Of course. What else could it possibly be? It isn’t as if a Muslim might read “kill them wherever you find them” (Qur’an 2:191, 4:898, 9:5) and think it means “kill them wherever you find them,” right? Impossible! It must be the Jews!
“Disbelievers want to sabotage peace of Muslim Ummah by hatching anti-Islam conspiracies: Iqbal,” APP, December 2, 2017 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal on Saturday claimed that Pakistan successfully foiled an “international conspiracy” to ignite sectarian violence in the country.
While addressing a conference in Narowal Iqbal said that “disbelievers” want to sabotage peace of the Muslim Ummah by hatching anti-Islam conspiracies.
He was of the view that international lobbies, including India, never want to see Pakistan as a politically and economically stable country, for which they keep hatching conspiracies to ignite religious and sectarian violence in Pakistan….
Ahsan Iqbal stressed the need for unity in the Muslim Ummah to foil the international anti-Islam conspiracies, saying it was high time for the “Muslim world to forge unity among its ranks and shun their differences for the glory of Islam”.
He expressed complete solidarity with the oppressed people of occupied Jammu and Kashmir, Myanmar, and Palestine.
Iqbal said Islam presents a global system of foolproof security and peace, adding that terrorists had no religion, as every religion of the world gives the lessons of love, peace and respect for humanity. “The present wave of terrorism was a conspiracy against the Muslim Ummah.”
The interior minister also urged the religious scholars to play their role in promoting religious and sectarian harmony, brotherhood, unity, faith, and peace in society.
elee says
Filthy hateful genocidal cult
mortimer says
UNITY? There are more than two dozen schools of Islam each claiming to have the CORRECT version of Islam. Will they hunt and kill all the others?
Which school is the CORRECT school that they should unite with?
Muslims commit GENOCIDES against other Muslims of different sects. This guy claims the right to hunt and kill jihadists who are meticulously imitating Mohammed.
This is called ‘takfir’… the excommunication of other Muslims. He is doing what he denounces in the jihadists.
DFD says
He could have fooled me….
mortimer says
DFD, he didn’t fool you, but he hopes he will fool the majority of people.
Islam in fact teaches SEGREGATION and even APARTHEID… a doctrine known as Al Walaa wal Baraa.
-Imam Abdul-Latif ibn Abdur-Rahman Rahimullah said, “It is not possible for someone to realize Tawheed and act upon it, and yet not be HOSTILE against the mushrikeen. So anyone who isn’t HOSTILE against the mushrikeen, then it cannot be said that he acts upon Tawheed nor that he realizes it.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah 8/167]
-“The doctrine of al Walaa wal Baraa is the REAL IMAGE for the actual practice of this faith.” – source “Al Walaa wal Baraa According to the Aqeedah of the Salaf”, by Sheikh Muhammad Saeed al Qatani, authoritative Saudi Sharia lawyer and imam at the Abu Bakr and Al Furqan Mosques in Mecca.
– from Sufi scholar Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624): “The honour of Islam lies in INSULTING kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to HUMILIATE them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain TERRIFIED and TREMBLING. It is intended to hold them under CONTEMPT and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.”
kabooooooooooooooooooooom says
This goat-shagger must have swallowed too much Mushrikeen while smoking his Tawheed, before the conference.
Carolyne says
Sounds like Wudu to me.
Charles says
PUKE-A-STANY minister says WHAT?
BOSH!
BULLOCKS!
KRAP!
?
Voytek Gagalka says
“The present wave of terrorism was a conspiracy against the Muslim Ummah.”
Is he suggesting that “conspiracy” originated with their “prophet”? Because it was no one else who consolidated Ummah and Islam through merciless terror. Pure terror is spoken on each and every page of his Qur’an, both in “this world” as well in “Hereafter” (terror of the sword and terror of intimidation).
“Islam presents a global system of foolproof security and peace.”
For WHOM? Certainly NOT for “disbelievers” (kuffar). Mafia like “protection” is not a “security” worth considering for dhimmis. To HELL with such “security and peace”!
“…every religion of the world gives the lessons of love…”
Everyone but Islam. Islam is to DOMINATE and REPLACE all other religions. That’s SUPREMACISM, not “love,” at least not “love” as understood by the Golden Rule. And Golden Rule Islam does not posses. Not toward “disbelievers.” Never Ever.
Ren says
“The present wave of terrorism was a conspiracy against the Muslim Ummah” by the Ummah by accepting a doctrine founded by a terrorist, Muhammad.
