Years ago, I was speaking at some university — University of Wisconsin-Madison if I recall correctly — and a Muslim in the audience asked me what qualifications I had to discuss the texts and teachings of Islam. I responded, “I can read.”
And so I chuckled watching David Wood’s brilliant explanation here of why reading is “Islamophobic.” Prove you’re not a racist today: put that Qur’an down! Ban reading!
Joseph says
Honestly.
I could listen to David Wood and/or Pat Condell all day long. They really ARE brilliant; I agree. And they’re both very funny to boot.
And what’s amazing is that all they are doing is speaking with common sense and with logic.
mariam rove says
me too!!!!!!!! M
ParisClaims says
The could form a great double act. I’m seriously shocked that Pat Condell hasn’t been arrested yet. It can only be a matter of time.
ParisClaims says
The could form a great double act. I’m seriously shocked that Pat Condell hasn’t been arrested yet. It can only be a matter of time.
London Jim says
Reading this while watching a documentary about Samantha Lewthwaite. So glad I can see and hear.
Art says
When told that a passage has been taken out of context, I would just ask the person telling me that to please put it in context. Then there can’t really be any argument.
voegelinian says
The context the typical Islamopologist has in mind is a context that is supposed to transform the violent passages in the Koran from being prescriptive for all time to being merely descriptive — and if he concedes that some are prescriptive, he would hasten to add that such prescriptions are supposed to be only historical, pertaining only to the 7th century (or, perhaps, the Middle Ages), not to our present time.
Additionally, the Islamopologist will try to argue that this context refers to defensive actions by the nascent Muslim community, defending themselves against hostile attacks by others around them.
For both of these claims, the Islamopologist will be forced to use the tafsirs — and at that point, one can use that tafsir as a double-edged sword (pun intended) against the Islamopologist; because the tafsirs amply show that the violence of the Koran (e.g., Sura 9) are in fact generally prescriptive without limitation of time or space, and that they do not conform to our modern definition of defensive action, in that their primary casus belli refers to concepts like blasphemy, social promotion of blasphemy, and closely related to this, rejection of Allah’s commands and Muhammad’s authority (which are to be submitted to either under dhimmitude or under conversion to Islam, with no third option open short of being killed by Muslims).
gravenimage says
Good point, Art—so often, Muslims and Muslim apologists simply pull out the “out of context” card and let it hang in the air. This is, of course, ludicrous—it is no argument whatsoever, but is just intended, like the more aggressive charge of “Islamophobia”, to shut the speaker up.
Tradewinds says
“I responded, “I can read.”
Love that. Perfect rejoinder to a Mohammedan on his high camel.
Reality Check says
“On his high camel”. LOL. I will save that for future use, such as when a Muslim tells me: “Get off your high horse.” My answer will be: “Get off your high camel, etc., etc.”
voegelinian says
English has many phrases using “horse”. In this context of our war of ideas, I simply substitute “camel” for “horse”.
It also works for other animals — e.g., “The Camel in the Room” (instead of “The Elephant”). Etc.
Student says
Thanks for the link Robert. David Wood sums up the situation nicely.
I studied Inter-religious Studies at post-graduate level. One of the tutors teaching the course was an Imam, a mild mannered man who taught us that Islam is Abrahamic religion and that Muhammad preached a message of peace.
However I noticed that the course text contained only snippets from the Qur’an. As my course load was pretty full, I didn’t have the time to turn to the primary sources of the Qur’an and Hadith. It was only some time later that I had the opportunity to peruse the contents of the Islamic texts and it came as quite a shock to discover that the message of the Qur’an didn’t square with the sanitized version I was presented with.
Naturally I thought I must be doing something wrong that I was ignorant of some exegetical principle which would unlock the authentic peaceful interpretation. The more I studied the more alarmed I became. The earlier peaceful verses had been abrogated why did no one mention that? How is context supposed to make the beheading of 400-900 people morally acceptable?
