• 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

Video: Robert Spencer on the Qur’an’s violent verses

May 4, 2016 8:14 am By Robert Spencer

This is the fourth video in my Basics of Islam series.

Note that the verse that commands that Muslims fight “the People of the Book” is incorrectly labeled as Qur’an 9:5. It is actually Qur’an 9:29.

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, Robert Spencer Tagged With: People of the Book


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Abinavam narayanan Rajaram says

    May 4, 2016 at 8:39 am

    Look at the Muslim Sufis! They are the real Muslims, who believe that when you realise yourselves you will realise God!(Mun Arafa Nafsahu, Fagat arafa rabbahu) But these teachings are not accepted by Muslim majority who go by Wahabism- the preachings of the killer Caliph who finished Prophet Mohammed! They are many things that are hidden in the history of Islamic evolution!

    • blitz2b says

      May 4, 2016 at 9:11 am

      “…Look at the Muslim Sufis! They are the real Muslims, who believe that when you realise yourselves you will realise God!…”

      What a load of rubbish…. Mainstream Islam rejects the sufis for good reason. Where do you find justification for their belief system and rituals in the Koran, hadith’s and siras?
      Sufism is just a bastardized version of Islamic Christianity.

      • mortimer says

        May 4, 2016 at 10:26 am

        Sufis are ‘real’ Muslims? No. They are an esoteric, fanatical cult.

        Early in their history, Sufis developed a powerful military streak, making them the foremost warriors of Islam, as well as its monks and mystics. Like the Japanese Samurai warriors, Sufi brotherhoods trained their followers to amazing feats of devotion and overcoming pain. Fanatical dervish warriors were the special forces of every Islamic army from the 13th century through the end of the 19th. For the Islamists — for hard-line fundamentalists like the Saudi Wahhabis and the Taliban — the Sufis are deadly enemies, who draw on practices alien to the Quran. Wherever Islamists rise to power, Sufis are persecuted or driven underground; but where Sufis remain in the ascendant, it is the radical Islamist groups who must fight to survive.

        If there is any tolerance in Sufism, it is an mirage, but there is no tolerance within Islam in general, even towards fellow Muslims of a different sect. Muslims cannot embrace pluralism…they cannot even tolerate fellow Muslims.

        • Jaladhi says

          May 4, 2016 at 10:44 am

          The myth of sufis as peaceful Muslims is quite popular in India thanks to the Bollywood’s braindead actors. In fact many Indians don’t even know that Kashmiri Muslims are sufis(who are running a terror campaign in Kashmir) and the so called sufi saints during the Mughal reign in India were responsible for the massacre of thousands of Hindus,Sikhs, Buddhists and others and yet Sufi music and sufis are regarded as “good” guys. Murderous good guys!!

      • JawsV says

        May 4, 2016 at 2:18 pm

        What is “Islamic Christianity?” There’s no such thing. In fact, they are total opposites.

        • blitz2b says

          May 4, 2016 at 6:33 pm

          “What is “Islamic Christianity?” There’s no such thing. In fact, they are total opposites….”

          bas·tard·ize
          ˈbastərˌdīz/
          verb
          gerund or present participle: bastardizing
          1.
          corrupt or debase (something such as a language or art form), typically by adding new elements….

          This is exactly what I meant… A debasing of Islam with peaceful and loving elements of Christianity in it…

    • Angemon says

      May 4, 2016 at 10:04 am

      Abinavam narayanan Rajaram posted:

      “Look at the Muslim Sufis! They are the real Muslims, who believe that when you realise yourselves you will realise God!”

      Do they teach the equality of all before the law regardless of gender or religion? Do they teach against stoning of adulterers, chopping the limbs of thieves or killing apostates?

    • Jaladhi says

      May 4, 2016 at 10:22 am

      Sufis are just as murderous bunch as the rest the gang of Muslims!! Just look at what Chechans and Kashmiri sufi Muslims are doing in that region.

