Jihad Watch

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

Time Mag: Jihadists don’t understand the Qur’an

By

Ahmadi Muslim leader Qasim Rashid is, as Pamela Geller calls him, “a one-man cottage industry of deception and hypocrisy.” He has whitewashed Muhammad’s support for torture and the reality of jihad violence and Sharia oppression; dissembled about the Qur’an’s sanction of deception of unbelievers; lied about the presence of violent passages in the Qur’an; lied about the Qur’an’s sanction of beating disobedient women; lied about the nature of Sharia; called for limitations on the freedom of speech and expression to outlaw behavior and speech some Muslims may find offensive; and lied about Muhammad’s stance toward the persecution of Christians. When challenged about the “facts” he has presented, he (like virtually all other Islamic supremacists) responds with furious ad hominem contempt, but never answers the refutations of his articles on substantive grounds.

And here we go again, with one of this professional liar’s most dishonest presentations yet. Much more below.

Qasim Rashid2

“Jihadists Don’t Understand the Qur’an,” by Qasim Rashid, Time, March 24, 2016

This week’s Brussels attacks—like those in Ankara over the weekend, Paris in November and Kenya last April—are a scourge on humanity. They also represent the greatest possible misrepresentation of true Islam.

ISIS extremists and anti-Islam activists fundamentally ignore and misrepresent the Qur’an. It should come as no surprise that after suffering beatings for nearly a year as a ISIS hostage, freed French journalist Didier Francois reported:

There was never really discussion about texts or — it was not a religious discussion. It was a political discussion. It was more hammering what they were believing than teaching us about the Qur’an. Because it has nothing to do with the Qur’an. We didn’t even have the Qur’an; they didn’t want even to give us a Qur’an.

So the Islamic State jihadis didn’t want to give a Qur’an to a non-Muslim hostage, and Qasim Rashid presents this as evidence that “ISIS extremists and anti-Islam activists fundamentally ignore and misrepresent the Qur’an.” If they ignore it, how can they misrepresent it? But anyway, Rashid is lying again. The Islamic State doesn’t ignore the Qur’an, it quotes it frequently: in threats to blow up the White House and conquer Rome and Spain; in explaining its priorities in the nations it is targeting in jihad; in preaching to Christians after collecting the jizya (a Qur’an-based tax, cf. Qur’an 9:29); in justifying the execution of accused spies; and in its various videos.

It has also awarded $10,000 prizes and sex slaves in Qur’an memorization contests. One of its underground lairs was found littered with weapons and copies of the Qur’an. Children in the Islamic State study the Qur’an and get weapons training.

As for misrepresenting the Qur’an, one Malaysian Muslim said that the Qur’an led him to join the Islamic State. A Muslima in the U.S. promoted the Islamic State by quoting the Qur’an. An Islamic State propagandist’s parents said of him: “Our son is a devout Muslim. He had learnt the Quran by heart.” A Muslim politician from Jordan said that the Islamic State’s “doctrine stems from the Qur’an and Sunnah.”

The Qur’an presents the most humanitarian and advanced rules of war that the world has ever known. Yet extremists and anti-Islam activists resort to cherry picking and censorship.

For example, extremists and anti-Islam activists often argue the “progression theory”—which suggests that because the Qur’an begins with peaceful verses and apparently ends with violent verses, Muslims, therefore “progressively” become violent to their neighbors. Unfortunately, this bizarre theory finds no merit either in the Qur’an or in Prophet Muhammad’s practical example.

No one actually refers to a “progression theory” — do a Google search and see. Nor does anyone actually claim that “because the Qur’an begins with peaceful verses and apparently ends with violent verses, Muslims, therefore ‘progressively’ become violent to their neighbors.” This is an absurd straw-man hash of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation, which is no theory: it is found in the Qur’an itself. “We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth better than it or similar to it.” (2:106) Islamic scholars differ as to the extent of abrogation, but there is general agreement that the Qur’an’s violent passages do take precedence over more peaceful passages. This is a doctrine almost as old as Islam itself: Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that 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 Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped.

Does Qasim Rashid think that Ibn Ishaq is an “extremist” or an “anti-Islam activist”? Does he think that about the great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350), who also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career? Ibn Qayyim says: “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.

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.)

During the first dozen years of Prophet Muhammad’s ministry in Mecca, Muslims faced brutal persecution, boycott and murder at the hands of Meccan society and government. Muhammad forbade any form of violence or retaliation—even in self-defense. Instead, he ordered Muslims to maintain patience and dialogue or to leave Mecca.

