Wishful thinking, like cowardice, is pandemic these days, but both could be dangerous.
“The first thing that caught my attention was how non-violent it was. I have to part ways with Robert Spencer here. There are a few violent passages, but it’s usually in a war context so its not a big deal. Surah 9 has a couple troubling passages but apart from that there isn’t much. ”
Let’s look at the record:
“And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out; persecution is worse than slaughter. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, kill them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is all-forgiving, all-compassionate. Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.” (Qur’an 2:191-193)
“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 authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 3:151)
“They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore do not take friends from among them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, seize them and kill them wherever you find them; do not take for yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)
“This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth to do corruption there: they shall be killed, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall be struck off on opposite sides; or they shall be exiled from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.” (Qur’an 5:33)
“When your Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers; so strike the necks, and strike every finger of them!” (Qur’an 8:12)
“Fight them, till there is no persecution and religion is all for Allah; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.” (Qur’an 8:39)
“Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatever you spend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.” (Qur’an 8:60)
“Then, when the sacred months are over, kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Qur’an 9:5)
“Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, even if they are of the People of the Book — until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” (Qur’an 9:29)
“Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.” (Qur’an 9:111)
“O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.” (Qur’an 9:123)
“When you meet the unbelievers, strike their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.” (Qur’an 47:4)
Not a big deal? But how have Muslims throughout history understood these passages? They took them as meaning “My jihad is trying to make ends meet. My jihad is getting a great education,” right? Unfortunately, the historical record is not quite so full of laughter and sunshine. Find out how Muslims throughout history have actually understood the Qur’an’s exhortations to warfare in my new book, The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, which you can order here.
“When a Christian Reads the Quran For the First Time,” by Allan Ruhl, November 10, 2018 (thanks to Jim Likoudis):
As a Christian apologist, I’ve read the Quran numerous times. I’ve made a goal to know it better than most Muslims. I recently had a religious discussion with a friend of mine from Gaza. When we were done he said that I knew the Quran better than most Muslims. I also had the privilege of explaining to him where Rabbinic Judaism comes from as he’s a Palestinian and has felt the wrath of Israeli ethnic cleansing.
“Israeli ethnic cleansing” is yet another propaganda myth this fellow has fallen for.
In my discussion with him, I thought about my first reading of the Quran which was over a decade ago. I still have my first Quran that I ever read, though I don’t use it for personal research anymore as I have better translations, tafsir, and study editions. As a Christian, what did I first notice when I read the Quran? There were two things that really jumped out at me. I’ll share them here.
The first thing that caught my attention was how non-violent it was. I have to part ways with Robert Spencer here. There are a few violent passages, but it’s usually in a war context so its not a big deal. Surah 9 has a couple troubling passages but apart from that there isn’t much. The main emphasis of the Quran is that there is one God and no parters with this true God. This God is the same God who sent Moses, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary. I hate to admit that back in the day(well over ten years ago), I fell victim to the main stream media view of Islam. I’m really ashamed of that because now I don’t trust the main stream media on anything. Their views are completely worthless….
CogitoErgoSum says
This man says he fell for the mainstream media view of Islam. Hasn’t that view been that the god of Islam is the same as the god of Christianity? I do not accept this view and any Christian who believes that Jesus is the Son of God should not either. Even those who believe that being the Son of God is not the same as being God should know that God does not lie —- so when the Allah of the Quran denies that Jesus is the Son of God, this Allah cannot be the God of the Christians. If Allah says it is not befitting of God to have a son and the Bible says that Jesus IS the Son of God (in whom the Father is well pleased), one of them is not telling the truth. Either God has a son or God does not have a son. Either God tells the truth or God sometimes lies. Christians should believe that God does NOT ever lie. If they accept Allah as God they also accept that they have been wrong about Jesus.
