“Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel tweeted this afternoon: ‘I strongly condemn the attack at Charleroi. My thoughts are with the victims, their loved ones and the police. We are following the situation very closely.'”
These weak, tepid, pro-forma responses are increasingly embarrassing. Who cares if Charles Michel condemns the attack? Was there ever any doubt that the Prime Minister of Belgium would condemn an attack on two Belgian police officers? Who cares if his thoughts are with the victims, their loved ones, and the police? What are his thoughts going to accomplish? Who cares if he is following the situation? The big unanswered question is, What is he going to do to prevent this from happening again? And the answer is: nothing. Nothing at all, except import more jihadis and get ready for the next jihad attack so that he can issue another condemnation.
“BREAKING NEWS: Man yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’ attacks police officers with machete in Belgium,” by Dion Dassanayake and Nick Gutteridge, Express, August 6, 2016:
A MAN shouting “Allahu Akbar” has attacked and wounded two police officers with a machete in Belgium this afternoon.
A man approached the male and female officer outside a police station in the city of Charleroi, south of Brussels, and set upon them with the blade.
He was then shot and wounded by a third officer nearby and taken into custody alive, but according to Belgian French TV station RTBF he has since died of his injuries.
It is understood that the female officer suffered “bad” injuries to her face, whilst her male co-worker was not so seriously injured.
A police source said: “She was rushed to hospital and is in a particularly bad way.”
This afternoon police in Charleroi tweeted: “Two police officers injured by machete in front of police by someone shouting Allah Akbar.
“Individual was shot but is alive.”
Witnesses said they heard gunshots at around 4pm local time near the Charleroi police station. The area has been sealed off and armed officers are at the scene.
Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel tweeted this afternoon: “I strongly condemn the attack at Charleroi. My thoughts are with the victims, their loved ones and the police. We are following the situation very closely.”…

ECAW says
Any speculation on the motive yet?
August West says
It is an inexplicable increase in crime.
What is needed is Machete Control!
10 day waiting periods on Machete purchases, a regulation mandating shorter blade lengths and registration of all Machete owners will help.
I hear that Belgium is also considering a “dull Machete” mandate whereby it will be illegal to sharpen a Machete.
Might need to confiscate all Machetes.
Clearly any implication or insinuation that Islam is at fault in any way is ridiculous.
SpiritOf1683 says
So now we have
machete control
truck control
gun control
knife control
fertilizer control
donkey control (they’ve used donkey bombs)
Has anything been left out?
JawsV says
Here’s the motive: ISLAM.
Westman says
Another case of “mental illness” that caused the poor thug to cry out “Aloha Snackbar”. How could anyone possibly suspect a motive connected to Islam? That would embarass some Muslims, and of course, their tender feelings are far more important than any victim’s suffering. /sarc.
http://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/b5a1a8fiuaes1bb.jpg?w=952&h=636
Ex-muslim says
Nothing to worry here as this just the deranged actions of some mentally sick individual.
Kay says
All the liberals and elites, whoever they are that support this invasion, aka immigration, should see her face and be asked
What if it was you? Your daughter? Sister? Mom? Cousin?
I’m outraged because our society keeps acting like it is far away and doesn’t matter.
It’s near. It matters. She matters.
ECAW says
test1
Phobic-ist says
Mentally ill lone wolf who had nothing to do with islam.
Ex-muslim says
Yeah, a mentally ill, lone wolve who was ‘bullied’ in school!
Westman says
Wait till the BBC gets through with it, he won’t even be a Muslim and it will have been caused by Belgians who didn’t understand his suffering.
Michael Laudahn says
Also from Belgium: Obama competitor Koen Geens (CD&V party) bows and scrapes before a local moroccan imam:
https://ejbron.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/belgie-minister-koen-geens-cdv-buigt-diep-voor-marokkaanse-imam/ (photo)
gravenimage says
*Ugh*. More disgusting kowtowing.
Kay says
Repugnant. Who taught him that?
Angemon says
What mosque did he go to? How about his family?
Ex-muslim says
He was a mentally ill kid who was bullied at school!
Angemon says
That answers none of my questions.
gravenimage says
Good question, Angemon. “Lone wolves” seldom, in reality, act alone.
Angemon says
We should start calling them “rats” or “cockroaches” – seeing one is a sign that are many more hiding.
JCD1974 says
Poor guy, must be depressed.
7%Solution says
No evidence of “radicalization” here. . .except the machete-wielding Muslim screaming “Allahu Akbar” and going on a rampage.
Ex-muslim says
@ 7%Solution
Yeah, “Allahu Akbar is just Like Christian Saying Thank God”.
Christianblood says
Good one, (Ex-muslim)!
99.99% of Western societies, academia, media and even military agree with the clueless neo-con John Mcain that the islamic war cry of “allahu akbar”
is like a Christian saying thank God etc. They all believe the same nonsense!
Angemon says
99.99%?
Citation needed.
gravenimage says
Actually, no one else has said this that I know of.
Walter Sieruk says
That Muslim /jihadist attack on the police in Belgium was as awful as it was wicked. Moreover,
in the Bible in Romans 13: 1, 2 it is written “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resist resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” [N.K.J.V.] In addition to all this, in verses 3 and 4 in this same chapter of the Epistle of Romans, with emphasis on verse 4 it actually refers to governmental law enforcement officers as a type of “ministers of God” Therefore, it stand to reason that attacking,fighting, shooting and murdering police officers is really attacking,fighting, shooting and murdering ministers of God. How evil, how heinously wicked, how demonic, how monstrous. What and affront to all that is decent, good and right. Actually, what other actions may really be expected for those violent Muslims who are ,very much ,influenced by non-watered down, hard core Islam ?