To make matters worse the Hadith that people were quoting referring to the ‘Greater Jihad’ or spiritual struggle were considered fabricated in Islam (an unreliable source and it contradicted the Qur’an). No good Christian would quote the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas as being representative of Christianity so why do Muslims quote invalid hadith?
I never did find a peaceful version of the Qur’an because there isn’t one as it happens! Many more students will attend lectures and talks as I did on a mythical peaceful interpretation of Islam. Sadly, for every student who actually sits down to read the texts and discover the horrors of Islam for him or herself, there will be ten more who swallow the lies and misrepresentations hook line and sinker.
dumbledoresarmy says
Great story. Well done!
How soon after deciding to read *all* of the Quran did you find your way *here*? (Welcome to the unofficial Order of the Phoenix).
And have you read Mr Spencer’s “Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran” yet?
Congratulations on joining the ranks of what a former erudite contributor to this forum once called “The History Boys”.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/06/fitzgerald-the-unsung-history-boys.htm
“Fitgerald: The Unsung History Boys”.
“The keenest and most aware, in every part of the Western world, are now engaged in one vast, but not collective, History Lesson.
“Those in this class are necessarily a class of autodidacts, given the failure of our governments to instruct us, and given the near-total monopoly over academic departments and courses on Islam by those engaged not so much in instruction as in apologetics….”. (As you have found, from bitter experience).
something else that you may enjoy – Australian scholar Rev Dr Mark Durie’s account of when and how and why *he* first decided to read the Quran, and other Islamic texts, and what happened. At his blogspot (well worth bookmarking)
http://markdurie.blogspot.com/2010/09/third-choice-interview-of-mark-durie-by.html
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Third Choice — Interview of Mark Durie by Mark Tapson for FrontPage Magazine
“When I left academia [i.e. linguistics fieldwork in Aceh studying their language and literature – which is stuffed full of jihad references and quran verses – dda] to become an Anglican minister, around 1998, I thought I was leaving Islamic jihad well behind me.
“I had no idea of the depth and breadth of the global Islamic movement.
“Then as I watched the burning World Trade Center towers collapse in the New York morning sunshine, I knew there was no ideology on this earth other than Islamic jihad which could have inspired such an attack.
“It was no surprise when verses from the Koran reportedly found in the backpacks of the terrorists were exactly the same verses which had figured so prominently in Acehnese jihad epic poems from over a century ago. {These were the poems Dr Durie had studied for his linguistics degree; *he* was studying them purely from a nuts-and-bolts linguistics POV – dda}
“At that point I knew I had to try to understand Islam properly.
“So I read the hadiths, the Koran, and Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad in the months after 9/11, with the eye of a theologian – I was constantly asking how this material would form people’s spiritual identity.
“This exploration made me deeply troubled.
“The persona of Muhammad which arose before me from Islam’s primary sources shocked me to my core.
“I thought, “If this man’s life is supposed to be the best example, we are all in deep trouble.”
“I went to the Islamic Council offices in Melbourne and bought more books about Islam. One was Maududi’s Let Us be Muslims.
This only increased my concern…. “.
And so it goes.
Curious Infidels like you and me and Dr Durie, curious Infidels who **read** – and who are willing to read “around the subject” and “outside the box”, the sort of people who when at university didn’t just read one Shakespeare play (the one set out in the lesson plan) but got a “Complete Shakespeare” and wolfed down the lot, or who when studying Chaucer weren’t satisfied until they had read *all* the Canterbury Tales, even the stultifyingly boring Parson’s Tale, the sort of print-addict infidels who will *not* put down a book till they have perseveringly read it from cover to cover – are going to be the death of Islam, in the West. And in places beyond the West.
gravenimage says
Good for you, Student! And all of Dumbledore’s Army’s suggestions are excellent.
One point—you wrote:
To make matters worse the Hadith that people were quoting referring to the ‘Greater Jihad’ or spiritual struggle were considered fabricated in Islam (an unreliable source and it contradicted the Qur’an)
………………………………..