      A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim – doesn’t matter what name he goes by – he has to carry out those murderous diktats of Mo/allah.

      Sufis are peaceful is another oxymoron within an oxymoron of “moderate Muslim” or “Islam is religion of peace”.

    • Angry Citizen says

      May 4, 2016 at 10:39 am

      Please shut up.

      You are dealing with civilised westerners who are capable of thinking for themselves. We do not suffer the addled minds that go hand in hand with islam, caused through thousands of years of inbreeding and sick indoctrination.

      I have studied your heathen texts and I live surrounded by these mentally deficient creatures.

      I speak through personal experience, I have been threatened, I have been assaulted, so again with repect SHUT UP WITH YOUR ISLAMIST OPINIONS.

    • Wellington says

      May 4, 2016 at 5:13 pm

      Many have already replied and convincingly refuted what you averred, Abinavam. I will add only this: Everyone, and I mean everyone, who admires Mohammed should not themselves ever be admired or even listened to (except long enough to counter any praise of the Profiteer Mohammed).

      The rot in Islam starts with Mohammed. His character is that of a psychopath and a narcissist, among many other disorders. One knows this or should know it. Islam, right out of the gate, started rotten and there is no kissy-face/huggy-bear interpretation of the character of Mohammed that will ever mitigate the make-up of this terrible, albeit clever, man. I will end here by quoting John Quincy Adams’ opinion of Mohammed: “The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust—–to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of mankind.”

      • Chris says

        May 5, 2016 at 2:11 pm

        Wellington, your comment, in a strange sort of way, amused me. before we go any further, I have studied Islam and the Qur’an intensively over the past few years and, whilst I cannot imply that I am an Islamic scholar, but I am very knowledgeable. I probably know more about Islam that what the average Muslim does.
        I have no problem with Muslims, in fact, I don’t think a Muslim has ever said a bad word about me. However, I do have a big problem with Islam.
        I may surprise you now when I say that I do actually admire Mo.
        He must have been a great manipulator, he was also a great military commander, the likes of which we have never seen since.
        The Qur’an was compiled by such brilliant men to be obfuscating, and unable to question.

        • Wellington says

          May 5, 2016 at 4:26 pm

          Thank you for your reply, Chris. I would contend that one can admire a person’s abilities without admiring the person. For instance, Hitler had great political instincts but do you care to admire him in toto? Stalin too fits the bill here, as do many more throughout the pages of history.

          Moreover, no one of the character of Mohammed, granted he had significant abilities, as I alluded to in my original post by calling him clever, has any business founding a major religion, nor being followed and treated as the Model Man as Mohammed surely has been for centuries, actually until this very day by more than a billion deluded people.

          Great ability without moral intelligence should not only not be admired but actually treated with overwhelming wariness. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed about Napoleon, he was as great as a man could be without morality. I rest my case.

  2. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    May 4, 2016 at 9:26 am

    I don’t see the point here. It was decided long ago by our universities, religious leaders, politicians and even judges (e.g., Chris Christie’s judge in NJ) that there is no connection between the Allah commands in the Holy Ko-Ran and the “violent Islamist extremism” costing so many lives, tens of billions of dollars and lost freedoms. None. No connection. Now it is true that the Moslem “terrorists” of the tiny minority cite the verses as their motivation, but that’s just big talk to justify their mass murders. They sometimes feel guilty when the smoke clears after a slaughter.

    Let’s drop the Ko-Ran angle, and show it the same deferential respect the Bible gets, it contains violent verses too. Enough already with the religious bigotry. Let Moslems practice their religion in peace. Or whatever.

    The root problem of all this is what I call Tiny Minorityism. Prez Dubya is a Yale/Harvard Man, let’s woo him out of retirement to figure out a solution to this.

