• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Robert Spencer, PJM: New English Quran Says It Often Means Opposite of What It Says

Dec 8, 2015 9:33 am By Robert Spencer

Over at PJ Media I describe a new volume of smoke and mirrors from Islamic apologists in the U.S. I could have made this article two or three times longer: the half-truths and word-twistings are scattered across every page.

For example, The Study Quran translates Qur’an 48:29 as: “Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Those who follow him are harsh against the disbelievers, merciful to one another.” That’s fine as a translation of the Arabic, but the commentary on the verse, after dismissively granting the obvious, offers a particularly preposterous attempt at whitewashing the passage and convincing the hapless reader that it means the opposite of what it says: “That they are harsh against the disbelievers implies that they never relent in their opposition to them and fight them when necessary (IK [Ibn Kathir]). In this context it also reflects an aspect of mercy, for just as the sunlight is most intense on black surfaces and less so on white surfaces, so are the believers harsher or ‘more intense’ with the disbelievers. In this sense, the believers must display the truth to them with a greater intensity of light and insight. Among each other, however, there is less need for such intensity, because the truth is manifest as gentle warmth.”

So you see, this Qur’an passage is really all about tough love. When the Qur’an says be “harsh” with non-Muslims, it really means be merciful to them. It doesn’t mean burn their churches and drive them from their homes and demand from them the jizya or conversion to Islam. No, no: all that would be…harsh. Instead, it just means be “intense” in telling them about Islam. But the believers don’t need this, as they are already Muslim.

The Study Quran, therefore, would have you believe that being harsh equals being merciful, and that one must therefore be merciful to unbelievers when the Qur’an says to be harsh to them. But the passage in question also says that Muslims must be “merciful to one another” — but The Study Quran, says that to be merciful equals “display[ing] the truth,” and since Muslims have the truth already, they need not be “intense” in displaying it to one another. So by the time The Study Quran is through, it has rendered the verse that says “Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Those who follow him are harsh against the disbelievers, merciful to one another” as “Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Those who follow him are intense in mercy toward the disbelievers, and less merciful to one another.”

And they actually expect us to swallow this risible and cynical exercise in deception.

quran2

CNN hopes that the new Study Quran, a book of English translations and commentaries on the Quran, will help “curb extremism.”

Is the book a genuine attempt to counter the jihadists’ interpretation of Islam? Or is it a cynical exercise designed to deceive Western non-Muslims, keeping them ignorant and complacent about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat?

Unfortunately but predictably, it’s much more the latter than the former. The Study Quran does not deny the ugly reality of violence and hatred in the Muslim holy book; instead it buries it under mountains of irrelevant commentary. Often, The Study Quran also hides the ugliness in plain sight by not addressing the obviously problematic content of particular verses.

This deflection begins right at the beginning, with The Study Quran’s treatment of the Fatihah. The Fatihah is the first chapter of the Quran, and is also the most commonly recited prayer in Islam. The translators opted for pseudo-King James Bible archaisms, rendering the last two verses of the Fatihah as follows:

Guide us to the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast blessed, not of those who incur wrath or those who are astray.

Sounds reasonable. But virtually all mainstream and authoritative commentators on the Quran identify “those who incur wrath” as the Jews.

Similarly, “those who are astray” are overwhelmingly accepted to be the Christians.

The Study Quran doesn’t deny this; in fact, it acknowledges it … but only after seven windy paragraphs about what it means to be blessed and other related matters. Anyone who is still reading after all that chloroform in print, to borrow Mark Twain’s phrase, will come to this:

Based upon a saying attributed to the Prophet, though not considered to be of the highest degree of authenticity, one interpretation given by a number of commentators is that those who incur wrath and those who are astray refer to Jews and Christians, respectively (IK, JJ, Q, T, Z).

(“IK, JJ, Q, T, Z” are shorthands for Muslim commentators on the Qur’an: Ibn Kathir; Jalal al-Din al-Mahalli and Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, “the two Jalals,” author of the Tafsir al-Jalalayn; al-Qurtubi; al-Tabari; and al-Zamakhshari.)

The Study Quran doesn’t offer a single alternative interpretation of this verse (the editors could have invoked al-Nisaburi, to whose commentary they do refer on occasion. He says that “those who have incurred Allah’s wrath are the people of negligence, and those who have gone astray are the people of immoderation”). By introducing the interpretation by claiming it was based on a doubtful statement of Muhammad, and by only mentioning it at all after lengthy commentary about matters of slight import, the authors reveal an agenda of hiding the causes and justifications of “extremism”; of keeping readers from learning the reality of the verse’s historical and present significance.

This pattern continues on throughout The Study Quran. For example, Qur’an 98:6 reads:

Truly the disbelievers among the People of the Book and the idolaters are in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein; it is they who are the worst of creation.

The “disbelievers among the People of the Book” refers to Jews and Christians who do not become Muslims. (For an example, you can find this near-unanimously accepted description in the Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas.)

The Study Quran, however, doesn’t want the reader to learn of that.

Instead, it offers a lengthy disquisition into mankind’s “unique place in the cosmos.” It never gets around to pointing out that the Qur’an just called Jews and Christians the “worst of creation,” or explaining the implications of that declaration throughout history, including the current purges and slaughter of Jews and Christians happening today.

The Study Quran is no better when dealing with the Quran’s direct commands to make war against and subjugate unbelievers.

In an article entitled “Conquest and Conversion, War and Peace in the Quran,” Holy Cross professor Caner K. Dagli asserts:

Although it is true that some authorities throughout Islam’s long history have interpreted the Islamic law of war as giving Muslims unqualified permission to conquer and expand into territory controlled by non-Muslims or in extreme cases to bring the entire world under their dominion, this has remained a minority view. The complex history of the first generation of Muslim conquest can be interpreted more plausibly as a stage in the history of Islam when the future existence of the religion was far from certain and when expansion meant survival.

There, you see? Perhaps CNN was right: this book is going to “curb extremism.” The CNN article quoted notorious imam Suhaib Webb imagining a young Muslim being attracted to ISIS or al-Qaeda, but then “opening The Study Quran, and reading scholars’ commentaries on those perplexing verses, and finding that most of them, perhaps all of them, disagree with the terrorists.”