Hadith are considered “Sahih” (reliable), “Hasan” (good), “Daif” (weak), and “Maidu (fabricated).
If you read the collections by Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim—you can tell that they are considered reliable—with impeccable Isnad chains—by all mainstream Sunnis.
And there is a great deal of *horrifying* material in these Hadiths—that condones violent Jihad, pedophilia, beheadings, and stoning women to death.
TH says
It seems to be that it is all like the story of the emperor having no clothes. Some day in the not too distant future common sense will prevail like it did in the emperor story from the mouth of a child. The Bible states: “from the mouths of babes you brought forth perfect praise”. Lincoln, who was a pretty smart guy, said that 2you can’t fool all the people al l the time”. In the 30s Churchil used all his considerable eloquence to denounce the danger of of the rise of Hitler and Mazism, but the British were not having much of that. The left was also going to Russia at the same time as Stalin was carrying out his great purges and going back to England to write about the wonders of Communist Russia. Not only them, also Nerudo, also an ardent leftist, who spent time there in those days and he wrote a pome on guess what? AN ODE TO STALIN. Yes, I have read it in Spanish. Chamberlain returned to England form Munich proclaiming that he had achieved “peace for our time”. That was in 1938. Will there be any Churchill around when the West wakes up to the suicide it has been committing? That’s the quesiton.
voegelinian says
The 20th century Western romance with Communism (and even with Uncle Joe Stalin) run far more deeply and broadly than many of us realize. Diana West’s recent book, American Betrayal, pulls together a mountain of evidence indicating the dismaying reality, cutting deep into American society and culture. (She also indicates the various ways in which the Communist dream has not gone away with the Fall of the Wall in the 80s, but has transmogrified into a more diffuse, but perhaps more insidious, form.)
Clare says
This is actually one of the rules in the “interfaith dialogues” with Mahometans; a strict undercurrent that non-Mahometans, regardless of what they have read in the koran, are not to state what they have read. If anyone does ask a teeny question, the Mahometans answer will “tsk,tsk” with a wave of the hand, meaning that the whatever it is is benign. This implies that ‘you’ unbelievers can’t read the koran (is it illegal to read the koran?) or understand what you have read from the koran.
Clare says
Correction: answer will be
Bradamante says
It’s worse than that. From what I’ve seen, the pastor and the Christian interfaith dialogue leader will jump in to wave away the questions before the Muslims are ever put on the spot.
Joseph says
Good point, Bradamante. Oftentimes the dhimmi Christians (in my circles, dhimmi Catholics, the most groveling kind of dhimmis) will be more “protective” of the Muslims than the Muslims themselves. Bizarre.
Bradamante says
Yep, I’ve seen the same. I’m Catholic and that’s exactly where I’ve seen this kind of behavior.
Kilfincelt says
I love David Wood’s comments. This is a video that should be seen by everyone who thinks Islam is a religion of peace.
For an example of how blind and stupid people can be on the subject, go to: http://www.elca.org/en/Faith/Ecumenical-and-Inter-Religious-Relations/Inter-Religious-Relations/Muslim-Relations
Note the link to a DVD series called “Discover Islam”. I saw snippets from the various DVD’s and had to laugh at what was being said, especially the bit about Islam not supporting terrorism. Of course, in Muslim eyes that is true because terrorists are to them just soldiers of Allah who are trying to spread the religion of Islam as they have been commanded to by Mohammad in the Qur’an.
PJG says
The Pact of Omar, from what I remember of it, banned non-Muslims from reading the Koran. That is why Muslim street-spruikers give away glossy pamphlets rather than Korans. They know the ropes. But many Muslims don’t know that old ruling and give away or sell Korans hopefully. When I was given mine by a Muslim man I read it with increasing horror and, naturally, used what I found in it to argue about Islam with Muslims. Very annoying for them. The strangest thing is when non-Muslims read the Koran and then 1) say there is nothing wrong with it or 2) actually convert, saying it is beautiful, peaceful or whatever. I can only assume that 1) they lied; they didn’t really read it or 2) they were high at the time.