If the recent debate between Muhammad Hijab and David Wood accomplished nothing else, I think it accomplished this: the difference between the Trinity of Christianity and the Allah of Islam is the difference between light and dark, between something having one dimension and another thing having three dimensions. The Trinity and Allah are very different and very separate gods.
Rev. G. says
Literally the difference between light and dark.
gravenimage says
CogitoErgoSum wrote:
This man says he fell for the mainstream media view of Islam. Hasn’t that view been that the god of Islam is the same as the god of Christianity?
……………………..
CogitoErgoSum, I think he meant the view that Islam is violent–which for most people is less the “mainstream media view” and more a sneaking suspicion…
CogitoErgoSum says
Graven, you are probably right about what he meant but I have always felt that the mainstream media has tried to push the idea that Islam is NOT violent and that terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, Boko Haram or others act because their members misunderstand Islam and that lone wolf terrorists act because they are insane. The mainstream media try to push the idea that Islam properly understood is a religion that advocates peace for all.
gravenimage says
You are quite right, CogitoErgoSum–but just reporting on Jihad terror attacks is too much for apologists for Islam.
balam says
I think this man is looking for some excuse to say his SHAHADA. That will be good riddance!!!
Carol the 1st says
Some people can’t see straight as they thrive and bloom on being contrarians. Ruhl needs to expand his library (e.g. Robert’s books and those by Raymond Ibrahim). Dr. Warner and our Mortimer could also give his brain a thorough shake-up.
Frederick King says
Can you imagine the crew in this picture being in charge of a large city or country ?
Frank Anderson says
F.K., don’t you think they are either officially or not in charge of many countries and communities right now?
gravenimage says
Touché, Frank.
WPM says
The trouble is they are in Moslem majority countries .why worry about clean drinking water, vaccines for children , building hospitals for people, maintaining roads, bridges ,when all the male population wants to riot in the street over someone who did a Mohammad cartoon 2000 miles away in a foreign land. Why worry about your children dying from preventable childhood illness ,when someone insults or questions your Mohammad, or allahs teachings 1500 miles away. If the Koran is truth why worry about an unbelievers reading and questioning it? You can make fun of Christians, poke holes in Christian teaching, nothing happens. Islam is the religion of the inflamed male ego, it must be aggressively defended because if it is look at to closely it falls apart it is so weak only violence or threat of violence ,keeping people in the dark keeps about it alive.
D Tana says
Well said!
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Cogitoergosum, the fundamental question is not whether Elohim who created the whole universe as stated in Genesis is different from Allah who created all, including the satan mithraist christians Call Holy, it is whether Jesus truly taught the idea that God consist of 3 persons making one God,which explicitly negates the basic doctrine of monotheism stated in the Old Testament by simply using the formula 1God =1(1+1+1)=3,and the so-called mystery of 3=1 is not tenable and it came from pagan mystics.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Cogitoergosum, the fundamental question is not whether Elohim who created the whole universe is different from Allah who created all, including the satan god mithraist christians Call Holy Spirit, it whether Jesus of Nazareth taught pagan doctrines of Godman and begotten son of God, which negate the basic doctrine of monotheism stated in the Old Testament by simply using the formula 1God =1(1+1+1)always=3,not 3 persons making one God or that God has a son and His spirit representing His power making One God. It is not tenable.
gravenimage says
By “it is not tenable” Ibrahim itace muhammed means that his ignorance about the nature of the Trinity means that he wants to slaughter Christians.
Anjuli Pandavar says
“I have to part ways with Robert Spencer here.”
—
This brought a smile to my face. In order to part ways, you have to be in the same place to start with. Somehow, I doubt that was ever the case.
Carol the 1st says
Looking at his website allanruhl.com he professes to be very much against Islamic doctrine and in regard to muslims he “wishes they’d all become Catholics”. This JW article is mentioned and he responds to questions about his troubling stance. I think he assumes everyone is on board with knowing every nook and cranny of his mind (or should be so fascinated they’ll work very hard to catch up and decipher). His statement regarding “has to part ways with RS on this” suggests more chops than he likely has but perhaps he doesn’t mean to suggest that much (but on an anti-jihad site we know and resent that so many would happily exploit every single careless word).