Yes, imagine that: a young man reads The Study Quran, and finds that his dreams of Islamic world conquest are less plausible than its claim that violence is only justified when “the future existence of the religion was far from certain and when expansion meant survival.” Unfortunately, ISIS and other jihad groups today contend that the U.S. and the West do threaten the survival of Islam. So Dagli’s contention that Muslims were ordered to fight when “the future existence of the religion [is] far from certain” does not have the deterrent effect Webb hopes it will; logically, it could actually encourage the opposite….

Read the rest here.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, Qur'an, Taqiyya, War is deceit Tagged With: The Study Quran


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Joseph says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 9:43 am

    I’m REALLY starting to hate that picture.

    • Jaladhi says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 9:46 am

      Ha, ha.. but that’s the face of real Islam. You think NYTimes and WaPo will ever publish this picture?? Not a chance!!

    • Ex-muslim says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 9:52 am

      Islam is PURE EVIL!

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 10:18 am

      Just sit back and enjoy it, Joseph. A picture is worth a thousand words. I may enlarge and frame it and put it on the wall of my home office.

      • Aardvark says

        Dec 8, 2015 at 11:00 am

        The wall of the smallest room in the house would be more appropriate…

        • Brian Brunner says

          Dec 8, 2015 at 11:37 am

          Print it on toilet paper, green-tinted, with a certain “القرآن‎” all around the border of each square.

      • ekbano says

        Dec 9, 2015 at 12:29 pm

        I have stuck up a couple a4 photocopies of that pic around some suburbs in my time. Bridge underpasses, subways etc. Very satisfying.

    • mortimer says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 11:35 am

      Joseph wrote: “I…hate that picture”

      However, Joseph, that picture is the NORMATIVE face of Islam. The emotion of the ‘Rage Boys’ is called ‘GHAYRA’…look it up. It means that Muslims should have a constant attitude of superiority and rage against anyone who stands in their way!

      • Joseph says

        Dec 8, 2015 at 8:35 pm

        To all above
        This would be a good time to buy a puppy.
        Guess what I will train him on??
        Hope I have enough printer ink

      • Simone Fields says

        Dec 9, 2015 at 4:59 pm

        How come it doesn’t give them all high blood pressure? Their life spans are shorter in those parts when you think about it!

  2. Jaladhi says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 9:44 am

    Taqiyya in action and in print now!! Is there any Muslim who can be trusted?? Not on earth!! Hmm… let’s see what al Azhar will say about the latest Muslim taqiyya Quran!!

    • Jaladhi says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 9:48 am

      Yeah, “Taqiyya Quran” is a better and truer title for this book!!

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 10:18 am

      Jaladhi wrote:

      let’s see what al Azhar will say about the latest Muslim taqiyya Quran!!
      ……………………..

      Jaladhi, al Azhar *contributed* to the “Study Qur’an”:

      “Study Quran is the result of ten years of research complied by Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr in 2500 pages which is to be published by Harper. In this book, he has served as the Editor in Chief…it includes articles on Quranic concepts. Dr. Nasr has selected and edited these articles written by prestigious contemporary Sunni scholars such as the current Grand Imam of Al-Azhar in Egypt…”

      “Study Quran” will publish”

      http://onviewpoint.com/study-quran-will-publish/

      • Jaladhi says

        Dec 8, 2015 at 10:36 am

        Thanks, then its all the more reason to call it a “Taqiyya Quran”!! Sounds good!! LOL..

        • exdemexlib says

          Dec 8, 2015 at 2:16 pm

          Maybe this Study Quran should be translated into Arabic, Urdu, Albanian, and all other Languages where the Muslims *misinterpret* the Religion of Peace …

          and maybe John Kerry can have it flown and dropped from planes (with cushioned decorated parachutes so as not to be disrespectful …) to all areas of ISIS, so they can give up their violent ways …

          It would be interesting to see which Imams will endorse the Arabic edition, and urge the Muslim faithful to follow it …

        • gravenimage says

          Dec 8, 2015 at 11:02 pm

          Taqiyya Qur’an is right–but anyone reading the text itself can see that you can’t really whitewash utter evil.

    • Jay Boo says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 12:35 pm

      Jaladhi wrote:

      let’s see what al Azhar will say about the latest Muslim taqiyya Quran!!
      ——————-

      I would add let’s also see what a higher Islamic authority ‘(the ladies on the View)’ have to say about the whitewashing commentary.

      I can’t wait to see those women licking their lips in anticipation and bobbing their heads up and down like trained seals as they bark “OOOOHP, OOOOHP’ for a PC treat.

    • خَليفة says

      Dec 9, 2015 at 3:53 am

      The only good muslim is an ex-Muslim.

  3. Janakiraman Rajalakshmi says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 10:05 am

    Robert Spencer & Hugh Fitzgerald already know everything.

    Nevertheless for added clarity I request all JW readers to read the following so that we do not get conned by such ” smoke and mirrors from Islamic apologists “. Indian leftists & indian islamic apologists are no less. They keep hoodwinking us mentioning “Sufism” yada yada.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

    Only consolation being ISIS is upfront about what their religious book says. They are not lulling non muslims with faux assurances.

    • Brian says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 8:33 pm

      I second the motion http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

      tl/dr: if that was too long you know little about Islam that is actually true.

  4. gravenimage says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 10:11 am

    Is the book a genuine attempt to counter the jihadists’ interpretation of Islam? Or is it a cynical exercise designed to deceive Western non-Muslims, keeping them ignorant and complacent about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat?

    Unfortunately but predictably, it’s much more the latter than the former. The Study Quran does not deny the ugly reality of violence and hatred in the Muslim holy book; instead it buries it under mountains of irrelevant commentary. Often, The Study Quran also hides the ugliness in plain sight by not addressing the obviously problematic content of particular verses.
    …………………………………

    This is the “baffle ’em with bullsh*t” school of Taqiyya. They are hoping all too many of the credulous Kuffar will believe this shows the Qur’an as peaceful *because they desperately want to*.

    More:

    Although it is true that some authorities throughout Islam’s long history have interpreted the Islamic law of war as giving Muslims unqualified permission to conquer and expand into territory controlled by non-Muslims or in extreme cases to bring the entire world under their dominion, this has remained a minority view. The complex history of the first generation of Muslim conquest can be interpreted more plausibly as a stage in the history of Islam when the future existence of the religion was far from certain and when expansion meant survival.
    …………………………………

    Gee–why didn’t the early Christians, who were savagely persecuted, have to go on an orgy of conquest to survive?