Westman says
“The present wave of terrorism was a conspiracy against the Muslim Ummah.”
What? It’s almost over? No more terrorism by somebody named after Muhammad or his companions?
I am so relieved…peace in our time..(or is that, in our tombs?)
Will the “real” Muslims of the Ummah please stand up?
gravenimage says
+1
Karen says
“Iqbal said Islam presents a global system of foolproof security and peace,”
Thanks, but no thanks.
It doesn’t seem very foolproof if it’s that susceptible to “conspiracies”.
gravenimage says
Especially noting how. violent Muslim societies are
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Mr Spencer, we have been saying you are too ignorant about the Quran because you refuse to learn even the basic techniques of its interpretation, yet you consider yourself as an expert on it. The term “faqtuluhum “in Quran 2:191 cannot be translated as “kill them “.the root is qital(fighting)not qatal (killing). learn little morphology where sounds of words determines the root of words not similarities of the letters forming them.Also ,it is the context that determines the meaning of an expression. Quran 2:191came in within the context of permission given to muslims to fight the forces of meccan idolators who breached the terms of treaty of Hudaibiyya. It applies to any situation where non-Muslims breached ceased truce, the fighting has to resumes. It never applies to aggression and the fighting is limited to non-Muslim combatants not unarmed civilian population as Prophet Muhammad interpreted.Terrorism cannot be justified on the basis of this verse or other verses or Hadith. your insistance that this is the evidence is a fallacy.
gravenimage says
Ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
Mr Spencer, we have been saying you are too ignorant about the Quran because you refuse to learn even the basic techniques of its interpretation, yet you consider yourself as an expert on it. The term “faqtuluhum “in Quran 2:191 cannot be translated as “kill them “.the root is qital(fighting)not qatal (killing).
…………………………………
Given that such “fighting” includes beheadings, bombings, and running people over with large trucks, this is a distinction without a difference.
More:
learn little morphology where sounds of words determines the root of words not similarities of the letters forming them.Also ,it is the context that determines the meaning of an expression. Quran 2:191came in within the context of permission given to muslims to fight the forces of meccan idolators who breached the terms of treaty of Hudaibiyya. It applies to any situation where non-Muslims breached ceased truce, the fighting has to resumes.
…………………………………
Even if this were true–and clearly from Muslim texts it is not, since Muslims simply attacked many peoples with with they had had no previous contact–this would be moot in our case. No nation in the West has a treaty with the Ummah; hence, Muslims can attack us with impunity, as we see virtually every day.
The thing is that Ibrahim itace muhammed has *himself* affirmed that Muslims can kill whoever does not submit to Islam.
More:
It never applies to aggression and the fighting is limited to non-Muslim combatants not unarmed civilian population as Prophet Muhammad interpreted.
…………………………………
Is that so? So the unarmed farmers of Khaybar were “combatants”? What obvious rot.
The most salient point, though, is that while Ibrahim itace muhammed is pretending that Robert Spencer is responsible for this “misinterpretation”, he fails to mention that this is exactly how his pious coreligionists are interpreting Islam.
If they were not, we would have no problem with Jihad terror.
More:
Terrorism cannot be justified on the basis of this verse or other verses or Hadith. your insistance that this is the evidence is a fallacy.
…………………………………
If Ibrahim itace muhammed *really* cared about this, of course, he would take it up with his fellow Jihadists, and tell them how very, very wrong they are, instead of slinging his Taqiyya at the good Infidels of Jihad Watch.
Linde Barrera says
To gravenimage- Your supremely logical explanations are for free-thinking superior minds. Perhaps some commenters here just do not have the ability to understand logic because they have been brainwashed beyond belief. And then again perhaps they are just smooth-talking liars. ? Thank you gravenimage, you always give me new insights.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Linde. Always good to see you posting.
Carolyne says
So the beheading of Lee Rigsby on a street in London by two barbarians was just the result of a misinterpretation of the Koran. Right!
Westman says
Hello there Ibrahim old buddy.
Let’s check some translations of the Qur’an for 2:191
“And kill them wherever you overtake them..” – Sahih International
“And kill them wherever you find them..” – Muhsin Khan
“And slay them wherever ye catch them..” – Yusef Ali
“And kill them wherever you find them..” – Shakir
“And slay them wherever ye find them..” – Pickthall
And you think, Ibrahim, that all these translators got it wrong?
Face it, Ibrahim, you need some advice from someone more knowledgeable than your current advisors before coming here to make false claims. At least do your own study. And who are these marvelous,”We”?