Alvin Woods says
Is the attacker Norweigan?
gravenimage says
Yes–this is what was said–ludicrously–about the Somali Muslim who was responsible for the knife attack in London. He had lived in Norway before his family moved to Britain when he was five.
Of course, he was never either Norwegian *or* British, but just a member of the bloody Ummah.
Georg says
“What is he going to do to prevent this from happening again?”
Hot potato.
umbra says
He is going to allow belgium to be fully islamised.
Nuria says
Make no mistake – this has nothing whatsoever to do with islam. This individual was probably bullied as a child, and subject to repeteated racist/xenophobic taunts.
I have no doubt he was unemployed, had financial difficulties and had been recently abandoned by his wife or girlfriend.
In addition to this, as there are so few mosques around, particularly in Belgium, he probably had a long trek every Friday during which he had to put up with the presence of so many kuffar.
Oh, and he had mental problems, as a result of it all and had quickly become radicalised on the internet.
Have I left anything out?
Ex-muslim says
That explains it all. Thanks Nuria!
Even your beautiful name (Nuria) says it all. It means: The illuminatoress!
You really illuminated it for us!
Dennis says
Yes you did. He was probably studying to become a Quaker. You know how bloody the are with their rage against Methodists and Congregatioalists! HAH!
sencit says
They wouldn’t allow him to make a clock?
Alvin Woods says
Seems a bit racist to shoot him dead? What about his welfare payments???
Eureka!! Fill his place with another refugee!
There, problem solved.
Richard Paulsen says
I condemn every future terrorattack against any not-muslim person by muslim maniacs.
Just in case.
nicu says
Happened in Germany several times : but never any report about it !
Johan Elzinga says
Well, the authorities are trying to prevent more attacks by asking the people in the neighborhoud to stay inside. Sure that helps.
dumbledoresarmy says
Is the neighbourhood – where this attack happened – majority-Islamic or majority-Infidel?
If majority-Muslim, then imposing a *curfew* *would* prevent more attacks, at least on police and other representatives of the Belgian state… because it would keep the potential attackers (i.e. Muslims!) off the streets.
So if the area is heavily Islamised, telling *them* to ‘stay inside’ is a good move.
However: it’s a *bad* move if it’s a majority-Infidel area. What should happen, if *that* is the case – most of the people in the suburb or ‘quarter’ are NOT Muslim – is not to tell the Infidel inhabitants to stay inside, but to make it safer for them to *be* outside, by bringing in a lot *more* police, and the army as well, to patrol visibly and regularly, day and night. *Especially* on Fridays, and paying special attention to soft targets such as churches and nursery schools. Encourage the Infidel inhabitants to band together and look out for one another – e.g. groups of parents *with dogs* escort children to and from school; able-bodied people escort the frail elderly. Islam has a bully mind; therefore, a show of superior force and superior numbers might cause them to back off.
Alvin Woods says
Imposing a curfew would mean imposing a dictatorship or police state. Since the EU is far left the only way they could enact this would be to declare this new police action as a nationwide policy, affecting all not a minority.
I also could not imagine in this political climate the governments of the EU kowtowing towing to the nationalists or far right.
The far left *would go bloody apeshit* if the government suddenly declared martial law against the muslim community.
*it aint ever gonna happen DD*. Wishful thinking but any curfew would mean that *they* have totally won because we’d all be *in the shit* not just their patsy muslim dopes.
gravenimage says
Belgium: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” attacks police officers with machete
…………………………
I just heard this on my local news radio station. These horrors are becoming daily occurrences. My God…
WillG says
No tasering, no expensive trials, no do-gooder lawyers fighting to get him off, no prison costs, no danger to innocent people in the future….show the way, Belgium.
Alvin Woods says
Willg
Sorry to burst your bubble but the Belgian authorities will siimply replace him with another refugee
WillG says
Let’s hope not, Alvin. I’d like to think those days are past. The Belgians, like the French, have reached the limit of their tolerance of their Muslim populations and are in no mood to accept any more, “refugees” or not. Muslims especially hate them because (unlike cowardly Britain) they don’t let them have their own way, like when both dared to ban the veil. But only time will tell…
mike says
Bullied at school, mental health issues, marginalized.
Like the recent attack in London – this will detour into a discussion on the shortcomings of Belgian mental health funding.
Iftikhar Ahmad says
What do you expect from a Muslim youth who was the product of western schooling? Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. Muslim children must develop their cultural, linguistic and spiritual identities before they are exposed to wider world, otherwise, they would be lost in western jungle. There will never be an end to extremism and terrorism as long as Muslim children keep on attending British schooling with non-Muslim teachers.
dumbledoresarmy says
If Britain is such an unsuitable environment for your poor lil Muslim children, then why did Muslims bring themselves and their children to Britain in the first place?
(Of course, you knwo damn well that the intention is to conquer Britain for Islam; don’t bother denying it, Mr ‘Iftikhar Ahmed”).
But the simplest way to ensure your Muslim children have a Muslim-immersion education – total brainwashing job – would be to LEAVE BRITAIN. Pack up yourselves and your kids and buzz off, back to the dar al islam where everything is all Islam, all the time.
Go! Get out! You’re not needed in historically-NON-MUSLIm Britain and you’re not wanted.
