As I have often noted lately, the Western intelligentsia is very, very anxious to make sure that you have a positive view of Islam. Thus we see a steady stream of articles in the mainstream media assuring you that the Qur’an is benign, the U.S. Constitution is Sharia-compliant, and the Islamic State is not Islamic. There are so many of these articles because there have to be: they are asking non-Muslims to disregard what they see every day — Muslims committing violence against non-Muslims and justifying it by referring to Islamic texts — and instead embrace a fictional construct: Islam the religion of peace and tolerance.
This takes a relentless barrage of propaganda, because with every new jihad atrocity, reality threatens to break through. It wasn’t accidental that Hitler’s Reich had an entire Ministry of Propaganda: lying to the public is a full-time job, as the cleverest of propaganda constructs is always threatened by the simple facts.
Here, Ahmadi Muslim Adam Walker explains that the Islamic State is violating the Qur’an’s own rules for how it should be interpreted. This would be great if he made his case and took it to jihadis to challenge and refute them directly. Of course, the immediate question his claim raises is why, if this is true, have over 20,000 foreign jihadis traveled from all over the world to join the Islamic State. Don’t those 20,000 Muslims have imams? How did they come to misunderstand the Qur’an and Islam so drastically as to miss its own rules for interpretation?
More below.
“Are peaceful Muslims in denial about their religion?,” by Adam Walker, the Independent, March 4, 2015:
Isis has sharpened many people’s sense of paranoia towards Islam. The majority of Muslims have a peaceful reading of the Koran, but as Isis commits more and more atrocities, the argument that the Koran equally invites a violent interpretation of its teachings has begun to gain ground.
A quick internet search that throws up certain passages which, read at face value, could prove these suspicions correct. For example, critics of Islam often cite verses such as: “fight such of the disbelievers as are near to you”; or to “kill the idolaters wherever you find them”. Passages such as these leave an impartial observer wondering — is Islam simply a matter of interpretation? Is the line between a peaceful Muslim and a terrorist simply a matter of which verses you follow and which you ignore?
No, is the emphatic answer of the Koran. Whether Islam is peaceful or extreme is not just a matter of interpretation, and for the simple reason that the Koran tells you exactly how to interpret it. Once you’ve read how it works, you’ll understand exactly why the verses above aren’t actually calling for “Death to the West”, but are in fact completely reasonable in their context. If that sounds far-fetched, then keep reading.
The Koran clearly states that it contains two types of verses: context-independent verses, and context-dependent verses. Context-independent verses are unambiguous and timeless principles which can be applied in every situation. Context-dependent verses are those that are specific to particular situations, and can’t be read in isolation. The Koran then goes on to condemn those who cherry-pick verses to suit their own selfish ends, and tells its reader to take all the verses together before coming to any conclusions.
Walker’s whole case here is based on the idea that there are “context-independent verses” and “context-dependent verses,” the former being “unambiguous and timeless principles which can be applied in every situation” and the latter “those that are specific to particular situations, and can’t be read in isolation.” Actually the Qur’an verse to which he links says that there are some verses that are “precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific” (3:7). This has also been translated as “clear revelations – they are the substance of the Book – and others (which are) allegorical.” That is, some are clear and some are unclear. The verse then condemns “those in whose hearts is deviation, they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation” — that is, make much of the verses that are unclear.
The passage doesn’t actually say anything about “context.” Walker is trying to situate his argument within the familiar claims that non-Muslims are taking Qur’an verses “out of context,” and to go on from there to claim that the idea of violent jihad in Islam is based on taking these verses out of context. His entire premise is false, however, since “context” is not actually what Quran 3:7 is talking about.
“Peace” is one of the literal meanings of Islam, and its ultimate aim. And as such, it explicitly teaches that there is no compulsion in matters of faith. Regarding war, it teaches that Muslims are only ever allowed permitted to fight defensively, stating that “permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged – and Allah indeed has the power to help them”.
The verses that are often quoted by critics are, like those at the beginning, cherry-picked context-dependent verses. They were only applicable at a time when war had been openly declared against Muslims because of their faith. They were being driven out of their homes and routinely assassinated. “Fight them until there is no persecution and religion is freely professed for Allah”, says the Koran. But if they stop oppressing you, it warns, then remember that “no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors“. Verses such as these mention fighting “disbelievers” because the division of the two sides was one of belief – non-Muslims who were the aggressors, and Muslims, who were being killed for their acceptance of Islam.