Kepha says
The Yusuf Ali translation I own was given away by a Muslim Students’ Association booktable in the Midwestern University where I got my Ph.D. So, is it the Arabic Qur’an that we Kufr aren’t allowed to read?
PJG says
From WikiIslam (analysis of pact of Omar)
“We will not teach our children the Qur’an…”
Non-Muslims, like dogs, pigs, and faeces, are considered najis (نجس impure),[25][26][27] so this stipulation is hardly surprising. Also recorded in the sahih hadiths, is the command to not let the Qur’an fall into enemy hands, as they may “quarrel with you over it.”[28] Apparently Muslims were afraid of non-Muslims scrutinizing their holy book.
It’s the scrutiny they don’t like. We might learn their tactics, we might find things embarrassing to them; we might even laugh at them.
I guess it’s something Muslims are “taught” AFTER they convert or they learn from trained teachers if they are born Muslim. It’s not just a book for pernickety non-Muslims to casually read and criticise the way they would any other book.
Kepha says
Even so, it was Muslims who gave me my copy of Yusuf Ali’s translation of the Qur’an.
Now, it didn’t make a Muslim of me (indeed, I usually start my days with a few chapters of the Old and New Testaments); but I’m glad that I read it and know something of its contents, even if I disagree with it.
voegelinian says
Thank Allah for the Internet — withholding the Koran from the Mushrikoon is no longer an option: there are hundreds of websites offering the entire Koran, in every language including Arabic.
The one I use (YAQUB) has 11 translations from the Arabic into English, six of them by Muslims themselves.
http://www.quranbrowser.com/
A Muslim cannot dispute the veracity of these (except through his usual bargain-basement tactics of argute sophistry).
Johnd says
That is one thing that I cannot make sense of, the fervour of the western convert to Islam. I usually attribute it to, plain stupidity where they distort the message somehow to some starry eyed version, or to an assuagement of guilt that may explain its appeal inside prisons. Whatever, it shows all the hallmarks of a dangerous cult.
gravenimage says
PJG wrote:
The strangest thing is when non-Muslims read the Koran and then 1) say there is nothing wrong with it or 2) actually convert, saying it is beautiful, peaceful or whatever. I can only assume that 1) they lied; they didn’t really read it or 2) they were high at the time.
………………………………….
I think there’s another factor with some people, too, PJG. I started to run into this when teaching adult literacy—but then found that it was much more widespread than just with new readers.
I discovered that there are quite a few people who are either lazy readers or who seem incapable of understanding any prose that is difficult or not written in “modern” language (and no, I’m not talking about classical Arabic here).
I’ve found this with reference to Shakespeare, the Bible, a great deal of poetry—and the Qur’an (though I *hardly* consider that vile book in the same category aesthetically or morally as the others).
I notice that some people just start reading, and it sort of washes over them as ‘blah blah blah’.
The Qur’an is *not* that difficult to understand in toto, despite the 10% or so of passages that truly do not make sense.
But I think that quite a few people who have read the Qur’an have made no effort whatsoever to understand its content—despite how plain it is.
With most literature, this is not really an issue save that it gives rise to some ignorant poseurs—but when some goon who has either not read the Qur’an as he has claimed or has not understood its content proclaims it to be a ‘book of peace’ or ‘just like the Bible’ or some other rot, it is very damaging indeed.
Reality Check says
It is not only reading that is islamophobic. Thinking is islamophobic, too.
dumbledoresarmy says
Reality Check – have you ever heard of an Arab Muslim proverb that goes “al fikr kfr” (i.e. “thinking is anti-Islam”?).
There’s an Egyptian bloke called Tawfiq Hamid who calls himself a moderate Quran-only (ROFLMAO) Muslim. He strikes me as being an apostate manque and my prayer for him is that he’ll eventually crack, and ditch Islam altogether. In the meantime, he has his uses, when used with caution.