Leave! Go back to the countries that Islam has already turned into wastelands of desolation and delusion.
You won’t be missed.
Kay says
BS
and I hope no one listens to your bs.
ECAW says
Talk about “arse about face”!
I can think of 57 places idealy suited to providing the kind of education you think Muslim children need. Check them out.
Jack Diamond says
Iftikar Ahmad must be one of those Muslim comedians on the “Allah Made Me Funny” tour.
Muslims learn extremism and terrorism from being in British schools with non-Muslim teachers! How did we not see this? Mr. Chips is to blame, he’s the one getting “Allahu-akbar” all wrong.
Obviously, then there shouldn’t be any “terrorists” (orthodox Muslims carrying out the obligation to wage jihad) emerging from Muslim schools with Muslim teachers. There shouldn’t be any terrorist leaders coming out of Islamic schools like al-Azhar, or the madrassas of Pakistan, or a place like the Islamic University of Baghdad. Unless if the “extremism” you fear is really just Muslim kids being exposed to infidels and their ways (were you forced to move there? are you forced to stay there?) and that Muslim kids need to be isolated so they do not assimilate, so they are tempted away from Islam, and so they can live out the hijrah-colonization of the much hated and rejected land of kufr, like good Muslims.
Kay says
Thanks Jack, for a good laugh. I will try to remember it when I hear baseless accusations of discrimination that hope to result in a response of guilt and capitulation.
Alvin Woods says
Hopefully thats your real name mr ahmed.
Added you to the list!
gravenimage says
Oh, yes–he’s a real person. He is a Muslim “educator” in Britain, intent on getting British taxpayers to fund supremacist Madrasses. Here’s the “London School of Islamics”:
http://www.lsi.com.temporary-domain.com/
gravenimage says
More claptrap from the vile Iftikhar Ahmad:
What do you expect from a Muslim youth who was the product of western schooling?
………………………….
Notice that the meretricious Iftikhar Ahmad does not say why it is not Infidels who are waging violent Jihad after attending Western schools–just his fellow Muslims.
Also, given how many of these Jihadists have turned out to be new immigrants, his assertion that they attended Western schools could well be false, in any case.
More:
Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. Muslim children must develop their cultural, linguistic and spiritual identities before they are exposed to wider world, otherwise, they would be lost in western jungle.
………………………….
And by the time the “filthy Infidels” realize that there is *more* Jihad terror after Muslims are taught it in these Madrasses, it will bee too late–just like Ahmad wants.
And we tax-payers will be funding our own destruction. More demands for Jizya.
More:
There will never be an end to extremism and terrorism as long as Muslim children keep on attending British schooling with non-Muslim teachers.
………………………….
Just laughable. It is not British schools–or any other Western schools–that teach violent Jihad. It is, in fact, *Muslim* schools that teach Jihad. Moreover, it is Islam itself that teaches Jihad.
Ahmad does not explain, of course, why it is that Muslims all over the world–including many who have never set foot in a Western classroom–are waging violent Jihad.
It also does not explain why Infidels who attend civilized Western schools are not out attacking the police with machetes.
But this is Ahmad’s entire shtick–to get British credulous British Infidels to pay for their own destruction.
Demsci says
Yes! Knowledgeable good answer,Gravenimage! Informative! Gratifying. All of it.
I doubt Iftikar will respond. But maybe one or more bright young Muslim might be interested in this altercation.
To him/ her we say; Don’t be sad that Islam get’s bashed so conclusively.
If you look for them, plenty of BETTER alternatives to Islam exist, even Better communities than Islamic ones, both for individuals as for the benefit of whole societies.
We don’t emphasize what Muslims will lose when they leave Islam, but how they can WIN a better life, society, how they can be promoted, upgraded up from Islam.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Demsci. Always good to hear from you.
Allah Snackbar says
Got an idea.
Why don’t we all have a protest with this –
#muslimlivesmatter
How DARE they shoot at him!!
No, wait, hold on, maybe we should think some more about that.
Have you seen the British Guardian??
“Belgium Assailant dies after machete attack on police officers”
DAMN – got to be some racism in there, eh?
“The force published a tweet alleging that the attacker shouted “Allahu Akbar”
And maybe that force, you Leftist Guardian scumbags, are in a position to say that – and YOU are NOT in a position to undermine what they say.
jat says
In looking for earlier precedents of the modern islamic suicide attack I stumbled upon the Juramentado, the mujahed suicide attack class of the Phillipine Moro indians, They were muslim youth picked by the imams to fight against christian Filipinos, Japanese, Spanish and Americans, having been ritually prepared, got into religious frenzy before attacking their unsuspecting enemies with swords, killing as many as they could… much resembling the style of recent attacks with cutting/hacking tools.
The American response was, beside an upgrade to 45s and pump action buckshot, to ultimately bury their bodies together with dead pigs, wich proved to become an effective deterrance.
John Billings says
The whole problem is, these Muslim savages are following a medieval code of “ethics” and law that has no place in the modern world. So, let them have their primitive religion. However, every single one of them must formally renounce Shari’a in favor of following enlightened, Western law (such as the US Constitution). Any Muslim who does not abide by Western law will be deported.
Iftikhar Ahmad says
Jihad is not terrorism as you think it has specific rules and teaches..Islam is against hatred except in some special cases..Muslims aren’t allowed to kill an unbeliever except if breaks some laws..Muslims doesn’t abuse women..Muslim treats women fairly with mercy and respect that’s why many European women especially in Germany convert to Islam..Islam may seem to ban your freedom but in fact .. It organizes your life to make you happier ask Muslims if you want about these issue..and finally the spreading of gays would lead to real disasters.