Linde Barrera says
To Westman- Keep ’em coming and thank you.
gravenimage says
+1
Jack Diamond says
To pile on:
The scholarly experts at Tafsir Ibn Kathir translate 2:191 (wa-uq’tulūhum) as “kill them wherever you find them”
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=236#1
Qital and Qatal derive from the root q-t-l or Qaf Ta Lam, to kill or massacre severely {Qatal is a common Urdu word for “murder”}.
Corpus Qur’an, the Qur’an Dictionary, also translates the use in 2:191 as a verb (wa-uq’tulūhum) “and kill them” (as 9:5 is fa-uq’tulū, “then kill”). It is used a few times in the Qur’an as a noun for “fighting” (but the inference is fight to kill, i.e 8:39) but primarily it is a verb for killing and you can count the overwhelming number of “kills” here, defining q-t-l:
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=qtl
Westman says
Thanks, Jack, for the excellent solid references.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
westmañ, you are confused ignorant satan (Holy Spirit) worship. “kill”or “slay “within the context of this verse and other verses and hadiths are description of the scenario at battle front with confronting enemy forces. they are not saying kill all unbelievers, whether combatants or non-combatants. if you know little about military operation you can easily grasp the meaning.
Jack Diamond says
So, now you admit it says kill? You clearly declared that: Quran 2:191 cannot be translated as “kill them “.
Are you going to address your egregious mistake before going on to your next mistake?
Jack Diamond says
Muhammad’s “revelations” concerning warfare came over time and in phases. The last and controlling ones are found in Surah 9.
“So at first the fighting was prohibited then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory…Allah revealed in Surah 9 the order to discard all obligations (treaties) and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
–Dr. M. Mushrinkhan, introduction to Sahih Bukhari
“When the Prophet moved from Mecca to Medina, God ordered him to only fight those who fought him only. Then when the Chapter of Repentance was revealed, God commanded his Prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim whether they fought him or not.”
–al-Jawziyya
But let’s look at this fitna that is worse than killing. 2:193 says “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone).”
A commentary on this is found in Guillame’s “Life of Muhammad” “Then God sent down to him ‘fight them so that there is no more seduction’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion, ‘And the religion is God’s’ i.e. until God alone is worshipped.”
2:191 says “slay them (infidels) and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression is worse than a slaughter.”
The common translation of “persecution” in 2:191 is disingenuous, the words for persecution and oppression do not appear in the verse, and fitnah refers to disbelief or the disorder that comes from unbelief or temptation. Violence is being authorized here
until unbelievers desist in their unbelief. Period.
Tasfir Ibn Kathir “(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing). Meaning what you (disbelievers) are committing is much worse than killing…Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing… Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said (..until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk.”
We are not talking about defending yourself from an invading army. The Qur’an is saying that seducing a Muslim from his religion and the disorder caused by disbelief itself is worse than a slaughter, worse than killing people (for their disbelief). Slaying them is better than putting up with Shirk.
8:39 says “Fight them until there is no more fitnah and religion will be for Allah alone.”
Ibn Kathir says: “(it is) the order to eradicate Shirk and Kufr. Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (trial in religion) and the religion will be for Allah alone (so that there is no more Kufr {disbelief}). Rebellion against God’s will is termed as ‘fitnah.” Fitnah refers to misconduct on the part of a man who establishes his own norms and expects obedience from others, thereby usurping God’s authority, who alone is sovereign.”
Now associate this with the commands of Surah 9 declaring unceasing war against non-Muslim mankind. Feel the love:
“Islamic faith is based on the separation of Muslim and kafir and that the kafir is an enemy of Allah forever, until he embraces Islam discarding his kufar, Allah has forbidden the believers from pledging any allegiance to the kuffar or showing them any affection even if they were their fathers, brothers, children, kinsmen or their spouses as stated in Sura 58:22.”
–Islam Q&A, the popular orthodox mufti website
The Qur’an commands Muslims to rule the world and submit everyone to the only religion recognized by Allah, Islam. It tells Muslims jihad and fighting are prescribed for you, though you dislike it. You dislike a thing that is good for you and you like a thing that is bad for you. Allah knows and YOU DO NOT KNOW (2:216).
Islam is the essence of both compulsion and aggression. As for killing non-combatants, besides having done it for 1400 years, besides the caveat that while Islam excludes killing the “innocent” it also affirms no kaffir is innocent, there is never punishment for the breach of these so-called rules, and Muhammad himself when asked about whether women and children could be killed in bombarding the fortress of the unbelievers, said only, “they are from them.”