The question whenever reading one of these pieces is, will it convince a jihadi that he is on the wrong path and needs to lay down his arms? Once again here, the answer is no. The idea that the Qur’anic statement that “there is no force [or compulsion] in religion” (2:256) establishes that the Islamic State is un-Islamic is contradicted by the fact that there are traditional Islamic authorities who support the Islamic State’s view. According to an early Muslim, Mujahid ibn Jabr, this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 9:29, in which the Muslims are commanded to fight against the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, say that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29).
2:256 in this view doesn’t contradict the Islamic imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers because the aim of jihad is not the forced conversion of non-Muslims, but their subjugation within the Islamic social order.
The idea that the Qur’an allows Muslims only to fight defensively is also non-traditional: Islamic authorities through the ages have held just the opposite, that the violent verses were the ones that were always valid. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, the eighth-century Muslim Ibn Ishaq, explains that defensive war was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”
The medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.” In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.
Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)
As for how Muslims should co-exist with peaceful people of other beliefs, the Koran couldn’t be clearer: “Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes”. For everyone else, it is taught that you should be kind and act fairly towards them.
Notice how large a loophole Walker is leaving here. If Muslims can only fight “those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes,” then the jihads in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel are all completely justified, since many Muslims have claimed that in all three, the non-Muslims are fighting the Muslims because they are Muslims, and have driven them from their homes.
So just to be clear: Islam is not simply a matter of interpretation, because the Koran itself tells us how to interpret it. Any other interpretation is either willfully dishonest or just plain ignorant.
So all the tens of thousands of Muslims who have joined the Islamic State from all over the world are either willfully dishonest or just plain ignorant. How did willful dishonesty and/or just plain ignorance become so commonplace among Muslims worldwide?
cs says
Now and then they get it right, also the telegraph have been pinching the muzzies now and then.
More telling are the reactions, look below.
910
STRONGLY AGREE
79
AGREE
29
DON’T CARE
46
DISAGREE
726
STRONGLY DISAGREE
cs says
OOOps, the text is actually jihad whitewash. I thought it was not.
Spot On says
“As I have often noted lately, the Western intelligentsia is very, very anxious to make sure that you have a positive view of Islam. Thus we see a steady stream of articles in the mainstream media assuring you that the Qur’an is benign, the U.S. Constitution is Sharia-compliant, and the Islamic State is not Islamic.”
Other than politics or money, today I can see no other reason for MSM and intelligencia to support Muslims.
moses says
muslims are behaving like its as if there is koran A (for moderate muslims) and koran B for (radical extremeists) the fact is that islam is islam and it still behaves to be DEATH CULT from the pits of HELL.
Jay Boo says
Slightly off topic
Yet Leftists will get red in the face if one claims that Climate Change is not real.
Imagine if the Obama administration accidentally purged all the EPA’s manuals of any mention of the words — Global Warming, CO2, Climate Change and multi-cultural One-World government.
Wouldn’t they be pissed?
Michael Copeland says
To assist with interpretation here is a useful guide:
Kill means kill,
Cut off means cut off,
Stone means stone.
“what your right hands possess” means slaves.
Xero_G says
Some more translations to help understand Islam:
“Innocent” means, A fellow Muslim with similar beliefs
“Aggressor” means, A non-Muslim
“Defense” means, fighting a non-Muslim for ANY reason
“Suicide” means, killing oneself without a pro-Islamic reason. (Jihad deaths are “martyrdom”)
“Peace” means, subjugated by a totalitarian, fascist, supremacist death cult.
“Justice” means, supported by Sharia Law.
Sam Hawkins says
“Justice” means REVENGE
“Honor” means UTTERLY HUMILIATING THE INFIDEL
Nicu says
So true .
A friend of mine ( Turk ) was insulted by an Arab who said to him that he is no REAL Muslim cos he is not radical .
Buraq says
The last Mr Walker article published by The Independent was mercilessly attacked by readers. This time, The Independent decided to close the Comments section. Nevertheless, there were hundreds of ‘totally disagree’ clicked.