He wrote an article some years ago, called “the development of a jihadist’s mind”. It was published at Jerusalem Post, among other places, and it was discussed here.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/01/the-development-of-a-jihadists-mind.html
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/Article.aspx?id=89135
It’s really quite useful. And here’s the bit that is worth remembering. He describes how he fell in with Jemaah Islamiyah, whilst at medical school in Cairo.
“…During my first year of medical school, a Jamaah member named Muchtar Muchtar invited me to join the organization.
” Muchtar was in his fourth year, and Jamaah had given him the title amir (prince or caliph) – a designation taken from early Islamic writings that is associated with the Islamic caliphate or amir almomenin (prince of the believers). I accepted his invitation, and we walked together to Jamaah’s mosque for noon prayers.
“**On the way there Muchtar emphasized the central importance in Islam of the concept of al-fikr kufr, the idea that the very act of thinking (fikr) makes one become an infidel (kufr). (In Arabic both words are derived from the same three root letters but have different meanings.)** {my emphasis – dda}.
“He told me, “Your brain is just like a donkey [a symbol of inferiority in the Arab culture] that can get you only to the palace door of the king [Allah].
“To enter the palace once you have reached the door, you should leave the donkey [your inferior mind] outside.”
“By this parable, Muchtar meant that a truly dedicated Muslim no longer thinks but automatically obeys the teachings of Islam…”.
To repeat:
“…al-fikr kufr, the idea that the very act of thinking (fikr) makes one become an infidel (kufr).”
Johnd says
Thats interesting. It sounds as if it derives from a mystical Hindu, Jewish or Christian aphorism or something. I,ve come to the point of doubting a muslims ability to invent anything original. I think the reality is that muslims leave the donkey at the door as soon as they become muslim.
gravenimage says
DDA, I’ve always found this “parable” *very* instructive when it comes to understanding the Muslim “mind”—or lack of same.
mark says
Now that is a good presentation of truth! This is the age of denial, ignorance, and feelings. Those of us who still want to think and read must counter that with wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, right in the faces of those who love to submit to demagoguery.
No Fear says
Islam does not want you to read and ask questions about the Quran.
That would be like a Nazi asking thought provoking questions about Mein Kampf.
Islam wants non-muslims to submit to the Quran (i.e. Mohammed) and to Islam (i.e. Mohammed).
islamexplodia says
word.
duh_swami says
You have to read the Quran in Arabic to get the context and true understanding…I was told. The reason is poor translation. The popular translators, Yusuf Ali, Picthal and the rest, apparently do not know Arabic well enough to make an accurate translation. According to that, my English Quran is incomplete, faulty and full of translation errors. It cannot be then, the Holy words of Allah, instead it is an original reproduction done imperfectly. When I asked what I should do with this horrible book of errors, it was suggested, I turn it in at the nearest mosque.
BC says
“Holy words of Allah”? give us a break. I cannot help but laugh at all religious nonsense and the gullible people who lap it up, but the holy Quran is the worst piece of nonsense ever foisted on mankind. Madmo was most likely a schizophrenic who had heard the bible stories, one has to give him some credit for his plagiarism, I suppose but he was not even smart enough to think up his own religion. The Quran is nothing but the old testament rehashed and tweaked to make Madmo look like a prophet, it is borrowed mythology founded on another mythology. I think that is why the Muslims hate the Jews so much, bcause their precious Quran is the bible faked. One of the most obvious falsehoods of the Quran is when Madmo has a problem and he talks to ‘god’ for ‘advice’. Guess what ‘god’, always provides the answer that Madmo was seeking anyway!
One of the most comical events is the so called ‘Night Ride’ when he goes to heaven complete with horse! Not only does he get to talk to ‘god’ in person but the earler prophets, including Jesus are not sitting with god but reduced to the status of gatekeepers! Madmo is the only ‘prophet’ who goes and talks to ‘god’ and comes back to earth. What inteligent person can believe that.? The rest of the time he deals with ‘god’ in ‘revalations’.
Maybe the trip was too exhausting to do regularly.