Champ says
The brainwashed pious muslim wants to quibble over “interpretation” and “context” pertaining to probably the most unholy manual-for-murder ever conceived. This would be amusing if it weren’t so absurd.
Champ says
absurd and VILE.
Chand says
Ibrahim, So you admit that Muslims cannot kill a single non-combatant (civilian) during battle and cannot start a war of aggression.
So ISIS, Alqaeda, Hamas, Boko Haram, Lashkar e taiba, Jaish e Muhammad, etc. and all the Islamic Jihadis that murder non-combatants are actually un-Islamic. Am I right?
What about forcible conversions to Islam of non-Muslims with the threat of death?
Champ says
Chand wrote:
“So ISIS, Alqaeda, Hamas, Boko Haram, Lashkar e taiba, Jaish e Muhammad, etc. and all the Islamic Jihadis that murder non-combatants are actually un-Islamic. Am I right?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, you are definitely WRONG. These groups are very devout mohammedans. Remember, perverted-prophet muhammad was in fact a terrorist …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cf49EQWZIY
Arasu says
@Ibrahim itace muhammed – Go to this webpage : http://islamawakened.com/quran/2/191/default.htm , which gives not one or two, but 35 “Generally Accepted Translations of the Meaning” of this verse. Of the 35 translations, 23 translate the word as ‘kill’, nine as ‘slay’, two as ‘fight’ and one as ‘subdue’. So are you saying that the vast majority of your Muslim scholars are wrong, because they say it means ‘kill’ ?
Also are you naive in trying to suggest that ‘fight’ does not involve killing?
Jim says
Well Ibrahim, Islamists have been misinterpreting it for 1400 years, including Mohamed himself, if history is right. Or is that too a conspiracy?.
nicholas tesdorf says
Yet more Taqqiyah comes from the Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal from Pakistan. I’m sure that when he explains this to ISIS, that they will see the error of their ways and stop…….maybe.
gravenimage says
Pakistan’s Interior Minister: “The present wave of terrorism was a conspiracy against the Muslim Ummah”
“Disbelievers want to sabotage peace of Muslim Ummah by hatching anti-Islam conspiracies”
………………………..
Uh huh. Ask him how he feels about Jihad against India…
Vajapeya says
Especially cleansing the people who were living for centuries in the Kashmir valley, not only Kashmiri pandits but other Hindus too, before the arrival of islam there. I bet he does not consider them oppressed. It is always the Muslims people who are oppressed and can never be oppressed just like in the west where the Whiteman is always the oppressor and never the oppressed. If this is not Taqiyya in action what can be???
Wellington says
You know, certain words are hateful and burdensome to all of mankind and come with all kinds of pejorative consequences. The word, “ummah,” is one of them.
It’s an ugly word, both phonologically and with respect to what it betokens. I detest it. I detest its exclusionary aspect as I detest the belief system which is responsible for this word.
No one can prize liberty and also extend approbation to this word, “ummah.” It’s one or the other. Surely.
JanwoG says
Wasn’t Muhammad the master of conspiracy. May be he forget to add, that Zionism is behind that. Build up the anti Jihad front with India, China and other powers of goodwill.
FYI says
“I have been made victorious through TERROR”
muhammed bukhari 4:52:220
{sarc} is it possible muhammed’s glorification of terror has something to do with islamic terror?
is it possible that there could be…a connection?
Surely the islamic studies PhD graduates will explain that one to us.
Is the word TERROR..?
1. a mis-translation from classical Arabic
2. meaning something else like say “We love Christians”
3.non-existant in islam since it is the “religion of peace”
4 an impossible to understand word whose meaning only allah knows
terrorize that…
Chand says
Pakistan is a facilitator of jihad with the help of non state actors and their intelligence agency and they are adept at speaking with forked tongues.
sidney penny says
“Of course. What else could it possibly be? It isn’t as if a Muslim might read “kill them wherever you find them” (Qur’an 2:191, 4:898, 9:5) and think it means “kill them wherever you find them,” right? Impossible! It must be the Jews!”
Jews and other infidels
sidney penny says
“He expressed complete solidarity with the oppressed people of occupied Jammu and Kashmir, Myanmar, and Palestine.”