    Also, the idea that Islamic conquest being held as the model for expansion was a “minority view” is simply grotesque–in fact, violent Muslim conquest represents the primary way of spreading Islam for *centuries*.

    Instead, it is trade and Da’wa that are very much the minority tactics, and often only practiced when Muslims were militarily weak.

  5. Westman says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 10:25 am

    “..sunlight is most intense on black surfaces and less so on white surfaces, so are the believers harsher or ‘more intense’ with the disbelievers. In this sense, the believers must display the truth to them with a greater intensity of light and insight. Among each other, however, there is less need for such intensity, because the truth is manifest as gentle warmth.”

    They can’t even get the analogy right! The light intensity, from the same source, on black and white is exactly the same! But then for an ideology that has the Sun going around the Earth and setting in a marsh, and has made no scientific advancements since 1100, this would be typical.

    This “Quran” is published by Harper in the US. Let me know when this “Study Quran” is on the best seller lists in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt – or even allowed in those countries.

    I suppose there could be a bright side to this, if, like the American Catholics, the American and EU Muslims start going their own way. Ow! Owww! Sorry, had to slap myself out of the delusion.

    • Janakiraman Rajalakshmi says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 11:46 am

      ///They can’t even get the analogy right! The light intensity, from the same source, on black and white is exactly the same! But then for an ideology that has the Sun going around the Earth and setting in a marsh, and has made no scientific advancements since 1100, this would be typical///

      That is a good one.

      • BC says

        Dec 9, 2015 at 5:51 am

        You are right on this mistake. Light is always the same, but it is absorbed differently on dark or light surfaces because light is composed of different wavelenths

  6. Angemon says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 11:21 am

    Is the book a genuine attempt to counter the jihadists’ interpretation of Islam? Or is it a cynical exercise designed to deceive Western non-Muslims, keeping them ignorant and complacent about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat?

    Unfortunately but predictably, it’s much more the latter than the former.

    So it’s pretty much what islamo-savvy counter-jihadis would expect it to be.

  7. mortimer says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 11:42 am

    “Muhammadun Resoulu-llaahi, wa-ladhiina ma’ahu ashidda’u ‘ala-l kuffaari, ruhama’u baynahum.” Koran 48:29

    The Arabic Word ‘ASHIDDAA’
    The Arabic (aSHiddaa3u) word covers a very broad semantic field and the specific meaning depends on the context in which the word is used. It’s usual meanings include powerful, sharp, ardent, extreme, strong, intensive, rigorous, severe, vehement, quick, violent, and vigourous. The above adjectives make the ayat even more severe and discrinimatory. If the verse in question is to be understood in the context of self-defense against physical attacks by unbelievers, then words like harsh, terrible, implacable are proabably correct. If the verse is to be understood in a broader, religious context, then a better choice would be made from words like strong, ardent, severe, stalwart, unmoved, unremitting, uncompromising, etc.

    A recurring theme in the Qur’an is opposition to disbelief and mutual support within the community of believers. There may be, however, a problem with the translation of this verse. The key word is rendered as “harsh” in your version. Other translators use
    other words. Yusuf ‘Ali uses “strong”. Rodwell uses “vehement”. Dawood uses “ruthless”. Palmer uses “vehement”. Pickthall uses “hard”. In French, Grosjean uses “dur” (harsh or hard) and Kasimirski uses “terrible”. Ben Mahmoud uses “implacable”.

    But in any context, the ayat implies the application of a double standard whenever one is wronged by a non-believer as opposed to a believer.

    From the “Reliance of the Traveller”.

    “The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians” Book O: Justice, Chapter O-9.0: Jihad, Reliance of the Traveller.

    “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim”, Book O: Justice, Chapter O-9.0: Jihad, Reliance of the Traveller.

  8. pennant8 says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 11:54 am

    Koran 98:6 is my favorite verse. It is sort of a catch-all verse, it covers everyone who is not a Muslim in one short statement.

  9. Rudy2 says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 12:03 pm

    “Truly the disbelievers among the People of the Book and the idolaters are in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein; it is they who are the worst of creation.”

    Robert Spencer skips over the “idolator” part in his examination of the text.. I guess he believes that idolaotrs like Catholics and Hindus will indeed burn in Hell. That, unfortunately is this site’s biggest problem: not seeing Jihad as an existential problem for all but focusing on Christians alone.

    • Robert Spencer says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 12:17 pm

      You could at least have done some basic searches of the archives before making this false and baseless charge. If you had, you would see that persecution of Christians (including Catholics) and Hindus has been and is extensively covered here. And as a Catholic myself, I find your claim that I believe Catholics will burn in hell to be quite literally insane. Are you simply obtuse in the extreme, or up to some deliberate disinformation?

      • Mathew Solo says

        Dec 9, 2015 at 4:27 am

        Mr. Spencer…I suppose you’re busier than a one eyed man in a peep show…are you familiar with a German academic, Dr. Matthias Kuentzel :

        http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/about-the-author

        Keep Your Chin Up Good Fellow…I certainly Don’t Expect a reply to this.

    • Wellington says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 1:21 pm

      Huh? As Robert Spencer has already pointed out to you, you are either obtuse or disingenuous. My guess is we probably won’t here from you again on this thread but do prove me wrong here. It would be delightful to be wrong about this considering the entertainment value that another response by you would most likely provide.

      • Wellington says

        Dec 8, 2015 at 1:23 pm

        That should be “hear” and not “here” the first time. Sometimes…….

    • Champ says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 1:59 pm

      This site’s “biggest problem” is when nincompoops like you arrive attempting to spread disinformation …but of course you failed. Not even a nice try.

    • Westman says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 2:43 pm

      Huh? Rudy! As an Agnostic, even I would never call Catholics idolators let alone intimating anything about some hell. The idolatry in the Quran refers to the polytheists of Muhammad’s era.

      Robert Spencer has been indefatigable in his efforts to educate us about the dangers of Jihad and Sharia. Read his Islam 101 section and you’ll realize how strange your assumption sounded to readers.

      This site supports everyone from devout Christians, Jews, Agnostics, and Athiests to lapsed Muslims in informing us about the intent and danger of Jihad. We’re not here to divide the efforts to defeat Jihad by sowing discord over some small differences; we’re here to keep sovereignty and freedom for ourselves, our children, and our country.

      It all reduces to being a slave of allah or living a self-determined life as a free person. Choose wisely. If Islam ever becomes dominant there will be no choices.