    • kilfincelt says

      May 4, 2016 at 12:28 pm

      The violent verses in the Bible are descriptive in nature and do not apply to any groups alive today. Unfortunately, the verses in the Qur’an are prescriptive. Violence against non-believers is at the very heart of Qur’anic teachings. (I have read the Qur’an.) Furthermore, while some western universities, religious leaders, politicians and judges have said that what Is written in the Qur’an has no connection to Islamic extremisim, they either don’t know what they are talking about or are practicing taqiyya. Many Islamic scholars, particularly in the heart of the Muslim world, say exactly the opposite by saying that jihad is commanded by the Qur’an. According to them, jihad means to fight against those who are non-believers by killing them. (As Mr. Spencer correctly points out, such commands are found in the Qur’an.) Muhammad is their example of the perfect Muslim and he killed people. Religious bigotry isn’t involved here unless you consider Muslims bigots for believing and following the Christianophobic and anti-semitic verses found in the Qur’an. In addition, if Muslims did practice their religion in peace that would be fine but a good number of them don’t. In fact, since 9/11 over 5 Islamic terrorist attacks a day have occurred worldwide. This is indicative of a serious problem within Islam and is a refutation of the Islam is a religion of peace narrative.

      • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

        May 4, 2016 at 1:07 pm

        I know all that; I was kidding. Call me a cynic, please. After decades of watching these hairy people succeed one operation after the next, my capacity for sarcasm has reached the highest level recorded in human history.

        • Angry Citizen says

          May 4, 2016 at 1:49 pm

          Remember a lot of people have trouble with sarcasm or irony, however saying that, your name “Alarmed Pig Farmer” was a pretty big give.

        • kilfincelt says

          May 4, 2016 at 2:27 pm

          Unfortunately, your sarcasm is too close to what some people have actually said and believe about Islam. My response is a reply to those who are true believers in what you said.

  3. mortimer says

    May 4, 2016 at 10:41 am

    The supremacist verses of the Koran, especially those of Sura 9 are now in effect, abrogating all the tolerant verses. Muslims who deny that are committing taqiyya and they know it.

    All Muslim apologists in the West are intentionally concealing their knowledge of the jihad doctrine, while uninformed, unread Leftards swallow the disinformation it hook, line and sinker.

    Sharia law promotes jihad-warfare of conquest, misogyny, intolerance and institutional persecution of the ‘other’. Muslims who lie about it are consciously lying.

    • Jay Boo says

      May 4, 2016 at 12:29 pm

      Robert said

      in reference to —Muslim spokesmen in the West explain Qur’an’s violence away.

      “The problem is with so many jihad terror groups around the world and with sharia regimes being so repressive, it’s hard to see how all this can be reconciled with the claim that Islam is a religion of peace.”

      ——————–
      Taking that a step further:
      How can (any Muslim) still claim ignorance of Islam’s violence?
      Even if they never opened a Koran, the evidence of Islamic violence is so ever-present that their ignorance could be none other than willful arrogance.
      Rather than swim about inside the cesspool of Islam with pride, all Muslims the world over should be ashamed of Islam’s ubiquitous disgrace.

  4. Jan Aage Jeppesen says

    May 4, 2016 at 11:27 am

    What did you learn in school today?

    Christian hate mongers lose in Norway

    A 12-year-old from Sotra in Norway came home from school and expressed concern over what he had been taught about Islam.

    A few weeks ago, the son of Lill-Christine Onstad (32) came home from school and told me he had been taught that Islam only dealt with war, and that Muslims hated anyone who thought otherwise.

    – I got a shock. When he later showed me a sheet where I got to see in black and white what the children had learned, I was very worried, tells Onstad to Norwegian TV2.

    The 12-year-old goes on Danielsen elementary Sotra near Bergen. It is a Christian school, but her son had despite this reacted to what the teacher in Christianity told them.

    In the sheet that seventh grader received, is a comparison between what the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus taught. The paper points out similarities and differences. Among other things:

    “Both met a blind man and a woman apprehended for adultery. BUT: Jesus healed the man and forgave the woman. Muhammad ignored the man and the woman got killed. “

    “Jesus prayed for his enemies. Muhammad condemned them and called his successors to be hard on them and kill them. ”

    “Mohammed spread Islam with war, while Jesus turned the other cheek and died for our sins.”