There is a positive proof how the British press have so successfully directed the British people to believe their own web of lies and deceit.
Have any of you experts actually read the Quran? No, of course you haven’t. You have only read the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph, haven’t you. There is as much idiocy and ignorance on both sides of the “war” that is so desired by the weapons manufacturers etc…”.
There is even more proof that people have no idea whatsoever of what they speak. Read the book, not the nonsense written by people with self-interest to ‘sell’ to you.
The Qur’an is not only a book of revelation but a book of history which recounts incidents and important events.
Those verses which talk of fighting and responding with force were revealed during a crisis when the Muslims were compelled to fight and defend their cause. The hardened polytheists of Arabia would accept nothing other than the expulsion of the Muslims or their reversion to paganism and who repeatedly broke their treaties, that the Muslims were ordered to treat in the same way – to fight them or expel them.
Such verses are no worse than a quote of any leader or General throughout the world having to lead his people during a conflict; you will quite easily find fiery speeches, quotes and rhetoric intended to motivate and inspire his people to defend themselves and to attack the enemy. These verses serve as a lesson to those who should encounter persecution, invasion or attack by others. The verses teach us that while it is morally right to defend ourselves, we must recognise the limits of war:
“Fight in God’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits: God does not love those who overstep the limits” – 2:190
“Slay them wherever you find them and expel them from where they expelled you; but persecution is worse than killing” – 2:191
Would you strip all history books of the quotes and incendiary speeches where Churchill called his people to arms? He also spoke of destroying his enemies and of casting fear into the hearts of the occupying “German forces” and it’s allies. How about historical quotes from the US despising the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbour?! There are many works of art, music, video games and literature which promote violence.
Any verse in the Qur’an pertaining to war is limited to a certain time and context, and does not inspire a Muslim today to go and kill every Jew or Christian just because the verse mentions them as our enemies once upon a time! But they do serve as a reminder and a lesson so that we know how to respond to oppression and violence when we are compelled to act.
ECAW says
Iftikhar – oddly enough I agree with you that “Any verse in the Qur’an pertaining to war is limited to a certain time and context” as I explain here:
https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/the-koran-is-innocent/
But the problem is that the Islamic tradition (comprising the Sira, the Hadiths, the Tafsirs and the various schools of Sharia) do not see it that way. They overwhelmingly interpret the war verses as sanctioning, even mandating, eternal global supremacism.
It is a routine piece of sleight of hand to say “That is not in the Koran” or “The Koran doesn’t mean that” relying on the fact that most non-Muslims know of nothing but the Koran. It is precisely because the majority of people here have researched the Islamic scriptures so intensively that we can see such deceptions a mile off
Or perhaps you can name some authoritative justifications for the contextual interpretation…and I mean authoritative, not Taha or Quilliam or Nawaz.
Kay says
Aside from slippery definitions of “persecution” and “defend”, there’s the awkward fact that the Koran is promoted as the words of a god, not a video game.
But for you, Iftikhar:
Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life
without cost.
Turn to Jesus, IA. He loves you and is waiting for you. His compassions are new every day.
ECAW says
I’ve just remembered the name:
http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/iftikhar-ahmad-says-islamise-uk-schools
There is no point responding as he never debates. He used to turn up on the EDL discussion board just to shoot and scoot.
gravenimage says
Yes–that’s the same Mohammedan, ECAW.
Jack Diamond says
You should ask for a refund from the “London School of Islamics.” Bad da’wa. Bad, bad da’wa.
gravenimage says
More from Iftikhar Ahmad:
Jihad is not terrorism as you think it has specific rules and teaches (sic)..
……………………………
Well, this is true. For instance, pious Muslims are only supposed to target Infidels and the “insufficiently Islamic”.
More:
Islam is against hatred except in some special cases..Muslims aren’t allowed to kill an unbeliever except if breaks some laws..
……………………………
Any unbelievers who are not living in submission to Islam are “breaks some laws”–so all the Kuffar in Britain are fair game.
More:
Muslims doesn’t abuse women..Muslim treats women fairly with mercy and respect
……………………………
Well, that’s true–if you fail to consider FGM, child marriage, forced marriage, summary divorce (the “Triple Talaq”), wife beating, and “Honor Killing” to be abusive–as pious Muslims of course do not.
More:
that’s why many European women especially in Germany convert to Islam..
……………………………
Actually, there are few converts to Islam–and most of these women are the same sorts who take up correspondence with convicted felons on death row.
More:
Islam may seem to ban your freedom but in fact .. It organizes your life to make you happier ask Muslims if you want about these issue..
……………………………
Well, it does “organize” your life–there are some dysfunctional people who need to be told what to do, how to go to the bathroom, and whom they should be slaughtering. Islam appeals to them. No doubt this is why it is so popular in prison, especially among the most violent offenders.
More:
and finally the spreading of gays would lead to real disasters.
……………………………
Bloody Jihad attacks in the streets? Not a problem. Non-violent gay people? “real disasters”…
More:
There is a positive proof how the British press have so successfully directed the British people to believe their own web of lies and deceit.
Have any of you experts actually read the Quran? No, of course you haven’t.
……………………………
What absolute claptrap. I’ve read the violent Qur’an–several times and in several different translations–as well as the Hadith and the Sira of Muhammed. So have many others here.