Johnd says
Yes, a certified nut case alright. All the signs of the psychopath who when his gradiose delusions are ridiculed reacts in self righteous and horrific violence. My how good muslims they hate those naughty Jews, but putting their golden mount on top of the temple mount will teach the blighters. So much hatred.
voegelinian says
“The popular translators, Yusuf Ali, Picthal and the rest, apparently do not know Arabic well enough to make an accurate translation. ”
If an Islamopologist makes this claim, demand that he prove it.
gravenimage says
Duh Swami—as I’m sure you’ve noticed—it is notable just how similar translations of the Qur’an really are, whether the translation was done by a devout Muslim, a disinterested scholar, or a critical “Islamophobe”.
And why shouldn’t they be? Classical Arabic—despite the ludicrous claims of Muslim apologists everywhere, *isn’t that difficult*.
The idea that the Qur’an really can’t be translated is just Muslim mumbo jumbo.
Besides, the *actions* of pious Jihadists, most of whom do not read classical Arabic, either—*exactly* on the the basis of the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira—give the lie to this assertion, in any case.
Jihadists seem to understand the Islamic texts just fine—much to the sorrow of Islam’s victims.
JIMJFOX says
Very clear summary here-
http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/138-jake-neuman/1546-muhammad-the-first-islamic-radical
John Duffin says
I like the way Pat Condell’s opinion’s are readily available on podcast platform.
I would like to see a video of Robert Spencer and Pat Condell together.
Like the ‘Four Horsemen’ of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett, have a video with the best critics of Islam. Make entertaining and have Bill Maher, Jim Jeffries, etc.
Can you imagine, a huge arena filled with people, laughing at Islam?
Brigitte Gabreial, Ayyan Hirshi Ali, Pamela Geller commenting with standing ovations!
Johnd says
Yes, bring it on. And then leaving the arena through all the riots would be a real ‘blast’. Lol.
John Duffin says
Three cheers to Mr. David Wood!
Jay Boo says
The ‘Hobby Lobby’ issue is instructive in how Muslim butt kissing liberals will distort and extrapolate against conservative Christian value.
Criticism of Obama’s (Abortion pill funding scheme)
becomes a label of ‘religious fanatic’ who wishes to ‘denying contraception’
becomes Christian wishes to ‘deny healthcare’
Johnd says
Too true. Nazi book burnings for instance. Truth is good to see still the great avenger. One that the forces of darkness recoil from. Like The bible the Koran has been until very recently but more so hidden from muslims, and like the vampire the light of truth is anathema to it.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
… a Muslim in the audience asked me what qualifications I had to discuss the texts and teachings of Islam. I responded, “I can read.”
This is the crux. You can read, thus you can avail yourself of the facts of a subject, the actual factual reality of a subject, text that explains itself with clarity and can’t pretend to deny what it is.
There can be no doubt to the question of what it is, what the answer is to the questions that urgently must be asked; there should be great doubt as to why people refuse to do this, why they avert their eyes from knowing a truth of great immediate import. Why the willful ignorance and the very dangerous self-delusion through the failure to fact check.
BC says
Whenever I think about Islam and Islamic supremicism I am reminded of the Nazis and other dictatorships. Why because everything the Islamists do has parallels with their mind control policies. The Nazis burnt all books that did not fit their ideology, they banned all newspapers that if not support their ideology and had their own racist papers which fed the polulation their propaganda. Of course they made sure that all other political parties were destroyed also,
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Add to this true analog the troubling reality that new opinion programming tools have been introduced since the Nazis: TV and the Internet. Sky’s the limit now, and your basic Moslem is eager to consume the new signals.
Atanu Dey says
If you know how to read, you might be an Islamophobe.
Frans Groenendijk says
Nice to find a collection of answers on different islamophobia claims.
I add my two cents or euros.