Clearly, Mr Walker is the ‘go to’ Muslim for The Independent as the editor is banking on readers being ignorant of Islam’s real agenda. And as long as Mr Walker lies through his teeth about Islam, then the cheques will keep rolling in from The Independent.
Amazing to think that in the 21st Century, you can make a tidy living claiming that the most vicious ideology ever unleashed on planet Earth is really just peaceful and misunderstood.
Clowns!
Jaladhi says
And they don’t look at the body count of Islamic murderous jihad!! Maybe they have forgotten how to count!!
Indeed clowns!!
William Lucas HarveyJr. says
This is the reason why it’s good that we have the Internet Media such as, Jihad Watch, Creeping Sharia, Bare Naked Islam, Pamela Geller, The Muslim Issue, World Press, Gatestone Institute, WND, Middle East Forum, et. al., to keep us informed of the TRUTH, and the horrors of the REAL Islam, in Words, Pictures, and Videos, without the Taqiyya and Kitman, Islamic Lies and Deception, that the phony “Religion of Peace”, Islam and Muslims keep bombaading us with.
Stories that the Mainstream News Media, Broadcast and Print Media, blinded by the LIES, rarely touch, and keep attempting to convince us that, in spite of what we see, Hear, and Read in the News every day, plus the hatred that IS in the Islamic Texts, “Don’t Believe your Lying Eyes”.
CogitoErgoSum says
Quran 3:7 says this: “It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.”
If I were to write you a letter and I were wanting to impress upon you the majesty of my wisdom and intellect, would the way to do that be to tell you that some of the things I am writing to you are not specific enough for you to interpret correctly? In fact, you may interpret what I am writing to mean exactly the opposite of what I really mean because the true meaning is known only to me? Why in hell would I write something to you that only I know its true meaning? Why would I write you something that I know you may even interpret to mean exactly the opposite of what I really mean? How stupid, idiotic and unwise of me to do such a thing!
This verse 3:7 is clear evidence that the person who composed it is far from being a god. No wise and all-knowing god, THE GOD, would ever say such a thing and be able to remain God as far as I am concerned. This verse “reveals” another one of Muhammad’s ways of fooling people into believing that any mistake he may have made in his “revelations” is because people are just not smart enough to understand what he says. It’s Muhammad’s way of covering his ass should someone draw attention to his obvious inability to keep all of his lies and fabrications logical and consistent.
Jaladhi says
I don’t give a damn whether the meaning of the verses have any context. All I see is Muslims are killing non-Muslims all over the world – ISIS in Syria, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and other groups in Philippines, and Thailand, Somalia, etc, etc, and these stupid people want to negate these killings by simply saying these groups are taking verse meaning out of context and therefore Muslims and Islam are not at fault as Islam is a peaceful religion and all those Muslims are soooo peaceful and we are having unnecessary attack of Islamophobia – what a bunch of crap!
Islam and Quran are murderous – plain and simple and all Muslims act accordingly without flinching or raising eyebrows and if they have to kill somebody according to their religion they will do it in a nano second and that is what they are doing all over the world. Ask Muslims to prove how they are peaceful otherwise no dice!!
Green Infidel says
Well, back in 1995, before Political Correctness took hold, the Independent held a rather different line of thought…
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-lesson-of-algeria-islam-is-indivisible-1566770.html
Keith says
Isn’t it surprising how accurate that article appears to be when compared with the crap that all MSM seem to be putting out today about how peaceful Islam is and how the problems are caused by the anti-Jihad websites and Islamophobes in general.
Glad you pointed that one out Thankyou.
Green Infidel says
Yes. That article was written around 2 years before the word “Islamophobia” was coined by the Runnymede Trust – so the Indie back then could not have been Islamophobic 🙂 what a difference a few years makes, eh?
Green Infidel says
But perhaps the Independent and Mr Walker would like to point to any historically bloodthirsty dictator or empire that didn’t feel they were “wronged” or victims of “aggression”? In the last century, Hitler and Stalin were only two of those who felt their nations were “betrayed” – the first, by the Jews. The second – by the generals, who were then purged… and if they had been victorious, and those who succeeded them were loyal to their memory, then that would have been the version of history to have been recorded?