Bur maybe Ruhl is just short on tact? e.g.:
He writes: “There was a recent debate between Adnan Rashid and Samuel Green on salvation in Christianity and Islam. Samuel Green was technically representing the Christian side, *though Green isn’t a Catholic so his theology is somewhat off* though obviously closer to my position than the position of Adnan Rashid.”
The hyper-Catholic Ruhl seems to rather assume that a non-Catholic Christian is theologically “OFF” on the subject of salvation (and so much else perhaps?). I wonder what Protestants would think of this rather high-handed slight?
Laura M says
CogitoErgoSum, says a BIG truth here. His statement here sums up perfectly well what a TRUE Christian should believe about God and His nature. I only want to add a few things. Ruhl is a deceived useful idiot, to Islam. All spiritual truths cannot be grasped unless God opens that person’s mind to understand them. And BTW, after 9-11, I got a copy of the Koran at the library. Read thru it. Was horrified at the verses like which were quoted by Robert Spencer here. I totally understand now how God is using Islam, in these end times, to fulfill the coming predicted wide scale TERROR that will be inflicted upon Jews and Christians just before the Lord Jesus steps in and return’s to execute justice on His enemies, and bring His reward to His sheep.
Robert Carrillo says
I rarely pay much attention to what comes out of the mouth of people these days.
…Especially true of Islamists, and the “inter-faith” dupes, (wishful “feelers” and not thinkers) calling themselves Christians or Jews.. Lenin refereed to such people as “useful idiots”.. True!
I only pay attention to what people actually do, and not what they say any longer; especially today..
I am still living in Minnesota (for just a short while longer) for example, where insane and barbaric crime after crime – attack after attack – assault after assault, has become the new normal now over the course of the past five years especially. The place is just plain unstable and an unsafe place now, in which to live.. ..for me, my children, and my grandchildren as well…and people I care about..
And, now we have the most recent corrupt and incoming Minnesota Attorney General, Keith (AKA: Hakim – “X” – Mohammed [ I DID NOT MAKE THAT UP ]) Ellison, and his side-kick governor Waltz, (and all the rest) who will not only cover it all up, more than has already been accomplished here, but will now charge anyone who comments about it all – complains about it all – or, objects to the insanity we have imported to Minnesota with “A HATE CRIME” and “HATE SPEECH”..
So called Republicans, and Democrats alike are in on the fix here. Both are, and have been for some time now, “on the take” as they say, and completely willing to sell out Minnesota FOR MONEY, FOR POWER, and FOR VOTES..
Think I am kidding? Just wait and see..
Well, “I reserve the right to be wrong, and I pray to God that I am”.. My closing comment relating to my weekly radio program..
I am still praying, but rarely wrong about all of this, and for all of these years I have been predicting this outcome for Minnesota especially..
Carol the 1st says
If anything can make Minnesota a “Shi&#ole” we just know it would be Keith Ellison holding the reins. There or in any other state for that matter.
Olli Hekkala says
“There are a few violent passages, but it’s usually in a war context so its not a big deal.”
Isn’t it natural logic that “war context” is referring to “Dar al-harb”, “house of war”? How you divide world to house of war and house of peace depends muslim groups devotion.
Koran: endless spring of terror.
katherine says
THE definition of ‘WAR’ : anyone who does not accept Allah is at war with Islam – you are either with us or against us – no middle ground.
Get that through the thick skulls of the apologists.
ALL non-Muslims are at war with Islam.
gravenimage says
+1
C T says
Not a big deal…. Notice the writer of that is a man. The Quran literally tells men to beat their wives and submit to “guardianship” by husbands as though women are eternally children. We literate women know that these passages of violence are a very big deal. Add in hadith that punish apostasy with death, and Islam becomes slavery for women.