      • Janakiraman Rajalakshmi says

        Dec 8, 2015 at 3:05 pm

        ///Robert Spencer has been indefatigable in his efforts to educate us about the dangers of Jihad and Sharia. Read his Islam 101 section and you’ll realize how strange your assumption sounded to readers.

        This site supports everyone from devout Christians, Jews, Agnostics, and Athiests to lapsed Muslims in informing us about the intent and danger of Jihad. We’re not here to divide the efforts to defeat Jihad by sowing discord over some small differences; we’re here to keep sovereignty and freedom for ourselves, our children, and our country…///

        Could not agree with you more Westman.

        Thanks to all of you Champ , Wellington , Robert Spencer for giving fitting replies.

      • DFD says

        Dec 9, 2015 at 10:35 am

        Westman wrote: “….to defeat Jihad by sowing discord over some small differences; ”

        Dear Westman, I believe that that is precisely what this guy is trying to do, sow discurd, subtly like Masud did. He wouldn’t openly display his intent and allegiance, would he?

        BTW, thanks to Robert Spencer, collegues and fellow anit jihadists, good work, keep it up.

        Kind regards all
        DFD

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 11:14 pm

      Rudy2 wrote:

      “Truly the disbelievers among the People of the Book and the idolaters are in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein; it is they who are the worst of creation.”

      Robert Spencer skips over the “idolator” part in his examination of the text.. I guess he believes that idolaotrs like Catholics and Hindus will indeed burn in Hell. That, unfortunately is this site’s biggest problem: not seeing Jihad as an existential problem for all but focusing on Christians alone.
      …………………………….

      Where to start with this grotesque calumny? Firstly, this charge is odd in the extreme because Robert Spencer is *himself* a devout Catholic. Where did you get the idea that Catholics are not Christian?

      But this is false in the broader sense, as well. Jihad Watch has long compassionately chronicled the threat to *all* non-Muslims, including Hindus and Catholics–and Jews, Protestant Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Yezidis, Animists, Agnostics, Atheists, and those of any other faith, or none.

      Here’s one such story on the plight of Hindus at the hands of Muslims:

      “Pakistan: 13-year-old Hindu girl kidnapped from house, forced to convert to Islam; police won’t pursue case”

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/pakistan-13-year-old-hindu-girl-kidnapped-from-house-forced-to-convert-to-islam-police-wont-pursue-c

      And a story about the plight of Catholics:

      “Syria: Islamic jihadis hit Roman Catholic church with mortar shell during Mass”

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/syria-islamic-jihadis-hit-roman-catholic-church-with-mortar-shell-during-mass

      There are many, many more.

  10. خَليفة says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 12:23 pm

    One has to wonder. if Muslims believe Arabic to be the language of Allah, and that you can’t accurately translate the Quran into other languages, WHY do they do it? Muslims freely admit you can’t correctly understand Quran if not in Arabic, so a translation to any other language will be a corruption of Allah’s words. Again, why do they have translations?

    Islam is the epitome of hypocrisy, lies and corruption.

    • Westman says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 3:08 pm

      You could also ask why the Allah-God would have a language so unsuited for science and preciseness since he created the Universe. It seems incredible that 23% of the world population has a book written in Arabic and mostly speak a different language. If Arabic was really so perfect, the language of God, it would be in majority use. It’s just another slowly dying language, propped up by the Quran.

    • mahghan says

      Dec 9, 2015 at 2:00 am

      More like “Arab cultural imperialism”.

  11. Janakiraman Rajalakshmi says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    ” The average educated person today, anywhere in the world, is likely to be both confused and frightened by Islam. On the one hand, it is supposed to be a religion of peace that preaches equality and justice for all, while on the other, it is hardly possible to escape the sight of the most unspeakable acts of violence being committed by individuals and groups in its name.

    To make the situation more confusing, there is no shortage of ‘experts’—Eastern and Western—who tell us that Islamic terror is an aberration that has nothing to do with the ‘true’ Islam.

    It is fair to say that a majority of the people in the world has swallowed this explanation while remaining ambivalent about Muslims and their behavior.

    If there is one book on Islam that a concerned person should read, it is Sita Ram Goel’s ‘The Calcutta Quran Petition’.

    Sita Ram Goel, one of the world’s most incisive students of Islam, blows away this confusion by giving an unvarnished, scholarly yet highly readable account of the theory and practice of Islam.

    By a detailed analysis of its scripture and history, he explodes the charade that Islamic terror can somehow be separated from its teachings. In the process, the prolific and erudite Mr. Goel has probably written his masterpiece.

    To return to the confused state of knowledge about Islam, there has long been a need – more urgent today than ever before – for a work that can explain the theory and practice of Islam for the average reader. This void is now effectively filled by the book under review – ‘The Calcutta Quran Petition’ by Sita Ram Goel.

    The book could with equal justice be titled ‘Islam for Nonbelievers: Its scripture, history and practice’. The reason for the unusual title is historical.

    On 29 March 1985, one Chandmal Chopra filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court seeking a ban on the Quran under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code because it “incites violence, disturbs public tranquility, promotes, on the ground of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities, and insults other religions or religious beliefs of other religious communities of India.”

    The Calcutta High Court disallowed the petition, but the issues raised by it remain relevant, especially now when the need to understand the causes of terror in the name of Islam is greater than ever.

    More significantly for the present discussion, it led Sita Ram Goel to write the volume under review. The sordid details of the case in question would probably be of little interest to the average reader today though they shed much light on the ignoble conduct of the Governments of India and West Bengal in the face of real or perceived Muslim threats.

    Out of a total of 345 pages, the author devotes no less than 230 pages to a general discussion of Islam that has little directly to do with the Calcutta Petition. These pages, covering Chapters 2 through 10, constitute for all practical purposes an independent manual on Islam, beginning with the message of the Quran. This is what is reviewed here.

    Quran and the Hadis

    The first point about the Quran is that it does not stand alone. The Suras (verses) of the Quran were created in specific situations arising out of specific military, political and sometimes personal needs. They invariably reflect the convenience of the Prophet who found it expedient to invoke Allah as authority to have his own way with his people.

    Seeing this, his favorite wife A’sha once observed, “I find that Allah is prompt to proclaim commandments in accordance with your desire.” This means that the context in which a Sura was created is all-important. Taking Quranic passages out of context can lead to outlandish interpretations like Sir Abdullah Suhrawardy’s sayings of Muhammad, which Mohandas Gandhi hailed in his Foreword as among the “treasures of mankind.”