    Concerned about the uncritical children

    The mother is happy that 12-year-old responded to the teacher’s extreme views, but fear not all children do.

    – I am very happy that my son knew that what they were taught is not okay. But we had to sit down with him and tell that Islam is much more than what the teacher produced about the Islamic religion, mother says and adds:

    – It’s a pity for the children and parents who are uncritical and may inherit the same vision. To denigrate one religion to promote another, does not contribute to a tolerant society.

    She confronted the teacher

    Onstad made contact with the current teacher to express their concern, but did not get the reaction she was hoping for.

    – I confronted him and asked if I had misunderstood my son. I had not, for the teacher was very clear that he had taught the children the vision he had. I told him that we did not find his way to teach and prepare religions was okay, but he thought there was nothing positive to say about Islam anyway, says Onstad.

    – Attempts to create discord and disdain

    Religion Researcher at the University of Oslo, Kari Vogt, believes that the education contributes to contempt for other religions.

    – This is a textbook example of how things should not be done. This is an exceptionally unsympathetic attempt to create discord and contempt, says Vogt.

    She believes it is a biased statement by Islam.

    – These things being compared are not comparable. It becomes quite meaningless when it is set up that way. We must be clear on that.

    She agrees with the mother that it is not good for the children who will be colored by the teacher’s attitudes.

    – These kids are going out in the community, and this kind of heresy form a very poor climate for conversation, says the religion scholar.

    My comment:

    A Christian heresy? Tell that to Martin Luther and read the Confession of Augsburg, the founding document of the Lutheran-evangelic churches:

    “Chief Articles of Faith
    Article I: Of God.

    Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term “person” they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.

    They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil: also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. They condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that “Word” signifies a spoken word, and “Spirit” signifies motion created in things. …”

    Who are the true heretics to be condemned? Is it the Mohammedans or the Lutherans?

    • Jay Boo says

      May 4, 2016 at 12:38 pm

      Jan Aage Jeppesen

      You say,
      “To denigrate one religion to promote another, does not contribute to a tolerant society..”

      While you take offense at Islam being criticized you have no shame at mocking Lutherans.

      Are you not being shamelessly and typically hypocritical?

      • Jan Aage Jeppesen says

        May 4, 2016 at 7:16 pm

        I am saying nothing of that sort, just quoting what a scholar of religion at Oslo University said in the article I quoted from.

        I think that Martin Luther was right when he for theological reasons designated Islam as a Christian heresy. On the other hand Islam considers Judaism and Christianity as perverted, distorted and false versions of Islam.

        Logically in monotheism there can only be one true version of God, all other versions must therefore be false.

        I prefer Luther’s version of God to the Islamic version solely for ethical reasons, primarily because Islam does not have the golden rule as a universal obligation.

        On a more practical level because Luther’s version is compatible with democracy and the rule of law by separating state and church.
        As an agnostic I chose democracy and not some metaphysical explanation of the world depending on irrational belief and nothing else.

        I think Robert Spencer is great at explaining Islam seen from a Christian perspective and to add scientific research to this perspective.

    • Jay Boo says

      May 4, 2016 at 12:42 pm

      Allahu Akbar

      Their god is greater???
      (Greater than whom?)

      Coincidentally Satan is said to have said the same thing.

      • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

        May 5, 2016 at 10:24 am

        The “u” in Allahu takes the phrase from meaning God Is Great! (Allah Akbar) to God is Greatest! (Allahu Akbar). This is a critical point, because it moves Moslems from simply celebrating their god to declaring their God superior to all others. Islam is a corrective belief system; Allah demands the correction be made post haste and violently if necessary, which of course it is bound to be.

        Thus I introduce ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hizballah, Hamas, al Shabaab and several dozen other Moslem activist organizations (aka terrorists). This is the tiny minority of which Yale/Harvard Man Prez Dubya spoke.