Carol the 1st says
CT…Could this possibly mean you would actually *resent* being an appurtenance to the far more important gender? It’s a trap I say!
Let’s give Maajid Nawaz a listen – he may not be all bad after all:
Maajid Nawaz responds to a caller who supports stoning women to death for adultery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhRohAyZ7V4
PRCS says
Per Allan Ruhl,
“What Muslims believe and what the Quran teaches are at odds.”
If we are to accept, as we are so often told, that Islam is open to interpretation (read: what INDIVIDUAL Muslims believe) then we must also accept that its strictest, most literal interpretation is as valid as its least.
And to assert–as fact rather than belief–that Qur’an IS Allah talking to Muhammad via the angel Gabriel is, as Spock might say, illogical.
No one speaks for EVERY Muslim.
Frank Anderson says
After my extensive reading of many books on subjects of islam, I received the suggestion of reading Warner’s Simple Koran. When I found Warner’s Islamic Trilogy including the Abridged Koran, I bought and read all 3 books, Abridged, Political Traditions and Unbelievers. The first notable contribution of the author/editor was to remove a lot of repetition, making them more readable. In particular the Abridged is arranged in chronological order instead of completely scrambled, as in the usual publications. Normally the chapters are arranged in order of longest first, which hides the development of the violent nature of islam and does nothing but confuse people who are looking to see for themselves.
I am old enough to remember the joke, “How do you keep a WASP uninformed: Hide his Reader’s Digest. How do you keep him misinformed: Find it for him.” Reader’s Digest earned a place in many households by making books and articles readable in less time to get the point of the story. Once the point is made of the total muslim dedication to evil (violence, slavery, oppression, theft, conquest. . .) I think it should be easier to read the full versions with the level of suspicion that can prevent the massive deception which seems to be shown by the remark early in RS’s introduction.
This is another time I would suggest discussions for common cause should take place between Robert Spencer and Bill Warner. “A two-fold cord is strong; but a three-fold cord is not easily broken.”
gravenimage says
Good post, Frank.
Frank Anderson says
We, about all of us who write here, try.
gravenimage says
🙂
mach37 says
The first I heard of Barack Obama was in ‘The Readers Digest,’ likely shortly after publication of his autobiography, but little more than puffing him up as a future presidential candidate. At the time I thought his main qualification was an unusual name, and the strange background to go with it, which I thought unlikely to actually work for him. So unfortunate that the DNC disregarded what was written in the book.
Frank Anderson says
Mach37, few places and people can claim perfection. After 8 years of watching BHO sabotage the United States with every available measure I wish we had something else to write about. Can you name ONE decision made during those 8 years that made the United States stronger, more secure, more united, more peaceful?
As little as I have thought of “Jimma” Carter, the ‘NEW Que lar’ engineer who could not even pronounce nuclear correctly, he at least did 2 things that were right: 1) Put the Navy off the coast of Vietnam to rescue the boat people and 2) Ordered deployment of the cruise missile, which bankrupted the Soviet Union by rendering their air defense system obsolete.
Readers Digest, as every one and every thing else, has had its successes and disappointments. The concept of abridging or condensing long, repetitive or wasteful books makes sense when time and clarity help get a story told. I praise Bill Warner for his work and think anyone, even experienced readers of the standard versions, will be well served by reading them.
christianblood says
Muslim savages screaming about their satanic quran and their murderous barbaric allah! The picture says it all!
balam says
Islam is a SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS which passes on from generation to generation.
gravenimage says
Yes, it does.
somehistory says
Like True Jews, True Christians don’t “touch the unclean thing” (Isaiah 52 and 2 Corinthians 6) in order to be taken in by the True God and receive His blessing.
We find out what is the “unclean thing” and we avoid “touching it” as this so-called “Christian” man is doing.