I wrote a comprehensive report of the great Hans Jansen (now member of the European Parliament for the party of Geert Wilders) debating two islamists: a Dutch convert and the head of the Dutch branche of HUT. (Here: http://www.islamofobie.nl/index.php/blog/meer/een_buiging/, in Dutch)
At one moment this HUT-guy Okay Pala protested that Jansen quoted out of context. He nagged on and then got permission to provide context. The most vicious of the islamists usually then come up with some verse from another context, ie another chapter or a hadith. This guy however, simply continued quoting and ‘only made it worse’.
Most of the time -but often you do not know this before- the apologist is ill-informed and simple. The christian or atheist apologist even more so than the muhammedan.
In answering them, my approach then is to focus on some simple facts, that can be remembered relatively easy.
1.
The meaning of AH (vs AD). It starts not with the birth, death or the start of his ‘preaching’ but with the year Mo changed from would-be prophet to definitely politician/military leader: the moment muhammedanism transformed from religion to political ideology.
(Extra: Khadaffi changed the meaning of AH!)
2.
The Quran has a chapter on ‘(division of )the spoils’, Al-Anfal. What does that say about a ‘holy book’, about a ‘religion’?
(Extra: Al-Anfal was also the title Saddam Houssein gave to the genocide on the Kurds, that included not the posession, but the use of weapons of mass destruction. Halabja. The Ahmediya translate ‘Al-Anfal’ as (Voluntary Gifts): they are hilarious )
3.
The Bukhari hadith have a chapter on jihad. Its title reads ‘Book of jihad and military expeditions’.
A military expedition in your mind?
4.
Once I saw an absolutely briljant friend lose (part of ) a debate because he did not immediately have an answer on the question: name three sura’s that you think are so bad.
In Dutch my answer is: the sura’s of the ‘maffia’ (En: mob), the ‘akker’ (En: tilth) and naskh (arab). The three in Dutch are easy to remember because of the many times the letter ‘a’ appears.
.. The mob-sura is the second part of 9:29. The jizya. The fine for not being muhammedan. ” until they pay the tax considering it a favour and acknowledge their subjection.”
.. The tilth-verse per se, is 2:223. But they can argue around it. The tilth-verse, literaly describing woman as fields, in the agricultural meaning of that word, can be found in sura 65 (about ‘divorce’). It is about harvesting your (meaning: you being the farmer, the exploiter of the field) children from your tilth/wife.
.. The naskh verse is 2:106.
This verse IN THE QURAN acknowledges the fact that the quran contradicts itself.
gravenimage says
Excellent post, Frans.
Charlie Griffith says
What is needed here is the realization and acceptance of that major fact of East/West life is that we’re simply not wired the same way. Innate culture differences matter. This prevents Muslims and Christians from having fruitful discussions of their Koran and our New Testament even with the best of intentions. We simply do not think with the same processes. So we end up talking past each others’ shoulders. There simply cannot be any ecumenical bridges to Muslims, ever.
We can indeed read each other’s Books, but we simply can’t derive the same nuanced meanings. Unconsciously or consciously, and all manner of graduated combinations in between , mean that we spin these words/meanings the way we’re accustomed to thinking. Discussions are a waste of time. U.N. and Geneva Conferences/Accords are busy paperwork only. All with big red seals. [Do they still do that?]
The current example is the closest man we have to a human “bridge” …..Benjamin Natanyahu who spent a lot of his younger years in Philadelphia which explains his fluent American diction and American mind-set combined with his native Israeli mind-set gives him the ability to lead the Israelis in the pragmatic way so vital in dealing with our common Muslim problem. Muslims only understand bloody like-force.
So now we have the impossible situation brought about by our dangerously arrogant ,closed minded Obama, the hapless almost silly Kerry, Hillary…of all people, the provincial Reid and the short-sighted Democrat led Senate completely ill equipped to deal with our trans-national, un-uniformed, fanatically religious, throat slitting Muslim enemy……from Morocco to Indonesia, Western China, and the Southern Philippines.
We’re in another Hundred Years’ War. Observant Muslims mean to slit our throats. We’re infested with them here inside our America.
Reading may indeed be Islamophobic. So be it, but we must read their blood thirsty stuff anyway in order to have a starting point of realizing their threat.