In reality, while Muhammad was at Mecca — that is, during the time he is widely assumed to have preached peace and tolerance — he approached at the Ka’bah a group of the Quraysh, the Meccans who opposed him, kissed the black stone, and walked around the shrine three times. On his third pass he stopped and declared: “Will you listen to me, O Quraysh? By him who holds my life in His hand, I bring you slaughter.” (Ibn Ishaq, 131.)

Most Muslims eventually fled for their lives. Some sought refuge under the righteous Abyssinian Christian King Ashama ibn Abjar. Others formed an alliance with the Jews of Medina. Muhammad soon fled for his life as well and was welcomed in Medina. The Jews and Muslims of Medina mutually agreed to make Muhammad their head of state, after which he promulgated the Constitution of Medina. Roughly 1,200 years before the U.S. Constitution, Prophet Muhammad’s secular Constitution guaranteed the equality of all citizens of Medina regardless of religion, maintained the universal freedom of conscience, and obliged Muslims and Jews to defend each other from external attack.

The Constitution of Medina is not mentioned in the Qur’an; it is first mentioned in Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad, which was written over 125 years after the accepted date for Muhammad’s death. Unfortunately for Rashid, Ibn Ishaq also details what happened to three Jewish tribes of Arabia after the Constitution of Medina: Muhammad exiled the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, massacred the Banu Qurayza after they (understandably) made a pact with his enemies during the pagan Meccans’ siege of Medina, and then massacred the exiles at the Khaybar oasis, giving Muslims even today a bloodthirsty war chant: “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.” Funny how we never hear Muslims chanting, “Relax, relax, O Jews, the Constitution of Medina will return.”

And “secular”? According to Islamic tradition, Muslim rule in Medina was not secular, whatever the historicity or lack thereof of the Constitution of Medina. Muhammad, a self-proclaimed prophet, was the political leader of Medina, and claimed that his decrees were sanctioned by Allah — hence the Qur’an’s repeated calls to obey Allah and his messenger: see Qur’an 3:32; 3:132; 4:13; 4:59; 4:69; 4:80; 5:92; 8:1; 8:20; 8:46; 9:71; 24:47; 24:51; 24:52; 24:54; 24:56; 33:33; 47:33; 49:14; 58:13; 64:12.

For the first time in his life Prophet Muhammad had authority over non-Muslims. But instead of enforcing Islam on non-Muslims, like extremists and anti-Islam activists might suggest, the Qur’an 2:257 revealed: “There shall be no compulsion in religion.”

It’s actually 2:256. The fortunes of the Jews of Arabia after this verse was “revealed,” however, indicate that it was not considered even in Muhammad’s day to be an open-ended invitation to religious pluralism and a call to Muslims to coexist peacefully as equals with non-Muslims.

The Qur’an’s first verses addressing war were also revealed in Chapter 22 Verse 40-41. These inaugural verses place an immense burden on Muslims before they are permitted to fight. Muslims must first face faith-based violent persecution, flee their homes, be pursued, war must be waged upon them, and only then may Muslims fight in self-defense.

Subsequent verses must be understood in cohesion and in unison with these inaugural ones. Just as the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down interpretations of the Constitution that contradict established provisions, so, too, must we understood the Qur’an as a whole.

It was only after Meccan chiefs rallied a powerful army to pursue and murder every Muslim in Arabia that the Qur’an finally granted Muslims the permission—not the commandment—to fight in self-defense. Most significantly, fighting was not to enforce Islam, but to protect all houses of worship. Muhammad’s advanced rules of war also protected all non-combatants, animals, greenery and property.

Fighting was not to enforce Islam? “And fight them until there is no fitnah and religion, all of it, is for Allah” (Qur’an 8:39) Protect all non-combatants? “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: ‘They are from them.’” (Muslim 4321)

Extremists and anti-Islam activists also claim Chapter 9 of the Qur’an is the alleged “culmination” of violence against Jews and Christians. On the contrary, Chapter 9 affords the invading army an additional four months to cease their fighting and return to their own lands. Should an invading army comply, Muslims are forbidden from fighting. If, however, that invading army persists in their terrorism, Muslims are permitted to fight in self-defense to protect universal freedom of conscience—including for Jews and Christians.