It is one thing to “read” the book in order to know and be aware of how evil it is. It is another thing to read it and then lie about it to others in order to deceive others so that they too, read it and began “appreciating” it.
He has read it and accepted it as worthy of study, worthy of respect, and no longer accepts the Truth about this demonic writing. He is being deceptive and is lying about Israel in saying they are engaged in “ethnic cleansing.”
Israel has been back in the “land” for nearly a century and if they engaged in “ethnic cleansing”…by now, there would be no moslims in the land. The country isn’t that large that it would take so long and there would still be so many moslims living there and waging constant war with Israelis.
This guy has allowed himself to be deceived and is deceiving others.
somehistory says
He’s not *troubled* by the *troubling passages.* He isn’t bothered by the places where moslims are commanded to kill Jews and Christians and shed the blood of these “wherever” they may be.
He isn’t bothered by the fact that this evil book claims to be about the True God, Who is portrayed as blood thirsty and changes from what He had written in the Bible about “love” being His main attribute. He lies and says that the evil one who had the evil, filthy book written is the same as our Loving Creator and True God.
Despicable.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Somehistory.
boakai ngombu says
he’s not troubled … he’s not bothered … by the Koran
he’s not a Christian, though he has extended his library of Islamic references
Nona says
I’m not a koran scholar, like Robert Spencer, but any greenhorn, will see that the War verses (Medina), supersede the Peace Verses. (Mecca). And moslems are very happy to made non-islamics believe that the non-islamics “know the koran better than the moslems.” – like this Palestinian told the fool …islamics laughing inwardly, all the while. It’s called taqiyya. That’s the vital, kbasic information I have, AND NEED
melek-ric says
So he read the Koran and misunderstood it. Big deal, so have many other apologists and dhimmis. Was it one of the sanitized (“beat your disobedient wife with a toothbrush”) versions so helpfully furnished to non-Muslims by the smiling Daw’a peddlers at some Islamic cultural centre? Did he read the Hadiths and the Sira? If not, has only the faintest conception of Islam and Mohammed’s doctrines.
MekaLekaHiMekaHineyHo says
What I got from reading it is how it starts off saying to have a some respect for the people of the book, to pity them for not being a Muslim. Then it goes on to say to shun them and not have anything to do with them. Then it finishes with kill all non-believers.
Remember, The Qur’an says that if any passage contradicts another passage that the latter passage overrides the former passage.
FYI says
Is this dhimmiwit Christian for real?
He’s as bad as fraudulent francis:
“Authentic islam and a proper reading of the koran show it to be opposed to every form of violence”
Even the Gospel doesn’t make that claim!
Did he miss…{as a PROPER reading would reveal..}
koran 9:30 allah CURSES the Christians for believing in Jesus as the Messiah
koran 2 v 65;allah CURSES the Jews…but Moses and Jesus are Jews:isn’t that a bit odd??
koran 4:157 allah DENIES Jesus was even Crucified
“They slew him not nor crucified him but it appeared so”.This negates the purpose of Jesus.
It also denies the Gospel which allah.. claims he wrote and..which he has confirmed as being true!k3:3
koran 4:171 allah’s denial of the Trinity means he doesn’t know where God’s wisdom comes from
{or the origin of Biblical prophecy see 2 PETER 1 V 20-21}
koran 5 v 51 “take not the Jews and Christians for friends” allah REJECTS the 2nd chief commandment{in fact the 2 chief commandments are found NOWHERE in islam}
koran 5 v 46 allah claims he personally gave the Gospel to Jesus{but no Christian believes the Gospel was written by God!It was written by HUMAN prophets,yet allah claims to be the author..}
koran 19 v 29-30 Jesus the TALKING BABY..in a cot “lo! I am the slave of allah.he hath given me the scripture and hath appointed me a prophet”.Who knew a baby could speak like an adult?