The implication that these violent texts would lead us to believe that Islam is peaceful is, of course, absurd.
More:
You have only read the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph, haven’t you.
……………………………
Well, no–see above.
But it seems that for anyone following the news that there are plenty of pious Muslims who believe that their own religion calls for violence–as in the story above.
If Iftikhar Ahmad was *really* upset by these “misunderstanders” of Islam, he would take it up with them, rather than hectoring the good Anti-Jihadists here.
More:
There is as much idiocy and ignorance on both sides of the “war” that is so desired by the weapons manufacturers etc…”.
……………………………
So–it’s the “weapons manufacturers” who have created violent Jihad? Odd, then, that so many Muslims kill with kitchen knives, pressure cookers, or–as in the story above–machetes.
Ahmad also does not explain how it is that Muslims have been waging violent Jihad to almost 1400 years now–long before modern weapons manufacturers ever existed.
More:
There is even more proof that people have no idea whatsoever of what they speak. Read the book, not the nonsense written by people with self-interest to ‘sell’ to you.
……………………………
You’re right: what about Ayats like Qur’an 9:5? What could be more peaceful than “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”? Indeed, everyone here who has not already read the foul Qur’an should do so.
More:
The Qur’an is not only a book of revelation but a book of history which recounts incidents and important events.
Those verses which talk of fighting and responding with force were revealed during a crisis when the Muslims were compelled to fight and defend their cause…
……………………………
Not only is this in many cases false–often it was Muhammed and his thug “companions” who were the aggressors–but the Qur’an is *not* purely descriptive. Instead, it is *prescriptive*, and enjoins Muslims to target the Infidels and violently spread Islam *for all time*. This is why so many Muslims are waging violent Jihad on the texts and tenets of the Qur’an and model of the “Prophet” today.
More:
The verses teach us that while it is morally right to defend ourselves, we must recognise the limits of war:
“Fight in God’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits: God does not love those who overstep the limits” – 2:190
……………………………
Yes–but beheading entire tribes and raping and enslaving the women and children is not “overstepping” the limits set by “Allah”, so this is really rather meaningless…
More:
“Slay them wherever you find them and expel them from where they expelled you; but persecution is worse than killing” – 2:191
……………………………
And what is “persecution” in Islam? Why, it is doing anything that presents an obstacle to the spread of Islam–such as allowing Infidels to live freely.
More:
Would you strip all history books of the quotes and incendiary speeches where Churchill called his people to arms? He also spoke of destroying his enemies and of casting fear into the hearts of the occupying “German forces” and it’s (sic) allies. How about historical quotes from the US despising the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbour?!
……………………………
What rot. Not only were the Allies acting defensively, but neither Churchill or anyone else gave open-ended orders to attack others for all time, as did the foul “Prophet”.
More:
There are many works of art, music, video games and literature which promote violence.
……………………………
Just grimly laughable. No one is murdering people in the streets in the name of great art or Pokemon Go. Would that that were true of Islam…
Moreover, it is not civilized Infidels who are banning art and games–Muslims do this.
More:
Any verse in the Qur’an pertaining to war is limited to a certain time and context, and does not inspire a Muslim today to go and kill every Jew or Christian just because the verse mentions them as our enemies once upon a time! But they do serve as a reminder and a lesson so that we know how to respond to oppression and violence when we are compelled to act.
……………………………
And yet, Jihadists regularly cite such verses as the reason they murder Christians and Jews. Why doesn’t an “educator” such as Ahmad teach them where they have gotten their peaceful faith so very, very wrong?
ECAW says
gravenimage – an elegant dissection as always but I have to challenge you on one point, that the Koran ‘enjoins Muslims to target the Infidels and violently spread Islam *for all time* ‘. It does not. The war verses really are context specific. It is the later scriptures which started all that “for all time” malarkey.
Please reread 9:1-4. They make it quite clear which set of unbelievers Allah is concerned with in that passage, and therefore which subset of unbelievers are to be slain wherever they are found…and it doesn’t include you or me.
Can you produce anything in the Koran which actually says, or means, “for all time”?
Angemon says
Which part limits 9:29 to a specific time and space?
ECAW says
Angemon – 9:29 gone into here (also 8:39 and 48:28):
https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/the-koran-is-innocent/
Does this mean you have abandoned 9:5?
Angemon says
9:28 offers the context behind 9:29 – muslims can attack Jews and Christians to make up for the loss of income caused by not allowing polytheists to make their pilgrimages to Mecca. 9:30-31 offer the justification to attack someone who was lauded as also being monotheists – associating others with allah, be it Jesus or Ezra (which, for clarity sake, is a lie levered against Jews). Was that simply meant to Jews and Christians in a specific space and time frame? Because Christians nowadays still believe Jesus is Lord.
ECAW says
Thanks for that Angemon. 9:30 certainly looks like a genuine implicit bridge between the decidedly parochial looking jihad verses and the universalised later tradition. Someone else brought up 33:21, the one about Mo’s example, as another. Any others gratefully received.
ECAW says
Angemon – Re 9:30, on closer examination what looked like a genuinely universal statement “Allah fighteth against them [ie Jews and Christians] turns out to be very local and the clue is in the bit about Ezra. Christians nowadays still believe that Jesus is Lord (though none in the Medina/Mecca area) but there are no Jews who believe that Ezra is the son of God. Why? According to Robert Spencer’s Blogging the Qur’an it is part of the Islamic tradition that they only existed in Medina…until Mohammed fought and destroyed them on Allah’s behalf. Therefore mission accomplished.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/blogging-the-quran-sura-9-repentance-verses-30-49?doing_wp_cron=1471245482.9695100784301757812500
Jack Diamond says
In what historical or theological “context” is the Verse of the Sword (or 9:29) limited to a certain historical time and place? When has Islam, either the behavior of Muhammad and his successors, or in the consensus of its scholars, interpreted it thus?