Yes, freedom of conscience as long as the Jews and Christians knew their place, paid a special tax (jizya) and submitted to Islamic hegemony: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” — Qur’an 9:29

After yet another peace treaty was savagely broken, Muhammad peacefully marched on Mecca in the twilight years of his life. There, with the authority to exact punishment on the whole city, Muhammad offered carte blanche forgiveness. No one was forced to accept Islam; all were forgiven on the condition that universal freedom of conscience would remain free.

If this were true, why has the freedom of conscience become such a rare thing in the Islamic world? Why do the imitators of Muhammad pressure and harass (at best) non-Muslims all over the Islamic world?

Muhammad used education to end terrorism, and that is the best solution to end terrorism today. Under the Khalifa of Islam’s leadership, the True Islam and the Extremists campaign, which has garnered bi-partisan Congressional support and endorsements from thousands of Americans of many faiths, uses the Qur’an, Sunnah and ahadith to counter false narratives. As we mourn the victims of the Brussels attacks, let us unite, educate and advance true Islam.

Qasim Rashid and his “Khalifa of Islam” are so far from “True Islam” that they comprise less than 2% of Muslims worldwide, and are persecuted as heretics in Pakistan (where they aren’t even allowed to call themselves Muslims) and elsewhere. Note also Rashid’s final recommendation: “As we mourn the victims of the Brussels attacks, let us unite, educate and advance true Islam.” So in the wake of an Islamic jihad attack, he is calling upon Muslims and non-Muslims to advance Islam. Hair of the dog that bit ya, eh, Qasim?

Comments

  1. Time Magazine named Angela Merkel as “Person of the Year” in its December issue — with a LONG effusive vomit-inducing essay by a privilege guilt fool who is apparently some “important” thinker.

    A brilliant discussion of cognitive dissonance — the likely cause of otherwise smart persons being unable to admit the obvious about Islam — was published around 4 months ago. Let me find a link to it for all of you here.

  2. Does Qasim Rashid have a fatwa (hit) out on him for saying jihadists don’t follow the Koran? It would seem to me it would be offensive to jihadists that Rashid would say that killing old women in the streets for wearing red or beating women for not covering enough of their eyes with the burqa does not come from the Koran. If not from the Koran, then where do such actions come from, an offended fashion sense?

    I think Qasim Rashid is either not aware of the Koran or he is telling lies about what the Koran teaches. And if he’s telling lies and he doesn’t have a hit out on him, then he’s telling lies for the benefit of jihadists, who depend on people to believe these lies long enough for them to get caught when it doesn’t matter whether they believe they’ve been lied to or not because they will then be under a jizya tax and Sharia Law, which is a well-established historical pattern of Islam that goes all the way back to Muhammad.

    • Certainly not Doc! No fatwa for this scum!

      Instead, he should be praised and would be, but for the factionalism in islam. But no, no a thousand times no: No death-threats for him.

      He’s a prime slimeball among other slimeballs and as such, he gets the gold!

  3. Truth has no place in Koran, Islam and in a Muslim. How can Muslims get away with so much untruth for centuries?

    Sorry, I forgot the sword.

  4. This Rashid guy is such a liar and taqiyya tote. According his logic even Mo didn’t understand Quran and that’s why he kept killing all those non-Muslims, Jews and Christians! Rashid definitely doesn’t understand Quran if he thinks Quran promotes such a love fest between Muslims and non-Muslims! Our media falls for his lies!

  5. Rashid, Please go meet with al-Baghdadi and debate him. \See if you can convince him of the error of his ways. Rashit (not a misspelling), your head and other body parts will be found in multiple locations.

  6. I tried to send a letter to the Editor at “Time” and it wouldn’t let me post because I am not a subscriber.

    SO TIME, if you read this: You are fully aware that people view your articles as truthful. You would not vote for a candidate without checking what their platform is, correct? And hopefully you investigate information sources for accuracy, yes? This being said, I CHALLENGE THE STAFF, every one of you to get an older Qur’an which will be closer to accurate interpretation and read it all the way, front to back WITHOUT advice or suggestions from any one! Then tell me how you can write an article by Qasim Rashid without checking his source!

  9. The stealth jihadists are working overtime to paper over the damage the overt Jihadists are doing to the image of Islam as a peaceful religion. In fact the ISIS people will tell you, Islam is not about peace (for infidels) at all. But I find it unlikely that the soothing words of Rashid will comfort any infidels, except the left leaning ones who want to believe the lie. There surely is a growing mass of majority “ignorant” infidels who after 9/11, Bali, Paris and Brussels, to name only a few outrages, are now deeply concerned about Islam and the danger it poses to their way of life. And a few opinion editorials is not going to wash away the images of death in the name of Islam. Rashid is fighting a losing propaganda war, and he knows it.