  5. jayell says

    May 4, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Sorry, this is totally off-topic. but this has just appeared in the UK Daily Mai and you’ve just GOT to see it!

    “David Cameron REFUSES to apologise to Donald Trump for saying he was ‘divisive, stupid and wrong’ to claim Muslims should be banned from entering America”.

    I wondered how Cameron would react now it seems he might just be up the creek without a paddle. Trying to tough it out, no doubt to keep his famous muslim friends happy. How predictable! So could you good people that side of the pond please make sure that you vote Mr. Trump into the White House asap so that we can have some entertainment this side watching Cameron + the rest of his holier-than-thou multi-culti crew doing a Houdini act trying to get out of THAT one!! And if the Dreaded Kahn (yea, He of the Dubious Minarets and the Friends with Explosive Belts) gets himself elected to Mayor of London tomorrow, wouldn’t a State Visit from President Trump just go down a bomb? Perhaps I’d better rephrase that…..

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      May 4, 2016 at 1:13 pm

      It is notable that Trump’s timid and careful call for a 90 day suspension of importing Moslems was immediately turned into a call for a permanent embargo on Moslem imports. If Trump wants my vote, he needs to agree with the people lying about him and call for a permanent ban on all Moslem imports. Forever.

  6. Troybeam says

    May 4, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    I am sick and tired of individuals who claim Islam is different from the ISIS groups that are killing non Muslims and Muslims who either help these people or will not adhere word for word of the Qur’an and sharia law.

    There is only one Islam, it calls to kill the infidel, and Muslims who will not follow to a tee, it calls for the rape and abuse to women, wives, men and children, it segregates itself from humanity while claiming they are the perfect people, it destroys cultures, history even its own, there is nothing special or any quality based thinking about Islam.

    The one item all people must remember: Islam is just that Islam, no moderates, no radicals, everything you see that is violence in the world is dictated by the Koran and sharia law.

    So, fight for your nation, culture and history, fight for humanity for Islam has no humanity within its beliefs and doctrine.

  7. Michael Copeland says

    May 4, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    Another excellent four-minute video. Thank you, Mr. Spencer.
    This format has a lot of mileage ahead of it.
    May these videos run and run.

  8. ECAW says

    May 4, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    Robert Spencer says that the fighting the Koran commands must continue until the entire world is under the rule of Islam and that Muslim spokesmen in the West explain it away as applying only to the 7th century.

    I am convinced that the jihad verses were intended to be for all time until the world is under Islam rather than limited to the context of Mohammed’s battles but I don’t think the evidence for it is in the Koran. I think it plausible (at a stretch) for people to claim that the jihad verses were just contextual if they only read the Koran, and that the real evidence for the timeless view is to be found in:

    Mohammed’s threatening letters to surrounding kings and even emperors

    The example of his immediate successors who, as his companions, presumably knew his intentions best

    Some statements in the hadiths and sira

    The mediaeval commentaries and the sharia (eg “Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam are…to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message to be the religion followed by the entire world”, Reliance of the Traveller)

    The absence of any authoritative support for the contextual view (that I can find) before modern times.

    I wish Robert Spencer would address this point directly since most of the wider debate seems to be between one side assuming one view and the other side assuming the other and therefore never coming into real contact.

  9. Keys says

    May 4, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    Thank you for these videos. Regarding one of Robert’s last comments in the video that modern day scholars say the violent verses of the Koran apply only to the 8th century.

    Many muslims and non-muslims are willing to assent to that “scholarly” argument arguing further that if a muslim scholar interprets the Koran that way it must be as they say, because since they are muslim “authorities”, they have a right to interpret their religion as they see fit.

    Robert mentions that there are violent modern day Islamic groups that do not interpret the violent verses as belonging only to the 8th century, and therefore it is hard to accept that Islam is a religion of peace.

    Just so ! And there are many more facts that despoil the “8th century only” argument that Robert did not have time to mention in a short video. Mortimer, on JW, sometimes gives a numbered list of these including that Islam has no Golden Rule, which is certainly a prerequisite for any religion to be a religion of peace!