Wellington says
I’m so sick of the parsing of words by Muslims and their dhimmi apologists. This kind of etymological micromanagement simply doesn’t occur (nor has to) with any other religion while fellow religionists are threatening death for some kind of blasphemy or actually slaughtering, or at least supporting the slaughtering, of others for not propely adhering to the religion in issue. So tired of this rot. So tired of having a bad case of “Parsoningonausea,” which goes hand-in-hand with “Islamonausea.”
Green Infidel says
Funny how the Adam Walkers of this world never mention verses like Quran 9:29? Maybe because of that verse, ordering non-Muslims, even if they are People of the Book, to be fought against until they surrender and pay Jizya, being in the “context” of 9:28 (saying non-Muslims are unclean), and 9:30 (saying they’re cursed)? And this is the first time I’ve ever heard that some of the Quran was only applicable for the period of Muhammed’s life… is there a list of such verses? and why don’t we hear Muslims mentioning it? Moreover, why isn’t Adam Walker preaching this in a Muslimm publication aimed at Isis? Maybe because it’s something meant purely for the consumption of the gullible Kuffar?
mortimer says
Ahmadi Muslim Adam Walker misrepresents his heretical views by failing to mention they are not the views of the foundational Sunnite Islam of 90% of Muslims.
Ahmadi spokesmen have to begin with that lie before they continue or they will get no audience. Ahmadi apologists are thus mostly professional liars.
Michael Johnson says
Yea they pretty much are in denial of their religion they cannont see Muhammad was a false prophet and murderer all they tell us is Islam is peaceful without ever reading the quran and the hadith
abad says
Define “peaceful Muslim” and then we’ll talk
CogitoErgoSum says
I am tempted to say “apostate” but that is not always the case. I might also say, “a Muslim living under the authority and control of infidels” but that is not always true either. Possibly “a Muslim living under a Caliphate with neither infidels nor dhimmis” but that does not seem to be true either. Perhaps “asleep, unconscious, comatose or dead” would be more nearly precise … maybe even “paralyzed” if it were to include all four limbs and the vocal cords. Hmmmm …. I don’t know how to define the term and not be called “Islamophobic.” Sorry ……. I think it’s undefinable because there is no such thing.
abad says
Bingo.
Ragai Mitry says
I’m a native Arabic speaker, and I can say categorically this guy is BS’ing.
The words in Arabic are “Muhkam” and “Mutashabeh”
There is no consensus among the Muslim scholars on what they mean. Basically, each one of the original interpreters made up some guess, without any substantiation. Many, but by no means most, commentators roughly equate ” a Muhkam verse” with one that abrogates , i.e “Nasikh”, and roughly equate “a Mutashabeh verse” with one that has been abrogated. There really is no good answer, but “context” is absolutely irrelevant in this topic. He is a pure LIAR.
For those who understand Arabic, there is a whole episode on Al Fady T.V.by Coptic Father Zakaria Botros. His YouTube Channel is now closed (of course), but it can be found on Vimeo.
It’s Episode 147 in his series “Maarefat Al Haq”, or “To know the Truth”
Father Zakaria lists many explanations from Islamic sources for the 2 words, but none of them have anything to do with context.
pumbar says
The religion of ringpiece.
Raja says
Finally an article that tells it as what it is. I watch in dismay as main stream media in the West and America butcher and suppress the truth but promote liars and spin doctors. This I believe is without doubt the result of lack of understanding of Islam and though my comment is quite lengthy, I humbly request that you read it to the end.
The distinction between Moderate Islam or Extremist Islam as what is popularly promoted does not exist. Islam is Islam. It means submission. In the eyes of the Muslims, AL Quran is the final Word of Allah which supersedes every other religion on earth. The Bible, Torah, Hindu Scripts, Buddhist Scripts, Tao Scripts, Zoroastrian Scripts an everything else are no longer valid hence to be destroyed. Compliance to Al Quran is a must, no tinkering or modification can be done to the words of Allah and the law by which all human should abide is by law given by Allah, the Sharia. It is the duty of the Muslims to ensure that only Sharia prevails. No form of man made laws are applicable or recognized. In another words Democracy and any other form of government that is practiced must be abolished and the whole khaffir ( non Muslim infidel) world must forsake and discard everything that they believed in including their way of life. Now which part you do not understand?