Johnd says
Personally, I think the West makes too many mistaken assumptions when dealing with Islam. It is unable to reason like the West. For starters there is that medaeval mind that is trapped there by the intransigence of the Koran. Then, as I see it, there is no sense of right or wrong, good or evil, morality, code of ethics, because it all revolves around the premise that the only truth is in Mohammads words and actions. All totally mad when you think about it, but they never went through the enlightenment, but perhaps Islam would never permit it. Remember what happened in the West to Galileo and Giordano Bruni. But Savonarola was burnt at the stake too, but all that was after or during the Renaissance. One thing is for sure, the West is blinkered with Islam and at present underestimates its fear and loathing of us. I wonder about what will happen when the tolerance and appeasement by the West stops, as it should. Have we already painted ourselves into the corner.
Charlie Griffith says
Well said.
We seem to be stuck inside our political correctness.
gravenimage says
Charlie Griffith
What is needed here is the realization and acceptance of that major fact of East/West life is that we’re simply not wired the same way…
………………………………….
I’m sorry, Charlie—I don’t believe this is the main issue.
Sure, Hindu and Buddhist thought—and Eastern thought in general—may differ in approach from Judaism, Christianity, and the Western tradition, but any “misunderstanding” is not accompanied by threats of oppression and bloodshed.
I don’t believe the problem is that Muslims and Christians “can’t have fruitful discussions”, but that supremacist Muslims intend to dominate, oppress, and murder Christians—indeed, *any* Infidels, be they Oriental or Occidental.
Charlie Griffith says
Re:
“…..but that supremacist Muslims intend to dominate, oppress, and murder Christians—indeed, *any* Infidels, be they Oriental or Occidental.”
They certainly do. Equal opportunity murder. But, I make no distinction between these supremacist-Muslims and Muslim-Muslims. It’s oxymoronic to think about “moderate” Muslims, or degrees of Muslim-hood when Muslims themselves remind us that their apostates are to be murdered.
Charlie Griffith says
This is pretty-much straight forward [….no punning on “straight”..]
A Google paste:
“Islam and Apostasy
From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
Apostasy (ارتداد, irtidād and ridda) i.e. the rejection of faith, is a serious offense in Islam. The punishment for apostasy as prescribed by Prophet Muhammad is death. A murtad (مرتد apostate) who hides his apostasy is referred to as a munāfiq (منافق hypocrite).”
Doubtless, Muslim scholars will be able to dance around here with serpentine word play; I especially liked that last part about being a hypocrite. If I were a backsliding or “moderate” Muslim, I’d be remaining pretty “straight” or observant/orthodox at least within surveillance distance of my imam.
gravenimage says
I agree, Charlie—thanks for the reply.
Hope you are enjoying this Independence Day weekend.
rabrooks says
Dad told me years ago, “as long as you know how to read, no one can lie to you for too long, beacuse you’ll know how to verify what they said.”. 80% of the pislamic world cannot read or write their own language, let alone arabic. They have no idea what’s in the koran. The few educated folk, that can read arabic, are considered “wise men” or imams.(really nothing special) These few can interpret and twist the koran to whatever meaning they want it to be. Even here in the US, people who claim to be muzzy, almost as little knowledge. In conversation, I’ve had them ask me “is that in the koran?” They should be the one who knows………….
rab says
I can’t see how any woman, with more than one brain cell, could read the koran and not run screaming!!!
citycat says
“Reading is Islamophobic”
I was islamophobic before i read the Koran, but reading the koran is good backup for islamophobia, not that i needed it, the muslims did openly say that they intend to take over and run England, and more. They particularly don’t like Jews, the race that is, not individual Jews, individuality is taken by the vampiric Halla entity.
It seems that some infidels know more aboutu muslims than muslims know about themselves.
Muslims are forced into in a cloud of mission madness, and need to step outta context and look back at the mess of it all and realise its origins.
Gang warfare, rape and pillage, simple.
Oh sick humanity.