  10. The probability of the likes of Kasim Rashid being given the responsibility of teaching the public about Islam is a good reason to not have such a program. Just an aside, it is very evident with some people that the eyes can be the windows of the soul.

  12. “There shall be no compulsion in religion.”

    Technically correct but there certainly was compulsion in paying the jizya. Let’s call it “encouragement”.

  13. The Ahmadi sect was only founded in 1837 I believe, by yet another fatasist who claimed to be a ‘prophet’ and is considered by most Muslims heretical. They kill Ahmadi wherever they find them yet this fool is defending them. All I can say is that if Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ as is claimed and extremists do not understand the Quran, the clerics who have spent their lives doing nothing else but study the Quran
    must be doing a lousy job. The ‘caliph’ of IS is himself an Islamic scholar!

  14. Sorry fantasist. There is an edit facility on Pamela G’s site why cannot we have one here?

  15. What a demonstrable liar! And what a good informative response by Jihad Watch!

    Yet he is allowed to appear in TIME magazine, which used to be a very famous magazine.

    I note that he again does portray Islam in a positive way, as if from the start it was meant to be this way. And only this way. But if his lies are broadcast in this way, Westerners should at least try to prophit from his portrayal of 2 radically different interpretations of Islam, and not choosing one or the other, but rather use the discrepancies to declare Islam VERY AMBIGUOUS, very PRONE to misunderstanding, due to lack of clarity!

    What he does not do, and I think on purpose, is saying Muslims should choose democratic system and nations OVER AND AGAINST Theocratic system and nations. No; He wants to let Muslims somehow stay neutral between the West and it’s system and Islamic State and it’s system.

    While he wants to portray the one true real Islam as “mysterious, but NOT what Islamic State presents it, but neutral, harmless”. But he won’t (dare) say: “Perfectly compatible with the Democratic System

    or, I do condemn Islamic State, but I do NOT also or even more condemn America, it’s system, it’s policies.

    That right there should make his whole argument worthless for safety of Western nations and political system.

    What I don’t blame HIM for, but all the more Time Magazine, is that this man again implicitly asserts “The real Islam is clear, mono-interpretable, and true

    in contrast with the false interpretation of both extremist Islamic State and anti-Islam-activists. Time-magazine, in an ideal world, Time magazine should qualify the convictions of both Extremists and Apologists as being only “opinions”, 2 of several possible valid interpretations of Islam. Or say they just don’t know, but now they seem to give legitimacy to this so clearly lying apologist by giving him unquestioned their podium.

  16. Time rag is way off base, Jihadist know exactly what they are doing, the main stream media is putting Islam as the victim in these attacks however those that have read or studied the Koran know that the jihadist are only performing the demands of the Koran per Prophet Mohammad. Been this way since conception and nothing will change that until humanity fights back to save their own culture from Islam.

  17. If you have to lie about Islam, why be a Muslim?

    “Jihadists Don’t Understand the Qur’an,” by Qasim Rashid is a pack of lies, because Caliph al Baghdadi, PhD, obviously DOES UNDERSTAND THE KORAN. He also understands the Sira, the hadiths, the canonical commentaries, the manuals of Sharia law, Islamic history and the voluminous Islamic jurisprudence, ALL OF WHICH he has read and absorbed and which he lives in vibrant Technicolor.

    This is Qasim Rashid’s greatest and most unforgiveable lie: to claim Caliph al-Baghdadi is not Muslim enough or smart enough or educated enough! Caliph al-Baghdadi is one of the best informed Islamic scholars on earth.

    • The fact that Caliph al-Baghdadi is so well-informed about Islam is an embarrassment to Muslims.

      Caliph al-Baghdadi’s ISIS shows what real Islam is: rape, plunder, enslavement, torture, extortion, terrorism, obscurantism, dictatorship, supremacism, misogyny.

      Muslims can’t stand looking at themselves in the mirror because they are ISIS.