The so called “moderate spin doctors” claim why always refer to Arab when talking about Islam? Don’t you know that Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world? South East Asia has more Muslims than the entire middle east, can you not see how peaceful they are?..I have heard similar lines used by people like Mr Reza Aslan and a few others to justify that Islam is moderate but my question is what do you know about Islam in South east Asia? Nothing … absolutely nothing other than the numbers. Please bear with me and read on. Islam came to South East Asia (SEA) around 600years ago via Muslim merchants from India. For thousands of years prior to coming of Islam, bulk of South East of Asia ( which includes present day Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand..etc) were under the Hindu and Buddhist government with direct influence from India. The influence brought about by the Hindu and Buddhist empires along with ancient Chinese traders were so strong that the local culture and beliefs of SEA draw heavily from these influences. Just see Myanmar, Vietnam, Anchor Watt of Cambodia, Thailand and Borobudur of Indonesia.. etc. It is impossible to paint the entire picture as it will take an entire book, but the point I am trying to make is Islam was spread to certain parts of SEA via merchants through shrewd business acumen and political manoeuvring. When finally the local King of the empire converted (as business tactics), so did all the King’s subject as this was the practise in those days. All converted but because the manner how they converted, very few actually knew the real teachings of Islam and that added by the fact that literacy level among general public was next to 0% and those who actually can speak Arab….probably you can count with your finger. As a result of this Islam in this region was heavily and freely intermixed with prevailing local cultures, which itself draws its influence and foundations from Hinduism and Buddhism. In another word, the seemingly moderate Islam is in fact a “contaminated” or “dirty” form of Islam, in another word UN ISLAMIC. With the changing times and the coming of information age not to mention the rise in literacy, more “learned or knowledgably” people of the Al Quran appeared and hence started the purging of these contaminants. What resulted is the gradual but sure inclination toward “Arabization”, which is inevitable when the Quran is read literally as it is supposed to be. As I said before, any passive versions of Islam is actually “contaminated” Islam and not the true form hence after the cleaning up things change radically. Brunei is already a Sharia nation, Malaysia, once called the model of moderate Islam, is heading towards Sharia law and it will be the case for all the other Muslims nation. Economical considerations may slow the process but ultimately this is the destination for all Muslim countries. People like Imam Anjem Chaudary,( who publicly on TV claimed the whole infidel nation to be the enemy, who claims their goal is to implement sharia through out the word and that the flag of Islam (if it has not already) will fly on the White House), are honest and true in their views of Islam, and for those who advocate moderate Islam, I am sorry to say are day dreamers… there is no such thing. I don’t condemn the Muslims, it is their belief and they make no apologies for it, but I strongly condemn the apologist leaders and the governments of Europe and America for the unethical lying and suppressing of truth from their own people thus disarming them and on the other hand, heinously suppressing the freedom of speech hence arming the perpetrators . . Portray it as what is, not a dressed up or watered down politically correct version. Poison guised in a tasty salad or in drinking water still remains the same….a Poison. Wasn’t the concept of “BY the People for People” made on the foundation and fundamental of Freedom of Speech? If the Muslim nations want Sharia let them, similarly if the rest of the world wants democracy and freedom of speech in their own land, then it is the obligation of the leaders to protect it and not to compromise it. Why promote the ones who abuse the very freedom of speech to install something that is going to take it away? Why allow propagation of belief that is in direct conflict with very core of western belief to take precedence? I cannot emphasize enough the importance of understanding that there simply isn’t any other version of Islam other what is stated in the Quran and populist versions of moderate Islam is not even Islam. I am was born and raised as a Buddhist in a Muslim nation in SEA and probably die here too. It was beautiful and the diversity of cultures and long history that I grew up in was a beauty beyond description.. but sadly I have witnessed and still witnessing the gradual but inevitable disappearance of moderation, tolerance and the transformation of Islam into it’s only one true and final form… and it is no place for the non Muslims. Local cultures are being purged as it is un Islamic and soon will be another typical Arab country lookalike. Simple everyday things are no longer the same as everything must be seen through the eyes of Islam… no compromise. Ask yourself why those who vehemently support moderate Islam d so from Western civilization and not from Muslim country? Think and you will know what I am saying. While I am probably destined to die here, I hoped that I will be able to save my children by sending them to the land of hope and free where virtues of humanity prevails over tyranny…. Unfortunately my hopes are fast waning witnessing how humanity still sleeps, still dreaming covered in a blanket of wishful thinking.