The Qur’an doesn’t have internal contextual references, there is no Qur’an-only reasoning in Islam. There are other, similar verses in the Qur’an, that provide what the Qur’an as a whole might teach, along with the authentic sunnah traditions, the actions of Muhammad and his followers, the commentaries of the classical scholars, and the encyclopedias and manuals of Islamic law, to provide context.
Muhammad had become ruler of Arabia and was no longer going to tolerate “idolatry” at all. 9:1 resolves an earlier agreement with the Quraysh, he gives them 4 months to accept Islam or face the sword. Then treaties with some other pagan tribes are given different extensions. The context of 9:1-28 is Muhammad’s desire to obliterate the polytheists from Islamic lands. Then he moves in 9:29, to reveal the final status of monotheist Jews & Christians.
To assert the Verse of the Sword applied only to the pagan Quraysh, who disappeared 14 centuries ago, is to ignore the behavior of Muhammad and his successors afterward to all the other disbelievers (convert or die, or the 3 choices), and the larger context of similar Qur’anic calls to fighting the disbelievers and idolators, and the entire corpus of scholarship and jurisprudence. Even if you were to prove your point, “what difference does it make” against the weight of that?
The context of 9:5 is that it is part of the theology of jihad. Sir William Muir writes:
“The passage just quoted (9:1-7) completed the system of Mahomet so far as its relations with idolatrous tribes and races were concerned. The few cases of truce excepted, uncompromising warfare was declared against them all. No trace of idolatry was to survive within the expanding circle of the influence of Islam. And as Islam was the universal faith intended for all mankind, so its mission was now plainly set forth to be the absolute annihilation of idolatry throughout the world.”
Ibn Kathir writes: “This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.”
Which is why the context of all of Surah Nine is: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah.”
ECAW says
Jack – My challenge to gravenimage is solely and specifically on her assertion that the Koran ‘enjoins Muslims to target the Infidels and violently spread Islam *for all time* ‘
Looking at the text it clearly does not. It takes a fair amount of interpretation by scholars starting 120 years later to add the global. eternal supremacism. The text of 9:1-29 says nothing about anyone outside the local area and squabbles over control of Mecca and the mosque there, the “inviolable place of worship”. Check out Robert Spencer’s Blogging the Quran. He is quite clear about what the text says and refers to but also adds what the later scholars made of it.
Whenever I raise this I always get back a whole load of stuff about what Ibn Kathir etc thought about it. That is all irrelevant to the point I am trying to make.
You ask what difference it makes. None at all to Muslims who buy the whole Islamic tradition and none at all to anyone here or even to me as I entirely agree with the overwhelming importance of the Islamic tradition, against which the historical reality of both Mohammed and the Koran are unimportant, being shrouded in darkness as they are. For my money the Koran looks like the adventures of a provincial warlord (not that it’s important at all). In his book “Did Muhammed Exist” Robert Spencer argues the case for it starting life as a Christian lectionary!
But there is one group of people to whom my point is potentially important and that is non-Muslims who have been told that the evidence for Islamic supremacism is there to be found in the Koran. I have found that they take one look at sura 9 and say “it’s not here, therefore you must be wrong about Islamic supremacism”. When debating with such people, trying to convince them that Islam is indeed implacably supremacist, I now reply “You are right but there is much more to Islam than the Koran. You also need to understand the Sira, Hadiths, Tafsirs and Sharia to appreciate why Islam is such a deadly threat to every non-Muslim”.
gravenimage says
Thank you for your kind words, ECAW.
With the greatest respect, I agree with Jack. I must disagree with you regarding Sura 9:1-4–which I have read many times. These Ayats refer to the “polytheists” and “disbelievers”, which are *very much* both still with us.
More to the point, *Muslims* believe this. I would venture to say that everyone here–with the exception of the Muslim trolls–is regarded as a “polytheist”, a “disbeliever”, or both.
Note that these passages do not refer to specific tribes or individuals–just to non-Muslims. You are right that the Qur’an does not contain the words, “for all time”–but I don’t believe it has to to be interpreted as such.
Perhaps one *could* interpret these passages as time-specific–but pious Muslims–the ones now murdering us–do not. I wish these passages *were* interpreted by Muslims as merely historical–the world would be a much safer place.
Robert Spencer makes the case, here, that Muslims regard the violent verses of the Qur’an as good for all time:
“Video: Robert Spencer on the Qur’an’s violent verses”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/05/video-robert-spencer-on-the-qurans-violent-verses
As always, ECAW, good to talk to you. Hope you are well.
ECAW says
But which polytheists and unbelievers gravenimage? The text looks utterly clear to me.
Bangs head against wall.
Nevertheless, ATB
Jack Diamond says
I get your point. But those non-Muslims who don’t understand that Shari’a=Islam, Islam=Shari’a probably don’t want to understand. The Qur’an-only business is specious. Muslims arguing it are either liars or have their Own Private Islam. Any Imam would point to Qur’an 4:59: “O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you.” Interpreted as meaning the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the Tradition. There is a reason Zudhi Jasser doesn’t have millions of Muslim followers. Just infidel ones.