  18. People look at Islam in 2 ways, jihadist and non fighters, what they do not understand that each Muslim must perform jihad, to understand that point is the key to fully knowing how Islam works, I compare Islam to the Star Trek series The Borg character the Borg are a collective unit, work and live as a collective unit, Islam works the same way, Islam is the collective, they work together to create a greater mass though violence, silence and population mass. Like the Borg you will not be allowed in until you assimilate into their culture and if you choose not to join well hello heaven.

    On the flip side to the Borg, an example of the Muslim who was killed by his own collective for wishing Happy Easter to his store patrons is another side of Islam people need to realize, Islam teaches never to go outside of Islam unless it to advance Islam status not praise Jews or Christians that is Apostay: the Koran demand death for such a act.

  19. How is it possible that ISIS does not understand the Qur’an? Their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has a PhD in Islamic Studies from Baghdad U. It seems to me that he would know his way around a Qur’an better than the average bear, no?

  20. “LET’S UNITE, EDUCATE AND ADVANCE TRUE ISLAM”??
    Respected Mr Robert Spencer,
    Most brilliant interpretation of Islamic MAKE-BELIEFS. Since my childhood, I’ve seen no Muslim organizations or no Muslim in person fighting fiercely or doing JIHAD against POVERTY, ILLITERACY, IGNORANCE, BIGOTRY, FANATICISM, TERRORISM and so on. On the contrary, they are seen at the height of compassion (they say) while brutally slaughtering the non-believers. According to them, the world as a whole is waiting for brutal untimely death.
    I fail to understand why a superpower like America offer refuge and feed venomous Islamists like Rashid.
    In Iraq and Syria, America is bombing ISIS’ targets, and within her territories she has been watering Islamism for long. There is a proverb (Jis Thali Me Khana, Usi Thali Me Chhed Karna) meaning “MAKING A HOLE TO THE PLATE. IN WHICH YOUR HOST OFFERS YOU FOOD.” It’s connotation is “to establish sexual relations with female members of a family that kindly gives you refuge and shelter.” Rashid’s statement is the essence the aforementioned proverb.

  21. Put Qasim and all the other Islam apologists and phony interpreters, such as Obama and company and dump them in the middle of a gang of ISIS in Iraq. Let them try to explain to the murdering strict followers of the faith that they have it all wrong. Then let’s find prominent places in which to preserve and display their chopped off heads with the caption, “Well, they tried.”

  22. Qasim Rashid is more dangerous that ISIS. ISIS can be seen and therefore an offense can be mounted to destroy it. But how do you defeat an enemy that you cannot see?. Or an enemy that no one wishes to see? Evidently, Qasim Rashid’s mission is to destroy us from within. Just give a TED talk, appear as a really nice guy, and rewrite History. Explain what a wonderful, merciful, humanitarian Muhammad was and how Islam has been such a benefit to the world.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw3R8xc1TQ0
    It would perhaps not be a good idea for him to mention the murder of Aasiya Zubaair by her husband Muzzammil Hassan. Could one say that Islamic nuances – such as decapitations – have enriched our culture?

  23. No fight with surrendered warrior:
    Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 59 :: Hadith 354
    Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Adi bin Al-Khiyar:
    That Al-Miqdad bin ‘Amr Al-Kindi, who was an ally of Bani Zuhra and one of those who fought the battle of Badr together with Allah’s Apostle told him that he said to Allah’s Apostle, “Suppose I met one of the infidels and we fought, and he struck one of my hands with his sword and cut it off and then took refuge in a tree and said, “I surrender to Allah (i.e. I have become a Muslim),’ could I kill him, O Allah’s Apostle, after he had said this?” Allah’s Apostle said, “You should not kill him.” Al-Miqdad said, “O Allah’s Apostle! But he had cut off one of my two hands, and then he had uttered those words?” Allah’s Apostle replied, “You should not kill him, for if you kill him, he would be in your position where you had been before killing him, and you would be in his position where he had been before uttering those words.”
    Dawud :: Book 14 : Hadith 2639
    Narrated Jarir ibn Abdullah:
    The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) sent an expedition to Khath’am. Some people sought protection by having recourse to prostration, and were hastily killed. When the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) heard that, he ordered half the blood-wit to be paid for them, saying: I am not responsible for any Muslim who stays among polytheists.
    Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 83 :: Hadith 5,11
    Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 173,176 ,178
    Muslim :: Book 19 : Hadith 4361
    Dawud :: Book 14 : Hadith 2646

    PROPHET SA ORDERED : ISLAM PROHIBITED EVEN KILLING SURRENDER WARRIOR,I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW CAN JUSTIFY KILLING JOURNALIST.

