with distrust (Until they converted to Islam) and that Bedouin apostates were summarily captured and executed, in line with what actually happened. Thus, in a modern context, other non-Muslim denominations are treated with distrust by Muslims today, until they convert to Islam. If they then leave Islam, they are to be captured and killed, by Muslims. All major schools of Islamic jurisprudence accept death for apostasy. It is not something which can be denied.
So in the case of 4:89 and it’s insight into how Muslims dealt with apostates, it is clear that the historical context supports the intended context in Fitna.
8:39 – “Fight them until there is no dissension, and the religion is entirely Allah’s”
Fitna context: By quoting this verse, the intention is to show that one of the goals of Islam, is to dominate the entire world. The first video, following the verse, is of an Islamic Imam/Cleric, stating that: “Islam is a religion that wants to rule the world. It has done so before and will eventually rule it again”. This video is then followed by a video of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stating pretty much the same thing, he said: “The message of the Islamic revolution, is global, and is not restricted to a specific place or time. Have no doubt… Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? – It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world”. Following this theme of Islam being world domineering, a further video of another Imam/Cleric is preaching that Islam “has ruled the world the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again! The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world!”. A fourth video follows, where an Imam/Cleric admits that: “Allah commanded us to spread this religion worldwide”. Basically, this theme goes on for quite a bit longer, if not simply to demonstrate the widespread acknowledgement of Islam as being a religion that desires world domination.
The historical context places this verse as being revealed after the battle of Badr, with “Fight them” to mean the Jews of the Quraysh tribe. The verse refers to the “˜persecution” of the Muslims by the Quraysh, and that Allah commands the Muslims to “fight them until there is no more persecution”, adding “and religion should be only for Allah”.
(Note: The reasoning behind the Quraysh attack upon the Muslims at Badr, is noted at the beginning of this article)
To understand how exactly and for what reasons the Quraysh were “˜persecuting” the Muslims, I would first need to discuss the battle of Badr and the reasons for the Quraysh launching an attack against the Muslims in the first place. This will be mentioned as soon as I deal with the latter part of this verse, and it’s associated historical context.
The ending (To Qur’an 8:39) goes: “and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do”. According to Tafsir Ibn Kathir, and many other Tafsir, the former part of the ending, which states that “religion should be only for Allah”, means that Muslims should fight until there is no more “shirk”.
Robert Spencer notes that: “Shirk is the association of partners with Allah — i.e., calling Jesus the Son of God. So this verse, although it was revealed in the aftermath of a seventh-century battle between Muslims and pagans, has a universal application”
Basically, 8:39 verse commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims, until the only religion (In the world), is Islam. This is nothing less than Allah condoning/commanding genocide, and nothing less than the rhetoric of world domination.
This goal of dominating the world, was even admitted by Muhammad who said: “I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord)”
Note: The Razzias (raids) carried out by Muhammad and his followers:
Prior to the two battles, the Muslims and Meccans had fought several smaller skirmishes in late 623 and early 624, as the Muslim raids grew increasingly commonplace, but Badr was their first large-scale battle.
Note: Even though many Muslims were Quraysh themselves, they believed that they were entitled to steal from them, because the Meccans had expelled them from their homes and tribes (Crazy Muslim logic 101).
Finally:
Prominent Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi recently made a comment about “˜Fitna: The movie”, saying that:
“We need scholarly refutations to claims that Prophet Muhammad incited the killing of men and women”.The fact that Qaradawi is admitting that there aren’t scholarly refutations to the claims (In the first place), demonstrates that all current rebuttals against said claims, have thus far been on the basis that “˜Muslims don’t want to believe that Muhammad incited the killing of men and women”, rather than rebuttals which are based upon authoritative fact, and supported by authoritative sources.
Really, it just defies any sense of verisimilitude, to say that the Prophet Muhammad never incited the killing of men and women. As I have shown in this blog – He clearly did.