WHAT scripture?The Gospel?It didn’t exist until AFTER Jesus had died so how can a baby be a)TALKING LIKE AN ADULT and b)even know what scripture is?Remember;all this takes place with a baby Jesus…. in a cot!!
The warped and immoral teachings of the koran are in total violation of the Exodus 20 Commandments.muslims can get away with murder k2:191,adultery k33:50/k4:24,stealing k48:20 and of course lying[taqqiya,tawriya,taysin,muruna,darura,kitman}and be rewarded for their evil in allah’s carnal paradise.
Oh, and allah,unlike God,does not allow final penitence:koran 4:18
The daily fatiha prayer involves CURSING Jews and Christians.That’s what muslims “pray” in their mosques.
Are you sure the Judeo-Christian Biblical God is the same as the islamic koranic allah {“the best of deceivers” k3:54}?It isn’t.
Perhaps Mr ruhl should GO read the koran.. AGAIN,PROPERLY..taking note of the above.
And at least TRY to study OT prophecies regarding Israel;ask your muslim friends to explain to you sahih muslim #6985{islam’s plan for the Jews}
allah is NOT the same as the Christian God.Yet the dhimmi Christians can’t see it.
What does it profit a Christian to spend years studying theology only to lose his soul through denial of the revealed Truth?Matthew 7 v 21-23{The Authenticity test..}
Lord,save us from the cosy,naive, dhimmiwit Christians
I stay well away from them and their churches that preach false theology and a lefty liberal Gospel of false compassion.
Allan Ruhl says
I responded to this.
http://allanruhl.com/robert-spencer-responds-to-me/#more-2341
del says
In the Jewish and Christian Bibles, which are chronological, the battles and wars described with various outside groups have been understood as historical descriptions rather than as calls to warfare in the present, and the groups described (e.g. Canaanites, Philistines) do not exist in the present. Note: the Arabs who call themselves, “Palestinians”, are connected to the Philistines by Imperial Roman choice of geographical names and their own political propaganda, rather than by culture, descent, or ethnicity.
The Koran is not presented chronologically. In the texts of Islam, warfare with non-Muslims is understood to be permanent and on-going, until Islam is victorious over all, including the Jews and Christians. The duty of warfare is always in the present, particularly since the Koran is NOT chronological-historical. The Jews, Christians and all unbelievers-of-Islam are explicitly described as being worthy of contempt, destruction and subjugation, in the 7th century and ever since. Read the last 3 words as bold and italicized.
Your distinction between contexts of war or not-war, in the Koran, as a useful way to understand the teachings of Islam, is a mistaken distinction. I think it is an example of you projecting your own assumptions and understandings about the Bible onto the texts of Islam. Mainstream Muslims have not and do not assume that verses which include a context of war were and are only historically descriptive. They are understood to prescribe their present duties. Do you understand the phrase, Dar al-Harb? Do you understand it as Muslims understand it?
Dave says
I was wondering why do you call Jews “rabbinic Judaism”? It seems you have a complete antisemitic story. You are obviously an antisemite liar, willing to believe any lie about Jews. Among the group of antisemites invented for one of your newer antisemitic schemes, it is very common to accuse the Jews of “Talmudic rituals” usually ritual murder, Abass did so last week in fact. I would like you to tell me how true that is. To show what you really are.
More importantly, Muslims did actual ethnic cleanings of all Jews from nearly every Muslim country, for example Syria, Iraq and Egypt. What is your view on that? I’m sure you have a way to blame that on the Jews, that they went from actual influential many to complete zero. Unlike the fake group of “paleswine” who were nothing, and now are something. Jews of Syria were something and now are nothing. But alas, you are evil.
gravenimage says
Let’s parse some of this from Allan Ruhl. He wrote:
I also said that other verses in the Quran that promote violence are usually in a war context. I will examine the verses.