shabeer_hassan says
DON’T WORRY RAJ WORLD IS PROTECTED/SECURED UNDER ISLAMIC SHARIA ,THE CREATOR OF UNIVERSE NOT BLINDLY HUMAN BEING,ISLAM THEIR FINAL DESTINATION ,THAT ONLY GIVE COMPLETE WAY OF SALVATION & LIBERATION & CONFIDENCE HERE & HERE AFTER……
Islam is a religion, a religion in the full sense of the term.
Islam is introduced by God as “Deen’’. Qur’an introduces Islam
as Deen from God. The best translation of the Arabic word `Deen’
is religion. The meaning of the term religion when applied to Is-lam is to be clearly understood as it is different from what secularists
and spokesmen of established religions call religion. The
western secular concept of religion that it should be confined to
the church and the rosary beads is foreign to Islam. The philosophy
of established religions that it is the duty of religions to carry
out orders of the church and the clergy does not agree with the
precepts of Islam. What Islam does is the transformation of every
field of human activity in consonance with the dictates of God.
Religion, in the sense of Islam, is all comprehensive and it covers
every aspects of human life the individual, family, society and
politics. Islam does not give license to do what ever one likes. In
other words it is improper to define Islam as a religion with its
casual meaning.
man who is the only living being
capable of making use of nature needs divine guidance. Utilization
of nature without divine guidance will only lead to the destruction
of mankind. Only someone superior to human stature
can tell him how to lead a human life. He knows that except the
Creator nothing among the creations is superior to himself. We
should then get guidance from the Creator. Islam teaches that all
the prophets were sent to achieve this goal ie to tell him how to
live like a man. All the prophets had come to the world for the
purpose of setting good examples for mankind by living a life on
the basis of divine instructions. `Risalath’, the technical term represents
this idea. The medium of contact between God and man
and between sky and earth is Risalath.
Islam does not teach that prophets were gods and that they
had any divinity in them. The concept of prophethood in Islam
goes against the Hindu theology of incarnation avatar according
to which God comes down to the earth and becomes a model of
what man should be. The argument that God comes down with all
the trivialities of man runs counter to the purity of Almighty God.
It is quite meaningless to suppose that God takes the form of man
and shows him how he should live. God is all powerful. He does
not need food or sexual pleasures. Even if He comes down He
can exist without food and human needs. It is not God who should
be a model to man. A representative from man should show the
practical manner in which man should live in accordance with
divine guidance.
wallace says
Shabby, whatever you are smoking is haram, with a bit of luck it might make you impotent.
raja says
Yes, by all means. It is not copy right or intellectual property. It was meant for all to understand the truth and face it as it is and not as what it is presented to be.
Demsci says
Adam Walker: //”but as Isis commits more and more atrocities, the argument that the Koran equally invites a violent interpretation of its teachings has begun to gain ground.”//
If this is true, I am glad that that argument is gaining ground! To what targetgroups is he referring here? First of all I hope that among the political correct defenders of Islam and the rather disinterested, but good-natured, fair-play-minded Western Democratic Citizens this argument is gaining ground.
I hope that among Muslims this argument is at least of some influence, as president Al Sisi and Mayor Aboutaleb already have been influenced by it.
Adam Walker //”Passages such as these leave an impartial observer wondering — is Islam simply a matter of interpretation? Is the line between a peaceful Muslim and a terrorist simply a matter of which verses you follow and which you ignore?”//
I hope many “impartial observers”, and perhaps even some Muslims, will answer this with a resounding YES!
I speculate that the “essentialist” position of Islam either being “all good or all bad” is clung to by Most Muslims, obviously claiming the “all good”-position. And on the other side there can be made the case that Islam is clear enough and unequivocally “all bad”, at least in relation to our Western Democratic Society and human rights.