    Suicide prohibited: reward of suicide is hell
    4: 29. O you who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves unjustly except it be a trade amongst you, by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves (nor kill one another). Surely, Allah is Most Merciful to you.
    4: 30. And whoever commits that through aggression and injustice, We shall cast him into the Fire, and that is easy for Allah.
    39: 53. Say: “O ‘Ibâdî (My slaves) who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allâh, verily Allâh forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
    Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 23 :: Hadith 445
    Narrated Thabit bin Ad-Dahhak:
    The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, “Whoever intentionally swears falsely by a religion other than Islam, then he is what he has said, (e.g. if he says, ‘If such thing is not true then I am a Jew,’ he is really a Jew). And whoever commits suicide with piece of iron will be punished with the same piece of iron in the Hell Fire.” Narrated Jundab the Prophet said, “A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: My slave has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him.”
    PUBLIC PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO PUNISH THE PEOPLE:

    Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 173
    It is narrated on the authority of Miqdad b. Aswad that he said. Messenger of Allah, you just see (here is a point): If I encountered a person amongst the infidels (in the battlefield) and he attacked me and struck me and cut off one of my hands with the sword. Then he (in order to protect himself from me) took shelter of a tree and said: I become Muslim for Allah’s sake. Messenger of Allah, can I kill him after he had uttered this? The Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) said: Do not kill him. I (the narrator) said: Messenger of Allah, he cut off my hand and uttered this after amputating it; should I then kill him? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Don’t kill him, for I you kill him, verily he would be in a position where you had been before killing him and verily you would be in a position where he had been before uttering (kalima).
    Malik :: Book 21 : Hadith 21.10.19
    Yahya said that Malik was asked whether someone who killed one of the enemy could keep the man’s effects without the permission of the Imam. He said, “No one can do that without the permission of the Imam. Only the Imam can make ijtihad. I have not heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ever said, ‘Whoever kills someone can have his effects,’ on any other day than the day of Hunayn.”
    Muslim :: Book 9 : Hadith 3569
    Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Sa’d b. ‘Ubada al-Ansari said: Messenger of Allah, tell the if a man finds his wife with another person, should he kill him? Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: No. Sa’d said: Why not? I swear by Him Who has honoured you with Truth. There upon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Listen to what your chief says.
    Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 82 :: Hadith 829
    Narrated Al-Mughira:
    Sa’d bin Ubada said, “If I found a man with my wife, I would kill him with the sharp side of my sword.” When the Prophet heard that he said, “Do you wonder at Sa’d’s sense of ghira (self-respect)? Verily, I have more sense of ghira than Sa’d, and Allah has more sense of ghira than I.”

  24. Je suis sick of American liberals who think they know Islam better than members of the ‘Ulema.

  26. The only Muslims that don’t understand the Koran are the ones not yet carrying out jihad. Not yet.

    • Agreed. I don’t see how you can honestly avoid the call to jihad in the Koran. Mohammed had a word for those who did, and they’re destined to end up in the bottom of hell…even worse than what you and I will have to put up with at the top.

  27. Islam is violent? That is what happens when your “holy text” is written my a military commander….

  28. Kate Silverman wrote:
    Don’t you understand that radical Islamists are the problem – not all Muslims?
    __________________________________________________________________
    Reply by Sandy Kramer

    Radical Islamists are the power behind the problem: The deus ex machina. No one has anything to fear from “M.I.N.O.” (Muslims In Name Only). Most Muslims are pawns – as Lenin put it: “Useful idiots.” And the idiocy is reigning supreme. But the more one becomes familiar with the Qur’an, the more one realizes that the Qur’an is the vector for the disease, and that the cancer has metastasized into the corpus. The essence of the Qur’an – you will discover, if you read it – is the problem. The ethos of Islam cannot be separated from the actions of I.S.I.S.. The gemeinschaft is inculcated into every nook and cranny of the indigenous societies it permeates. Watch the videos on M.E.M.R.I. and Palestinian Media Watch to see what is taught – day in and day out, generation after generation. Then you will have a clearer understanding of the problem being faced.

    MEMRI – The Middle East Media Research Institute
    memri.org|By http://www.memri.org

    http://www.palwatch.org

    Home Page|PMW
    Palestinian Media Watch is an Israeli research institute that studies Palestinian society.

Please help spread the truth about jihad

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

Sign Up for Our Daily Digest