    Other posters have specifically listed the millions killed in the name of Islam as it expanded out of Arabia well beyond its initial century. It is clear that Mohammadans over the centuries have not ignored the violent Koronic verses.

    Further, Muslims are to emulate Mohammad, Allah’s final prophet and model human being, whose life and sayings are full of horrific violence and deceit. What “scholar” or politician can ignore these facts, or explain them away? There seem
    to be legions of them.

  10. Wellington says

    May 4, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    Not only do some Muslims themselves maintain that the lethal psychopathic verses in the Koran only apply to the seventh century (all the while over 28,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks just since 9/11 have been committed by Muslims acting in the name of Islam and which Muslims obviously haven’t gotten “this message”), but so do dhimmi apologists for Islam, among whom is Daniel Pipes.

    Pipes knows a great deal about Islam, has a doctorate in Islamic Studies from Harvard, is fluent in Arabic, and yet this knowledgeable man who is not Muslim but Jewish continues to maintain to this day that “the violence stuff” in the Koran is only applicable to the early years of Islam, thus demonstrating in microcosm that no amount of education is sufficient to prevent coming to completely erroneous assumptions and conclusions.

    Meanwhile, the killing by Muslims in the name of Islam goes on——-day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. And those intrepid people who are called “moderate Muslims” seem far more concerned about backlash against Muslims in the West (what effing backlash other than criticism of the worst religion ever developed by man?) than they do about the non-Muslims who have been killed or maimed in the name of Islam———-in Paris, in Brussels, in New York, at Fort Hood, in San Bernardino, in Tel Aviv, in…….., in……., in………..

    As long as Islam is exculpated by anyone, the greatest religious scourge on humanity, Islam, still has life. It should have no life. It needs to be dead——–once and for all. Buried. No more. Forever.

    • ECAW says

      May 5, 2016 at 2:23 am

      Wellington – I have been reading Pipes’ output for a couple of years now and have not seen him take that “7th century only” position about the jihad verses. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen him take any position on the theology, only on the shifting beliefs of Muslims over time. That would be in keeping with his being a historian rather than an Islamic scholar, a distinction he points out.

      He often says that Muslim beliefs have changed in the past, why not in the future? That is why he puts faith in “moderate Muslims” even though he admits they haven’t shown up yet. I happen to disagree with him about that, after all who could have been more of an “extremist” than Mohammed?

      If you can provide a link to him supporting the contextual position I would be grateful to see it as I am trying to investigate this contextual/timeless conflict but can find little on the contextual side apart from clearly deceptive imams and Islamic apologists. I don’t think Pipes is that, nor a dhimmi.

      • Wellington says

        May 5, 2016 at 11:05 am

        I made the statement I did, ECAW, because Pipes has consistently spoken out against Sharia and why application of so much of it should be opposed. If you go to his web site, http://www.danielpipes.org, you will find article after article about this and since much of Sharia is ultimately based upon the Koran, though of course the hadiths and sira are sources too, I think it not too much of a stretch to assert that Pipes thinks that the “Medina verses” in the Koran should simply no longer be applied in instance after instance. I mean can you imagine arguing that much of Sharia should no longer be applicable, as Pipes often has, but everything in the Koran should be? It would make no sense.

        If I missed something here, I would be grateful for a response by you. Perhaps I have missed something but I think it at least implicit in Pipes’ argument about Sharia that much of the Koran should no longer be implemented in any kind of literal sense.

        • ECAW says

          May 5, 2016 at 2:07 pm

          Wellington

          I don’t think that Pipes maintains that the violent stuff in the Koran is only applicable to the early years of Islam, by which I assume we mean Mohammed’s military campaigns up until the time of his death. I haven’t read anything by Pipes that explicitly says that and you haven’t provided an example of it. I don’t think it valid to work back from what he says about sharia to what he might think about the jihad verses.