    The all-important context for interpreting the suras of the Quran is provided by the Hadis. They may be described as the record of the activities of the Prophet. They are so detailed that it is possible to obtain a more or less complete picture of the private and public life of the Prophet.

    It may fairly be said that the Hadis rather than Quran form the basis for Islam, for without them the Quran becomes virtually incomprehensible. As Goel makes clear (Chapter 3) there is practically no difference between Allah and the Prophet; Allah does the Prophet’s bidding.

    This made the great Maharshi Dayananda Saraswati observe, “Allah is the Prophet’s domestic servant.” As Goel explains, this makes the Quran (the ‘Word of Allah’) and the Hadis (‘Acts of Muhammad’) interchangeable.

    In other words, the Hadis describe the Quran in action, meaning the acts of the Prophet. These in turn became the model of behaviour to be emulated for every true Muslim from the highest to the lowest. As Goel observes:

    “It is this fixed and frozen image of the Prophet which is meant when a Muslim proclaims his Din (fundamental faith). In fact the Prophet produced a ‘revelation’ (33.21) presenting himself as the perfect model for those who look forward (with hope) for the Day of Judgement. For a pious Muslim, human life is best lived when it conforms to Muhammad’s conduct even in minor matters such as defecating… , cutting one’s beard to a specific size and so on. Islam leaves no room at all for individual initiative or judgment…

    In case of doubt, a pious Muslim must go to a mufti (jury-consultant) and obtain a fatwa [ruling] about how the Prophet would have conducted himself in a situation which, according to all sources, the Prophet is not known to have faced.”

    Needless to say, this is not a climate conducive to progress.

    This also has a sinister side with far-reaching implications. Since the later part of the Prophet’s career is full of war and bloodshed in the name of Allah, religious war or Jihad is seen as the highest goal of Islam.

    What the world is faced today – from Kashmir to Kosovo (and now West Asia and Syria, pushing into Europe) – is Jihad or religious war to bring the whole world under the sway of Islam.

    This reality cannot be wished away as is done by liberal academics in East and West, by giving an abstract interpretation of Jihad. As Walter Laquer, an American expert on terrorism observed,

    “Many interpreters of jihad in the Muslim world, and an equal number in the West, have explained that jihad has a double meaning: it stands for jihad bi al saif (holy war by means of the sword) and also for jihad al nafs (literally, struggle for one’s soul against one’s own base instinct).

    Both interpretations are true, but Islamic militants have rejected the spiritual explanation as dangerous heresy. …The Taliban in Afghanistan and many militants (especially ISIS today) are not impressed by the speeches and writings of more moderate exegetists about the ‘poverty of fanaticism’ and the ‘spiritual mission of Islam,’ and this fact is what matters…”

    The fact of the matter is that influential Muslim leaders see the violent version of Jihad as the only valid one. Jihad to them is “the most glorious word in the vocabulary of Islam,” and by this they don’t mean striving for inner perfection.

    Goel explains this vital fact with clarity and thoroughness with profuse illustrations from the history and scripture of Islam. As he points out, the Quran studied alongside the Hadis is a nothing but a manual on Jihad – or religious war. Just as the Prophet became the model for Muslim behavior, his blood soaked career became the model for a succession of Muslim leaders down to the present.

    While the Hadis are indispensable for understanding Islam, they present a bewildering mass of detail to the uninitiated. In Chapter 4 (‘The Prophet Sets the Pattern’), the author takes the reader through the Prophet’s career by presenting a systematic picture of the historical background and the key events.

    He describes also two interesting episodes that are not widely known: the Prophet’s invitation, in a time of distress, to the Christian Abyssinians to invade Mecca, claiming that his teachings were no different from theirs; and the famous ‘Satanic verses’ inspired by the need to regain the support of the Meccans.

    In Chapter 5 (‘The Orthodox Exposition of Jihad’), the author produces evidence from primary sources to demolish the claim of modern apologists that Jihad has – or ever had – a spiritual meaning. This ‘spiritual’ interpretation is exhumed only when they feel insecure – as in India today, or when faced with powerful opponents like the United States – to be buried again when conditions turn favorable.

    Chapter 6 (‘Jihad in India’s History’) may be read as a practical demonstration of Islam in action. It is to be hoped that every policymaker in India as well as the West will read this capsule account of the ‘bloodiest story in history’ – as Will Durant called it – and learn its lessons.

    Indians in particular must face this historical truth and not seek escape in fantasies written by soothsayers calling themselves historians. This chapter should be made required reading for students in India, if mistakes of the past are not to be repeated.

    In some ways, the most interesting as well original section is Chapter 10 (‘A Close Look at Allah of the Quran’). In this, Goel compares Allah of Prophet Muhammad with the Mongol sky god Tengiri who inspired Chengiz Khan on his world conquest.

    Sita Ram Goel shows how from the Jaxartes (Syr Darya) in Central Asia to the Nile, the soldiers of Allah were no match for Tengiri’s Mongols. Baghdad along with its Caliph were reduced to dust literally under the hooves of the horses of Chengiz’s grandson Huelgu Khan and his ‘Devil’s Horsemen’. This fact though is rarely found in history books in use in India. (Tengiri had a redeeming feature though – he was tolerant of all religions.)

    In summary, Sita Ram Goel has produced a manual on Islam that is a ‘must read’ for everyone concerned about the threat posed by Islamic terror in our time”.

    – NS.Rajaram.

    • Westman says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 3:29 pm

      Thanks for the reference, Janakiraman. I’ll be looking into Sita Ram Goel.

      I know that India has a long history with agressive Islam and Pakistan was created by colonial powers to address the problem. I remember seeing how deep that division is when my cabbie in Chicago was yelling insults at another cabbie, one Paki and the other Indian. Then there is the nuke-rattling over Kashmir.

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 5:51 pm

      In summary, Sita Ram Goel has produced a manual on Islam that is a ‘must read’ for everyone concerned about the threat posed by Islamic terror in our time”.

      I’ve read a couple of works by Goel. I don’t know the scene over there, but Goel left me with the impression that he is India’s leading intellectual, and truthful history is of utmost importance now.