With this stance we hope that either the Westerners alone or perhaps the Muslims “will come to their senses” and either fight Islam or abandone Islam.
But it is still very hard to convince a majority of Western Democratic Citizens to choose for this “Islam-all-bad (for democracy, human rights)”-position.
Perhaps the position that Adam Walker is clearly afraid of must be nurtured; namely that Islam “equally invites a violent conclusion” (next to the supposed peaceful conclusion). And that the difference between Muslim terrorists-theocrats-totalitarians and peaceful Muslims is simply interpretation, the preferred choice of some verses and the neglect of other verses.
Perhaps a majority of Western Democratic Citizens and parties and parliaments could accept that position. And this would finally put pressure upon Muslims to more meaningfully, responsibly separate in groups of totalitarians and democratic Muslims.
It sounds very farfetched, and yet, people like Adam Walker and many other Muslims are implying this all the time. and Mayor Aboutaleb takes this position EXPLICITLY; he says he is a practicing Muslim and a convinced Democratic Citizen (as he must be as Mayor).
Raj says
Even in “moderate” Malaysia Ahmadis and Shias are regarded more or less as non Muslims and discriminated as such, so it is a bit stupid of Ahmadias to preach the Muslim cause – an area with fertile possibities for dialogue. I think tolerance for all religions is important as you never know when the really intolerant ones will cease to defend any of your rights whereas the others may. In Malaysia the Catholic Church emerges as the opposition party with some credibility against Islam even though Buddhists are the 2nd biggest religion there. Maybe the pope should visit this country?
albert says
Whenever an “extremist” or “moderate” muslim opens his or her mouth he or she is practising TAQQUIYA.
As many Imams have said on numerous occasions ” everything a muslim does and says is jihad”
Mary says
So good to see people who think like me.
I couldn’t even finish this dammed article because everything that stupid Muslim said was a contradiction to Islam itself. Robert as usual is spot on. His defense against Islam is amazing. I want to give a shout out to Robert who has educated me about Islam.
Muslims do believe that if they need to lie to 7 billion people, that they have the authority to do so.
superumario says
Spencer, I’m afraid you’re sorely mistaken re: context dependent/independent. It’s absolutely a valid interpretation. For people’s reference the arabic words used are ‘mohkam’ & ‘mutashabihat’. Mohkam is translated in the article as context independent, and mutashabihat is translated as context-dependent. Spencer has quoted translated it as mohkam= specific, mutashabihat= unspecific. Just so we’re clear on definitions. References for dictionary are from Aqrab, Lane, and Mufradat.
Spencer is saying that the mohkam and mutashabihat have no mention of context. Whilst things being context dependent/independent is indeed a limited translation of the verse, it is doubtless a valid interpretation. Mohkam, among other meanings, is defined as “that in which there is no ambiguity or possibiliy of doubt, that which is clear in meaning and decisive in exposition.” Mutashabihat means, among other things, “that of which the true meaning is known only by referring it to what is termed mohkam.” Critics & extremists are taking the fighting verses and ripping them out of context to promote a false impression of Islam. This alone renders these fighting verses mutashabihat, whereas they of course are unable to do so for the verses which declare when fighting is permissible. This renders such verses mohkam, as you’re unable to understand the applicability of the fighting verses without reference to their governing verses. As the underlying issue with this topic is context, context dependent/independent is a valid interpretation here.
Furthermore, the verse continues by saying that those in whose hearts is perversity take the mutashabihat verses and seek discord therewith. That is exactly what ISIS and those promoting hate against Islam are doing, by presenting verses which when presented in isolation can be falsely used to create disorder. Yet again, this proves that these verses fall under mutashabihat. What the Qur’an then says is to take all the verses together, and then you will know its true interpretation. With this issue, that means take all the verses which govern the context of fighting, and then all the verses which instruct on the details of fighting, together- and then you’ll know the Qur’an’s verdict. And that’s exactly what Adam Walker did in his piece.
Piece.
*peace.
voegelinian says
Your comment is incomprehensible. Rewrite it and get back to us.