          He hopes that Muslims will come to reject much of the violent interpretations in the sharia and by implication reject Islamic supremacism which I agree means rejecting (or managing to fudge) the “timeless” interpretation of the jihad verses. I don’t think it a realistic hope but there are quietist strains of Islam which manage to do this, even quietist Salafis from what I hear.

          Pipes warned of falling into the essentialist trap. He didn’t expand on that, and it’s hard to know what people mean when they invoke the dreaded “E” word. Nevertheless I think he means that the Koran isn’t unambiguous enough to allow only one interpretation. If that is what he means then I think it’s a defensible claim and that it is only the later stuff, the commentaries and sharia, which rigidify it, like the resin added to epoxy.

          Now, what if the commentaries and the sharia didn’t exist, and the other extraneous things I mentioned above which convince me that the jihad verses were intended for all time? What would you have? I think something like the Old Testament accounts of Yahweh’s localised genocidal wars. Can you think of any of the jihad verses which in themselves unambiguously mandate eternal application? As far as I can make out they could all be read as a warlord’s motivational speeches to his troops in particular military campaigns. There’s nothing in 9:5 or 9:29 that says “everywhere and for all time”.

          Even with 8:39 “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah…” the standard translations say nothing about everywhere and forever. The verse could be read as being fulfilled when Mohammed marched into the Kaaba and destroyed the 360 other gods.

          It took Hilali and Khan, the Saudi government’s own translators, to turn it into “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]…”

          All this is intended to defend Pipes from your claim that he holds theological views which I don’t think he does, but also to argue that this contextual/timeless distinction is more complicated than it appears, and a source of confusion which I would like to see real experts address.

        • Wellington says

          May 5, 2016 at 3:13 pm

          Thank you, ECAW, for your reply. You argued your position well, though I don’t wax nearly as sanguine as you do about the Koran eventually being no more prescriptive than the Old Testament. Furthermore, I would restate what I wrote above and that is that Sharia is very dependent on the Koran, in fact on the Koran more than any other single source and thus I would contend that being against the violent elements in Sharia translates to being against the immutable words of the Koran.

          Do I concede you could be right? Yes I do and I admit that Pipes’ opposition to a great deal of Sharia does not per se mean that he thinks the violent verses in the Koran are only applicable to the seventh century but, damn, it comes awful close to this. And, as Robert Spencer has regularly asked, where are all those moderate Muslims out there making it crystal clear they are against much of Sharia being applied to modern life? Their silence is deafening actually and, moreover, and as I have stated many times at JW, Islam is a totalitarian ideology, as both Bertrand Russell and Winston Churchill in their own ways indicated about a century ago, and there is no reforming a totalitarian ideology. It fact, excuse the pun, but I would call it a pipe dream.

        • ECAW says

          May 5, 2016 at 3:50 pm

          Thanks for your reply Wellington. What a civilised conversation!

          I want to make clear that I personally think, like you, that the jihad verses are intended for all time and that Islam is unreformable and a totalitarian ideology. Also I think that the Koran is prescriptive and in no way equivalent to the OT.

          It is just that the things that convince me are external to the Koran. I can understand why people who have only read the Koran, and think the Koran is the only Islamic scripture, could accept the contextual version, deceptively encouraged by the likes of Mehdi Hasan etc

        • ECAW says

          May 5, 2016 at 4:12 pm

          By the way, have you come across these? They made a big impression on me regarding Mohammed’s intentions:

          http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Invitations_to_Islam_Prior_to_Violence

        • Wellington says

          May 5, 2016 at 5:13 pm

          Thank you too, ECAW, for the civilized back-and-forth. Also, thank you for that link. It’s pertinent to say the least. Best to you and yours.

  11. ich says

    May 5, 2016 at 7:44 am

    thank you robert

    I need to start this course from scratch

    looking forward to it

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

  • OLD GUY on Al-Qaeda Calls on Jihadis to Kill Non-Muslims With Poisoned Coronavirus Masks
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Michael Copeland on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Michael Copeland on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Westman on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West

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.