    • BC says

      Dec 9, 2015 at 5:58 am

      “it is supposed to be a religion of peace that preaches equality and justice for all”,
      All Muslims that is, there is not equality for non Muslims and no justice either as the words of Muslims is always listened to over non Mulsims

  12. Mathew Solo says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    Those involved in developing this Muslim system who labeled it a religion of God…they had a chance to observe The Popular Professing Christian Movement of their time which was underway for hundreds of years by the time the Muslim Movement began…This Professing Christian Religion Was Run By Rome…the Romans usurped It from True Christianity which was completely driven into hiding by the third century…Rome was an influence upon these fledgling Muslims…the Muslim movement did observe Religion could be used as a Cohesive Control of the Masses…observing the Romans Doing just That successfully…the Muslim system…was conceived to suit the purpose of those who helped put it together over time…and has shown it is effective for what it was purposed….having this Islam taught from birth can be a very powerful form of brainwashing…to be forced to practice it helps insure it will not wear off…making it obligatory in public for a show of reciting mindless gibberish is a strong social infliction…to not allow a private search for God is monstrous at best.

    A Social System Based On This can produce citizens that outwardly seem complacent but inwardly have damaged minds…with nothing to base anything good on…what good can come of it.

  13. Sam says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    “New English Quran Says It Often Means Opposite of What It Says” Now finally I understand what it means. You see Koran should be interpreted ONLY by Muslims or liberals to show how wonderful of a religion of peace it is.

    You really can not make this up. What is this incredible protection of disgusting cult called Islam. Mind boggling.

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 5:54 pm

      You see Koran should be interpreted ONLY by Muslims or liberals to show how wonderful of a religion of peace it is.

      It is no coincidence that the symbol of Islam has a large weapon in it. A sword, a symbol of threat and war. Christianity has a cross, a symbol of victimhood and sacrifice.

  14. Kepha says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    To the Arabists here:

    How good are the Yusef ‘Ali and N. Dawood translations of the Qur’an?

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 9, 2015 at 9:57 pm

      They are both highly regarded translations, Kepha–although Ali does sometimes choose to overly interpret passages as “spiritual”, when they are often quite literal.

      Some Muslims are biased against NJ Dawood’s translation, almost entirely because he was Jewish–but it is a very scholarly translation, (If I were to have a “favorite” of this baleful tome, it would be NJ Dawood’s translation). It is perhaps the translation most widely read by English speakers, mostly through the Penguin edition.

      http://www.soundvision.com/article/a-survey-of-english-translations-of-the-quran

      The interesting thing is that when you read major translations side to side–Ali, Dawood, Arberry, Pickthal–is how *very similar* they are in meaning. Some are more flowery than others, some more straightforward, but despite endless Muslim whining about how the Qur’an has supposedly been mistranslated into English, most of these are virtually interchangeable.

      Here is one such site–probably the best known:

      http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp

  15. worldcitizen1919 says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 7:55 pm

    With the Quran we must be fair to ensure verses are interpreted in a historical context and not insert current definitions of words current amongst people into our understanding of a Book revealed over a thousand years ago.

    For instance. An unbeliever was not simply a blue collar passive person in those times.

    An unbeliever as Muhammad referred to was inferring oppressors, serial murderers, rapists, slave traders and evil doers where there were no prisons, jails, courts, police force or criminal justice system to deal with these people. Murderers had to be treated harshly or they would murder again same with rapists and slave traders etc.

    In this context ‘being harsh to an unbeliever’ is perfectly reasonable if it is referring to traitors oppressors, killers and criminals which in those days it was as the area was dominated by barbarous ruthless tribes.

    Surely no one is just interpreting unbeliever in those times referred to the passive blue collar aetheists of today??

    Muhammad didn’t appear in New Yoirk city on the David Ketterman Show but amongst the brutal, barbararuc and savage tribes of the Arabian Peninsula so it would be most unjust and unfair to try and apply what we today understand as an unbeliever to those times and those conditions. That is an injustice to Muhammad and the Quran as it misrepresents and refuses to acknowledge the historical context with which Muhammad and rhe Quran appeared.

    In the Quran it is said not to attack if people don’t attack first and then if they desist from fighting then not to fight them.

    Interpreting the Quran requires an historical knowledge of that time not just taking a word out of the Book and judging it by the current American modern meaning of that word. We must go back 1300 years and see what that word would have meant in a barbaric, savage age to be accurate in our interpretation.

    To recap. Unbeliever today means basically an aetheist who is likely peaceful and passive. In those days it meant a barbarian who would come after you if you believed in One God and promoted that belief. Muhammad was attacked because He promoted belief in One God compared with the 360 idols they used for economic advantage and so the ‘unbelievers’ continually attacked and killed Muslims. They weren’t passive and Muhammad was right to treat them ‘harshly’ as they were mercenaries and murderers.

    The word unbeliever in America today does not mean what it meant over 1300 years ago in Arabia. This should be taken into account instead of rushing to judgement.

    Even in our dictionaries one of the terms of the word ‘infidel’ is – barbarous. If they were harsh to those who were barbaric I can’t see anything wrong with that. To limit ourselves to definitions that suit our political argument is pure bias without taking into account the possibility that the intent could have been something entirely different

    An open unbiased mind is essential if we are to find truth.

    • saturnine says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 10:31 pm

      Your claim makes a mockery of Allah. To assert that when Allah says “unbeliever” he actually meant something quite different is to substitute your thoughts for His. Allah means what He says, and says what He means.

      Using accurate and unambiguous terminology is something even a vile being such as a first year law student can manage. How dare you traduce Allah by claiming He couldn’t.

    • Westman says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 11:32 pm

      WorldCitizen,

      Islam doesn’t live by Western liberal ideas. The foremost authority is Al-Azhar University in Egypt and its scholars, like ISIS, take the meaning of unbeliever as literal unbeliever. They won’t even deny that Daesh is Islamic or buy your kumbaya recap. They also support killing apostates where it can be done, and parents have the right to kill their own children.

      Go walk through some EU neighborhoods in Paris, Sweden, or The Netherlands with a kippah and report your experience.

      Your ideas are ridiculously floating in encapulated delusion.

    • Brian says

      Dec 8, 2015 at 11:59 pm

      “oppressors, serial murderers, rapists, slave traders and evil doers”
      This is the best description yet of Daesh.

    • DFD says

      Dec 9, 2015 at 11:44 am

      worldcitizen1919 says… Total hogwash, and I am not sorry for being so blunt.