Green Infidel says
So what, pray tell, is the context of Quran 9:29 – “fight the nonbelievers, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tax with willing submission”? Where is there anything about doing so only if attacked, in any of the preceding or later verses? In fact, Quran 9:28 talks about non-Muslims being “unclean”, while 9:30 says they’re “cursed”… under what context can such verses be thought of as anything other than promoting aggressive violence – or even constitute “hate speech”?
voegelinian says
Also, what superumario neglects to mention is that the tafsirs (e.g., Ibn Kathir) when they do exegesis of the Sura of the Sword, show that what is clearly being proclaimed therein is a general prescription by Allah to Muslims to fight and kill in order to stop Shirk (which is directly related to Fitna, so Ibn Kathir argues cogently based on Koran and Hadiths).
sidney penny says
“So all the tens of thousands of Muslims who have joined the Islamic State from all over the world are either willfully dishonest or just plain ignorant. How did willful dishonesty and/or just plain ignorance become so commonplace among Muslims worldwide?”
This Ahmadi Muslim convert Adam Walker tries to make his own Islam.
Needless to say this for all the kaffirs/infidels.
Thankfully we have Robert Spencer punching him in l the right places, to make sure that we infidels do not fall for Walkers Islam.:
And the last sentence by Robert (How did willful dishonesty and/or just plain ignorance become so commonplace among Muslims worldwide?) has blood on the floor.
politically incorrect says
I’ve read that very few Muslims even read the Koran, so what they know comes mostly through the imans.
David McMahon says
That’s how I see it too, the average Muslim is not even fully aware of what’s in the Quran, they were just born into it. The more “radical” & violent ones like ISIS know the Quran well, the more Muslims learn about Islam the more violent they become. So- called “radicalisation” of Muslims is nothing more than these Muslims becoming pious & learned Muslims.
BC says
Nazism was actually a peaceful and benign philosophy whose sole purpose was to restore the strength of Germany after the disaster of the World War and the revolutions that shook Germany in the years thereafter. It was also providing a bulwark in Europe against the Bolshevik revolution. Hitler restored order and reinvigorated the economy. it was only those who misunderstood the Nazi message that caused all the ‘problems’ Would anyone seriously have pit forward such ideas after WW2?
vickie says
What hint is given in the Quran as to whether a verse is “Muhkam” or “Mutashabeh”?
Jesus was clear when he spoke in parables. When the Disciples did not understand what he was saying he corrected them.
Joao says
Ahmadyas are a minority sect persecuted by other muslims and with no authority to say what is and is not Islamic. Mr Walker knows this very well.
Did he let his readers know it too?
Heather says
I admit I didn’t read the entire article. But what I did read sounded like the usual gobbledy-gook. Just like the author of the Korann, Satan – the great deceiver, Father of lies. NoHam-mad the spreader of lies.
Heather says
An Almighty and powerful God would NEVER FORCE anyone to do anything. Why then do muslims believe it’s their job to FORCE the world to become muslim? Because Allah is not God.
Nikiforos Fokas says
In other words … “ISLAM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH …ISLAM” !
Lia Wissing says
Why isn’t this imam preaching to the jihadis directly, but to us?
dlbrand says
“A quick internet search that throws up certain passages which, read at face value, could prove these suspicions correct. ”
Yes, Siree-bob, that is what we rely on for our “knowledge” and understanding of Islam, what would we know absent google…
Just one more dumb ass or good liar speaking out in defense of Islam–Walker.
Tom W Harris says
No doubt some are in denial but since others are lying thanks to taqiyya, we’ll never how how many.
Psycho says
The majority of Muslims have a “peaceful” reading of Islam? More like a Selective reading ! Selective inattention to the barbaric parts. What a horrible “religion”! More like a political, supremacist ideology
Michael Warden says
Agressive, militaristic, misogynistic, supremacist pseudo religion.
rabrooks says
Remember SJS!(Sudden Jihad Syndrome) It can break out at any time anywhere. it causes a friendly, peaceful, mudslime to suddenly try to cut your throat or blow up something “kaffer” related.
I feel for them because they are stuck in a “religion”, that any questions about it, are punishable by death.
But truth be told, just the mere existence of an infidel, anywhere on the planet, is an insult to allah, and reason enough to jihad!
Besides, to them “peace” means the existence of only pislamic religions or people.
It’s in their book!