And it isn’t just what Ibn Kathir thought, it’s the example of Muhammad and the Rightly Guided successors (according to the canon), how they acted upon, say, 9:29 and made it the institutional basis for dhimmitude and into marching orders to kill, convert, or subjugate disbelievers. Fight them till there is no more fitna is also from the Qur’an.
Ibn Hishram’s “Biography of the Apostle” says “Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him ‘Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them…if they refuse, fight them.’ They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad (who said) ‘had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under you feet.'” This convert or die, or convert, pay the jizya, or die business was lived out on the bloody ground. And today, every jihadi group regard these same Qur’anic verses as open-ended commands from Allah. The tie-in with the Tradition is a marriage made in Hell, probably (based on these many centuries) an unbreakable bond, at any rate, there is no solo scriptura equivalent in Islam to seriously challenge it.
gravenimage says
ECAW wrote:
But which polytheists and unbelievers gravenimage? The text looks utterly clear to me.
Bangs head against wall.
Nevertheless, ATB
…………………………..
ECAW, I don’t think Muslims just apply these verses to the Meccans and Sabeans (or whatever “polytheists and unbelievers” from Muhammed’s time you’d like to cite).
There *are* Muslim Taqiyya artists who make just that point. Here is one typical one:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2014/03/04/quran-95-sword-verse/
It never says what they are doing to convince *other Muslims* of this, though.
And that is the rub–while you may believe me obtuse, remember that you don’t have to convince *me* that the Qur’an does not have open-ended calls to violence. The truth is that, since I am a civilized Infidel, I am not going to wage violent Jihad whether Qur’an 9:1-4 refers purely to dark ages pagan Arabian tribes *or* to unbelievers of all times in perpetuity.
Unfortunately, pious Muslims tend to believe the latter:
“Islamic State: ‘Allah has revealed Islam to be the religion of the sword, and the evidence for this is…profuse’”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/02/islamic-state-allah-has-revealed-islam-to-be-the-religion-of-the-sword-and-the-evidence-for-this-is-profuse
ECAW, If you think that they–and all other Jihadists–are “misunderstanding” their faith, you can take it up with them. But *please* stay safe if you intend to do so.
All the best to you, as well.
ECAW says
An excerpt from the yet to be published Jihad Watchers’ Koran, with footnotes:
9:1. Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
[The idolaters referred to are the local polytheists with whom Mohammed had previously made a treaty]
9:2. Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance).
[The four months refer to the local custom at the time of four sacred months in which warfare was prohibited]
9:3. And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve,
[The idolaters referred to are the same group as referred to in verse 1]
9:4. Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).
[The idolaters referred to here are those of the idolaters referred to in verse 1 who have kept their side of the bargain]
9:5. Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[The idolaters referred to here are all idolaters everywhere and for all time – obviously. Anyone who thinks it refers merely to those of the idolaters who have not kept their side of the bargain needs to ignore what their eyes tell them and refer to the views of various religious fanatics with their own axes to grind written down hundreds of years later]
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
gravenimage –
No, Muslims certainly don’t apply these verses only to the local unbelievers of Mohammed’s time. That is because they are reflecting the body of the Islamic tradition rather than merely the text of the Koran.
Your site is not being deceptive when they point out that the text is context bound. Their deception comes when they then go on to claim, or imply, that therefore Islam is not implacably and violently supremacist. I left this comment (currently awaiting moderation – ho ho):
‘It’s a shame that the great mediaeval commentators and the various schools of sharia don’t take the same view, but they don’t do they?
For instance Ibn Khaldun:
“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force”.’
I don’t think you are being any more obtuse than I was for three years when I took the relevant verses as clear indicators of Islamic supremacism. It was doing the colouring in for this:
http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com
that forced me to spend time among the jihad verses and I noticed that a certain element was missing. And then I debated with a non-Muslim defender of Islam and I realised (painfully) that I could not disagree with her on this point.
I do not think that jihadis (of both the violent and stealth kinds) are misunderstanding their faith, just the text of the Koran to which the later tradition added the effective ingredient of supremacism. Have you noticed that the further you get in time from the Koran (ie Sira, Hadiths, Tafsirs and Sharia) the more pronounced the supremacism becomes, up until the gates of Ijtihad slammed shut and the whole thing remained preserved in aspic?
I have no intention of attempting to persuade jihadis, or Muslims in general, that their faith need not be unavoidably supremacist. My only desire, not that I am in a position to do much about it, is to persuade non-Muslims that Islam as a whole is unavoidably supremacist despite first appearances.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Jack – I agree with everything you have written in your latest post (I think), particularly this:
“The tie-in with the Tradition is a marriage made in Hell, probably (based on these many centuries) an unbreakable bond”
It reminds me of something I heard on one of those TV health programmes about obesity ie eating sugar by itself is not particularly appealing nor is eating cream but put the two together and the combination can be addictive.
Likewise the Koran and the rest of the later tradition which magnifies it. Taken by itself, I don’t think the Koran would inspire endless warfare on Allah’s behalf but taken with all the rest, applied throughout childhood with punishments and the fear of hell for independent thinking, the vile brew seems to be mighty effective.