      Mohammed was not ejected from Mecca, by his own tribe, the Quryaish, because he preached ‘one God’. Utter nonsense.

      Pagan societies were and are extremely tolerant of other religions. Otherwise they couldn’t exist. Rome had over 2,000 different religions at the time of Jesus.

      Mohammed attacked their gods and their faiths. Not only that, he wanted to supplant Christ himself, and Ezra too. That’s why the Christians and Jews rejected him. If he would have pulled that of, he would have supplanted the pope and even the emperor, he would have become effectively the spiritual as well as the worldly ruler of the entire Imperium! Didn’t work.

      That’s why Mohammed was forced into Hijra with his Muhajiroun (migrants/refugees in the way of Allah), to Medina. He was welcomed there because he and his henchmen promised to attack relentlessly Meccan caravans, plundering and looting, and enslaving – he kept his promise. Medina and Mecca were commercial rivals, but Medina was less significant, he is incidently buried in Medina, not Mecca. His wealth grew rapidly, his operating pattern was a 20% cut of the loot, and 100% if there was no fighting, when the victims surrendered. The explanation was that Allah made it easy for the Muslims, his followers, so they didn’t deserve a share, and he had to take it all on behalf of Allah. He broke one treaty with the Meccans after another, apparently the Roman saying “Pacta sunt servanda” meant nothing to him. When he had enough money and influence, he killed and enslaved the Christians and the Jews, and their pagan confederates in Medina; except for those who could escape. Battle of the Trench. However, even that he only managed by planting a traitor among them, who spread falsehoods. A character by name of Masud.

      “… if they desist…” means they have become Muslims, nothing else, otherwise they’d practise Fitna, corruption and mischief, thus oppressing Muslims (sic!) and consequently must be attacked, until enslaved, humiliated or ‘converted’. After his dead bout half the tribes of Arabia rebelled, wanting to return to mutual tolerance and thus open trade, to as far as Japan (Chipmangu) and China.
      Murder, slavery, etc. meant the same then as it means today, as practised by Jihadis, Mujahadin, etc.
      You say that “….An open unbiased mind is essential if we are to find truth.” You want others to find the truth about Islam? Just encourage them to read that ‘book’, the Hadith and study the Sunnah, instead of your apologies, misinformation and misrepresentations. That’ll do.

      Strangely, you don’t recommend any of this, but downplay, apologize et cetera est. In short, an obnoxious piece of Taqyia.

      At least, you’ve shown what or who you really are…..

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 9, 2015 at 10:41 pm

      More crap from Taqiyya artist “worldcitizen1919”:

      With the Quran we must be fair to ensure verses are interpreted in a historical context and not insert current definitions of words current amongst people into our understanding of a Book revealed over a thousand years ago.

      For instance. An unbeliever was not simply a blue collar passive person in those times.
      ……………………….

      The meanings of some words *do* change over the centuries–but “unbeliever” is *not* one of them. This refers then–as now–to anyone who does not adhere to the foul creed of Islam.

      More:

      An unbeliever as Muhammad referred to was inferring oppressors, serial murderers, rapists, slave traders and evil doers where there were no prisons, jails, courts, police force or criminal justice system to deal with these people. Murderers had to be treated harshly or they would murder again same with rapists and slave traders etc.
      ……………………….

      What utter rot. Islam *sacralizes* rape, slaving, and mass murder–as anyone who reads the Qur’an and other texts of Islam–or notes the model of the “Prophet”–knows.

      But some terms *are* used differently by Muslims–“oppression” means anything that retards the savage spread of Islam, and an “evil doer” is anyone who dares to defend against violent Jihad.

      More:

      In this context ‘being harsh to an unbeliever’ is perfectly reasonable if it is referring to traitors oppressors, killers and criminals which in those days it was as the area was dominated by barbarous ruthless tribes.

      Surely no one is just interpreting unbeliever in those times referred to the passive blue collar aetheists of today??
      ……………………….

      What a grotesque whitewash.

      More:

      Muhammad didn’t appear in New Yoirk city on the David Ketterman Show but amongst the brutal, barbararuc and savage tribes of the Arabian Peninsula so it would be most unjust and unfair to try and apply what we today understand as an unbeliever to those times and those conditions. That is an injustice to Muhammad and the Quran as it misrepresents and refuses to acknowledge the historical context with which Muhammad and rhe Quran appeared.
      ……………………….

      Several problems with this–while Dark Ages Arabia *was* violent and barbaric, Muhammad made it *more so*–he did nothing to mitigate it.

      The second problem is that pious Muslims *do not* interpret the “Prophet’s” actions in light of the milieu of barbarian tribes–instead, they consider him the “perfect man”, and hold his actions as a model *for all time*. Hence, his mass murdering Jews, enslaving Infidels, or raping a nine-year-old child are not just things that can be condoned during the seventh century, but things that are deemed ideal *today*. That is why such horrors are being emulated today by pious Muslims such as ISIS and Boko Haram.

      A third issue is this–while Jesus also lived during a violent and barbaric period of history, he somehow didn’t feel the need to wage holy war, enslave others, take booty, and rape captives. Muslims are never able to explain this.

      More:

      In the Quran it is said not to attack if people don’t attack first and then if they desist from fighting then not to fight them.
      ……………………….

      Yeah, right–never mind that Muslims–*including Muhammad*–have initiated war many times. This is what spreading Islam by conquest means.

      As for “desisting from fighting”, this means surrendering to brutal Muslim rule–not just refraining from attacking first.

      More:

      Interpreting the Quran requires an historical knowledge of that time not just taking a word out of the Book and judging it by the current American modern meaning of that word. We must go back 1300 years and see what that word would have meant in a barbaric, savage age to be accurate in our interpretation.
      ……………………….

      Muslims interpret the Qur’an the same way today as they have always done–anyone who studies history understands this.

      More:

      To recap. Unbeliever today means basically an aetheist who is likely peaceful and passive. In those days it meant a barbarian who would come after you if you believed in One God and promoted that belief. Muhammad was attacked because He promoted belief in One God compared with the 360 idols they used for economic advantage and so the ‘unbelievers’ continually attacked and killed Muslims. They weren’t passive and Muhammad was right to treat them ‘harshly’ as they were mercenaries and murderers.
      ……………………….