He does not explain to the world that if Jammu and Kashmir is occupied by India than parts of Jammu and Kashmir is also occupied by Pakistan and referred to as POK
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
chand, there is no forceful conversion in Islam. The Quran explicitly stated “La ikrah fiddin ((No compulsion in religion) “.Note:the objective in jihad fighting is to subdue the confronting forces not to terminate their lives. where non-muslim Muslim combatants surrendered or sought for peace settlement the hostility has to stop immediately and negotiations start as explicitly stated in the Quran.
Jack Diamond says
Islam is nothing but compulsion. For Muslims (compelled to remain Muslims on penalty of death for apostasy) and non-Muslims (who are to be fought against until they either convert to Islam, under compulsion, live in humiliation under subjugation, under compulsion, or are compelled to die).
It might also be mentioned the “no compulsion” verse is considered abrogated, in any case.
“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. (Khalid) brought them to Muhammad (who said to them) ‘Had you not accepted Islam, I would have cast your heads under your feet.”
–Ibn Hisham “Biography of the Apostle” p.134
“Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah…invite them to accept Islam… if they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya..if they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help to fight them.”
–Sahih Muslim 4294
Those were the only 3 choices ever afforded non-Muslims. Caliph Umar when invading Iraq said “Summon the people to God, those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness, if they refuse then it is the sword without leniency.” This, of course, is simply surah 9:29 in action.
Those infidels compelled to pay the ransom (jizya) for their lives lived under restrictive, oppressive, humiliating conditions (compelling many to convert to Islam over time to have a more tolerable existence). Further, at any time they could lose their “protected” status, for the least offense, and their very life would be in danger. Compulsion. The jizya and other burdensome taxes enriched the Islamic State, that is why it and the dhimmi were allowed, but the attitude behind it is clear:
“(they pay the jizya) with willing submission in defeat and subservience and feel themselves subdued, disgraced, humiliated and belittled” (in return for their lives).. this is done if they don’t convert to Islam;
“with submission” means that they are forced to pay and be downcast…the People of the Book are despicable, lowly and rebellious.”
–Ibn Kathir, commentary on 9:29
No compulsion there, right? The (Jews & Christians) are despicable, lowly, and rebellious. Remember that at the next inter-faith gathering, infidel. It’s all compulsion, under fear and under threat.
But not to Muslims. They go through the most astonishing mental contortions to prove that none of this is “compulsion in religion.” How they view “forced conversion” is a good example. Islam does not call for forced conversions, yet it calls for convert or die (figure that out), an example set by Muhammad himself:
“(When Abu Sufyan of Mecca is brought to Muhammad he is told to confess) ‘there is no God but the only God’ and ‘I (Muhammad) am his Apostle.’ Abu Sufyan answered, ‘by God O Muhammad, of this there is doubt in my soul.’
‘Woe to you! Accept Islam and testify that Muhammad is the Apostle of God before your neck is cut off by the sword.’ (He thus professed the faith of Islam and became a Muslim).”
Now some would think this is a case of forced conversion at the point of a sword. But no, Muslim scholars like Dr. Muhammad al-Buti explain for us “What is required of an infidel or one who confesses other gods with God, is to have his tongue surrender to the religion of God and subdue himself to the prophethood of Muhammad. But his heartfelt faith is not required at the beginning. It will come later.”
—-(The Jurisprudence of Muhammad’s Biography)
As long as he is not compelled to believe in his heart it is still not compulsion!
As for Jihad not being about killing, this is just more nonsense:
“It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…” (8:67)
“(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels… “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” (8:12)
“If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.” (8:57)
“And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” (17:16)
“O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” (66:9)
First object of jihad fighting, make a great slaughter. Cast terror. Strike fear. Destroy with utter destruction.
Jack Diamond says
“It’s also noteworthy that, according to Islam’s earliest histories, sincere belief in Muhammad’s prophet claims is lacking. The overwhelming majority of those who converted to Islam did so either under duress—literally to save their heads—or else to be part of Muhammad’s “winning team.” Conversion was the price for one man, Malik bin Auf, to get his kidnapped family back from Muhammad.
“Rather tellingly, the Muslim historians who recorded these non-Muslim conversions to Islam saw no contradiction between the coerced and insincere nature of the conversions and the Koran’s claim that “there is no compulsion in religion.” For instance, in Muslim historian Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi’s (d. 1442) multivolume history of Egypt, anecdote after anecdote is recorded of Muslims burning churches, slaughtering Christians, and enslaving their women and children. After each incident, the pious Muslim historian concludes with, “Under these circumstances a great many Christians became Muslims.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265621/muhammad-and-forced-conversions-islam-raymond-ibrahim