Angemon says
+1
Iftikhar Ahmad says
Allahu Akbar is an Arabic phrase which translates directly as “Allah is Greater” but is often mistranslated in the media as “God is great”
Muslims and Arabic speaking Orthodox Christians recite it as an expression of their faith
The phrase serves as a reminder that no matter the situation or emotion, God is always greater
It is one of the most commonly used phrases in Islam and has a multitude of meanings
Uttered during ritualistic prayer where Muslims face the Kaaba in Mecca
Recited in the call to prayer heard from the minarets of mosques
It is considered a form of applause and can be spoken in union as a way of showing approval
Said in times of distress, to express joy, following births or deaths and during Islamic festivals
When 18-year-old Reshma Begum was pulled alive from rubble, after the Savar building collapse in Bangladesh, rescuers cried “Allahu Akbar” to commemorate the miracle
Prominent on the flag of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan
This peaceful phrase has been warped by Islamic extremists
Terrorists have shouted it before committing mass murder – linking it to fear and destruction
Suspected 9/11 hijack ringleader Mohamed Atta wrote in a document found in his luggage: “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”
Witnesses of the Paris attacks reported hearing several attackers shouting the term
Allegedly first used as a battle cry during the Battle of Badr by the Prophet Muhammad
Used during the Iranian revolution in 1979 by protesters
It was shouted during the Arab Spring by demonstrators
Was the name of a marching song for the Egyptian Army during the Suez Canal War in 1956
From 1977 to 2011 it was the national anthem of the Libyan Arab Republic, chosen by Muammar Gaddafi
IA
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
ECAW says
“This peaceful phrase has been warped by Islamic extremists”
“Allegedly first used as a battle cry during the Battle of Badr by the Prophet Muhammad”
That Mohammed… the original Islamic extremist.
Baucent says
“Allahu Akbar is an Arabic phrase which translates directly as “Allah is Greater” but is often mistranslated in the media as “God is great”
In the context of a jihad operation “Allahu Akbar” is a supremacist statement, meaning our god is greater than your god. That’s why it’s a mandatory war cry by all jihadist. It’s symbolic of Islam’s victory over Christianity and all other infidels.
Singh the Sikh says
No need to read the Koran. Muslim attitudes and
behavior worldwide, on a daily basis, is enough evidence about what the the religion of peace is all about.
Singh the Sikh says
A Muslim rapist was reported to have shouted Allah hu Akbar while the rape was in full process. No doubt following the example of the rapist prophet, who on Islam is the perfect man.
gravenimage says
Yet more from Iftikhar Ahmad:
Allahu Akbar is an Arabic phrase which translates directly as “Allah is Greater” but is often mistranslated in the media as “God is great”
Muslims and Arabic speaking Orthodox Christians recite it as an expression of their faith
The phrase serves as a reminder that no matter the situation or emotion, God is always greater
……………………………….
Well, the first part of this is accurate–“Allahu Akbar!” *does* mean “Allah is Greater”–but the rest is claptrap.
This does not mean that “Allah” is greater than any situation–it means that “Allah” is greater than any other god. It is a violently supremacist ejaculation.
And while Arabic-speaking Christians *do* use the term “Allah” for “God”, they *do not* say “Allahu Akbar”.
More:
It is one of the most commonly used phrases in Islam and has a multitude of meanings
Uttered during ritualistic prayer where Muslims face the Kaaba in Mecca
Recited in the call to prayer heard from the minarets of mosques
It is considered a form of applause and can be spoken in union as a way of showing approval
Said in times of distress, to express joy, following births or deaths and during Islamic festivals
……………………………….
These are all forms of asserting the supremacy of “Allah” over others.
More:
Prominent on the flag of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan
……………………………….
Swords are often prominent on the flags of Muslim nations, as well. That does not make them “peaceful”.
More:
This peaceful phrase has been warped by Islamic extremists
Terrorists have shouted it before committing mass murder – linking it to fear and destruction
Suspected 9/11 hijack ringleader Mohamed Atta wrote in a document found in his luggage: “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”
Witnesses of the Paris attacks reported hearing several attackers shouting the term
Allegedly first used as a battle cry during the Battle of Badr by the Prophet Muhammad
Used during the Iranian revolution in 1979 by protesters
It was shouted during the Arab Spring by demonstrators
Was the name of a marching song for the Egyptian Army during the Suez Canal War in 1956
From 1977 to 2011 it was the national anthem of the Libyan Arab Republic, chosen by Muammar Gaddafi
……………………………….
This is, in fact *all* Muslim supremacy. Jihadists have not “warped” the meaning of “Allahu Akbar!”–using it to strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers is its use in its purest form.
It is saying that ‘Allah is greater than whatever deity you worship, and we can murder you with impuity’.
And “striking fear in the hearts of the non-believers” comes directly from the foul Qur’an, verse 3:151:
“We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down any authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.”
More:
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
……………………………….
Lot’s more Taqiyya at this site. His basic shtick is demanding that the filthy Infidel fund supremacist Madrasses–thus, that we should pay for our own destruction.
David M says
Disgusting, I’m glad I’m not in Europe now, the only good thing about these attacks is each time they are shooting the Muslim perp dead.
dumbledoresarmy says
Yep.
These attacks are looking *exactly* like the attacks that kicked off in Israel in about Sept/ October last year… and they are starting to be met in the same way… BOOOM! “Attacker neutralised”.
Incidentally, the third officer, the cop who saved the other two who were being attacked, by blowing the attacker away, was *female*.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-08/islamic-state-claims-belgium-police-machete-attack/7699128
“…The assailant died on Saturday after being shot by a third policewoman…”.
Excellent shooting, Madame or Mademoiselle. Well done!
gravenimage says
Brava to her!