      Great to know that you are fine with the savage Muslim conquest of Arabia and the rest of the Levant and Mahgreb–which involved waging violent Jihad, enslaving their victims, and committing genocide against entire tribes such as the Jews of the Banu Qurayza.

      They are using just the same tactics today–seeing what pious Muslims have done to Christians and Yezidis in the Islamic State is exactly on the model of Muhammad and the “Rightly-Guided Caliphs”.

  16. Custos Custodum says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    Islam’s propagandists and their Leftist collaborators go to great lengths in their Big Lie strategy of constructing fake parallelisms between Islam and Christianity.

    In particular, we are frequently reminded that most Muslims can be nice people (quite true!), that “Christians” (as defined by Leftists/Muslims) may turn out to be mass killers, etc. (Statistically insignificant and rarely self-attributed to Christianity, hence mostly untrue) Jill and Joe Sixpack are easily beguiled when serious-sounding “experts” and smooth spokesmen present these falsehoods through the “mainstream” media.

    The faux parallelism between Islam and Christianity breaks down when one considers real apples-to-apples, oranges-to-oranges comparisons, such as these:

    Can a DEVOUT Catholic be a good person by the standards of most NON-Catholics? YES.

    Can a DEVOUT Buddhist be a good person by the standards of most NON-Buddhists? YES.

    Can a DEVOUT Quaker be a good person by the standards of most NON-Quakers? YES.

    Can an outright Atheist be a good person by the standards of most NON-Atheists? YES.

    =============== (Parallelism ends here)

    Can a DEVOUT Muslim(a) be a good person by the standards of most NON-Muslims? NO.

    OFFER OF PROOF: See countless exhortations in the Quran and Hadiths exhorting the “faithful” to murder, rape, enslave others (and incidentally NOT worry about Muslim “collateral damage”).

    Can a NON-OBSERVANT (i.e. “BAD”) Muslim(a) be a good person by the standards of most NON-Muslims? YES, but only if she or he systematically disregards and disrespects the injunctions and prohibitions of Islam, i.e. she or he cannot be a Muslim(a) at all.

    There are many other faux parallelisms that are allowed to go uncorrected in this secular and superficial age, e.g. equating historical mentions of bloodshed in the Old Testament (which to Christians is superseded by the wholly unbloody, love-thy-neighbor New Testament) with countless open-ended exhortations to murder, maim etc. throughout the Quran.

    • خَليفة says

      Dec 9, 2015 at 4:13 am

      This is a powerful Line of reasoning for debunking the moral equivalence scenario..
      Lesson learned.
      Thanks for the comment.

      • Custos Custodum says

        Dec 9, 2015 at 7:19 pm

        Thank you for the kind words, Halifah.

        Just a humble student of Advanced Islamic Studies at Jihadwatch.org.

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 9, 2015 at 10:43 pm

      Excellent post, Custos. Important points.

      • Custos Custodum says

        Dec 9, 2015 at 11:11 pm

        Again, any credit belongs to our steadfast and thoughtful host, Mr. Robert Spencer.

  17. Adrian says

    Dec 8, 2015 at 9:09 pm

    This new “Study Quran” brings up the elephantine point avoided by media commentators and politicians: just what is it that constitutes a legitimate “religion”? I mean, just naming something a religion is not enough… now both sides are attacking Trump over his call not to admit Muslims – and everyone’s reasoning is how dare Trump judge on the basis of “religion”?

    Well, what if the Church of Scientology also had a jihad element in its basic creed? would the media afford it the same PC respect as Islam continues to receive? More importantly, wouldn’t there be a wide discussion to examine the REALITY behind the “spiritual” claims of the the Hubbard “Church”?

    And the silly claims of violence in OT and NT are bogus… the Christian Reformation was never a battle over the words in source dogma, and original verses attributed to Christ, (but rather the crazy interpretations and extrapolations to form unChristian policy) …. with Islam, there is no obfuscating the meaning of the source documents, no matter how hard they twist and turn to disguise the plain meaning…

    And twist and turn they do! I am slogging my way through the Ali translation of the Quran, and the howlers that he engages in his commentary notes are something else… this I would guess has been going on for a long time to bury something that really refuses to stay buried

    it will fool no one for long…

    • Custos Custodum says

      Dec 9, 2015 at 7:48 pm

      The understanding of what is and is not “religion” shows insidious faux parallelism at work. Westerners carry in their unconscious mind a well-defined definition of what is and is not “religion” based (however imperfectly) on Christian (and Jewish) precepts. The Westerner’s preternaturally certain “knowledge” about the “metes and bounds” of “religion” is especially prevalent in long-lapsed Christians and outright atheists (who like to label themselves “humanitarians,” etc.).

      For example, going to church, private prayer, teaching Sunday school, perhaps giving to private charities, might all be regarded religious observances by typical Westerners. By contrast, driving to the mall, going to work, running for political office, changing telephone providers etc. are not seen as religious observances by most Westerners. In other words, Westerners are imbued with the sense that there is a time and a place for religion, and other times and places that do not belong to religion.

      Politicians, judges and public officials are expected to leave their religion (or lack thereof) out of the performance of their duties. Until recently (perhaps 1990s), this was seen as a matter of course regardless of the identity of the specific religion. Before his election to the presidency, JFK gave a speech to clarify that despite being a Catholic, he would not be taking orders from the pope.

      Islam takes a very different view and imposes it under threat of murder on its votaries: ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE AND SOCIETY are within the ambit of Islamic injunctions and prohibitions. There is NO concept of a secular space or of a separate secular authority, no “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Indeed, Islam often pretends that “man-made laws” are by themselves blasphemous. Even the most private of actions are governed by detailed rules, hence the supremacist clamor for Muslim washrooms.

  18. Charles R.L. Power says

    Dec 9, 2015 at 10:42 pm

    The Study Quran could actually be useful, not in instructing non-Muslims about Islam, but in providing Muslims with a way of accepting the Quran and acting as decent human beings, just as many Talmudic instructions in effect make Judaism a more humanistic religion than one would think from the Jewish Bible. Unfortunately, it is not likely to be used this way.

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 9, 2015 at 10:46 pm

      You are quite right. Of course, this will just be used to snow the hopeful Kuffar–not to reform Islam.

      But how could it be used that way in any case? Only the commentary attempts to change the meaning–the words themselves are just as vicious as they have ever been.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • janicevanguilder on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Yogi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Hoi Polloi on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated
  • Hoi Polloi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.