………………………
Firstly, Ruhl does not ask himself *why* so very much of the Qur’an is in a “war context”. Might it be because the “Prophet” regularly attacked others? No understanding of this at all.
Here is one Hadith:
Narrated Humaid:
Anas bin Malik said, “Whenever the Prophet went out with us to fight (in Allah’s cause) against any nation, he never allowed us to attack till morning and he would wait and see: if he heard Adhan he would postpone the attack and if he did not hear Adhan he would attack them.”..
–Sahih Bukhari, Volume One, Book Eleven, number 584
In other words, the “Prophet” attacked *anyone* who was not Muslim.
More:
The first quote that he brought forth was Surah 2:191-193 which is certainly a violent passage. Why didn’t Spencer quote verse 190 which reads: 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.
………………………
And what “limits” are those, since it it clear that Muslims have the right to rape, enslave, and mass slaughter Infidels? Again, Ruhl does not ask.
More:
As for Surah 3:151, if you go back a couple of verses such as 144, it’s clearly talking about the Battle of Uhud. This context continues until verse 151. Verses 152 and 153 talk about the Muslim retreat so obviously it’s a war context.
………………………
Actually, Qur’an 3:151 does not just refer to the pagans of Mecca. It reads:
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.
…
This is frequently used in the Qur’an not just to refer to pagans, but to Christians–who were *not* fighting the Muslims, as Ruhl pretends.
More:
Surah 4:89 certainly promotes violence, but verse 91 gives specific conditions for that violence in a war context. It says:
You will find others who want security from you, and security from their own people. But whenever they are tempted into civil discord, they plunge into it. So if they do not withdraw from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their hands, seize them and execute them wherever you find them. Against these, We have given you clear authorization.
………………………
This is not a reference to war–but just to “Fitna”. “Civil discord” means the practice of anything that is not Islam. The initial Sura makes clear that this applies to anyone who has “disbelieved”–i.e., who is not Muslim.
More:
Again, I’m not saying that I agree with this but it clearly gives a context that the enemies are hostiles.
In regards to 8:12, we have another war context. For in the proceeding verse the MAS Abdul Haleem translation of the Quran has a footnote saying that it was “the night before the battle”. Again, this is a war.
………………………
Ruhl does not say *why* there was a war–but the following verse, Qur’an 8:13, makes this clear:
“That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger – indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.”
In other words, they were not Muslim.
More:
In regards to 8:60, verses 55 to 59 talk about a war context. Verse 61 says:
But if they incline towards peace, then incline towards it, and put your trust in God. He is the Hearer, the Knower.
Again, a war context.
………………………
Ruhl either does not know–or hopes we don’t–that “inclining towards peace” does not mean to stop attacking, but to submit to Islam.
He also does not tell you that this Sura of the Qur’an–Sura 8–Is titled “Al Anfal”, or The Booty. It is all about the “Prophet” Muhammed attacking, robbing, kidnapping, ransoming, and enslaving Infidels.
More:
Surah 47:4 reads:
When you meet the unbelievers…
According to the Haleem translation it says: When you meet the disbelievers in battle…
………………………
Is this commentary like those whitewashers of Islam who say that Muslims are only to beat their wives “lightly”?
Really, the preceding verses make clear who the victims are–“those who disbelieve and avert [people] from the way of Allah” (Qur’an 47:1). The next two verses confirm this. Muslims are to attack all those who do not believe in Islam.
More:
[RS] But how have Muslims throughout history understood these passages? They took them as meaning “My jihad is trying to make ends meet. My jihad is getting a great education,” right?
How have Muslims understood these passages? I don’t know, but my post wasn’t about that. My post was about how I understood them and I think that I’ve shown and explained the context as to why I’m not as troubled by these passages as Robert Spencer is.
………………………
In other words, ignore the bloody horror of the history of Jihad–as well as the basis on which Muslims are waging Jihad terrorism today.
More:
Unfortunately, the historical record is not quite so full of laughter and sunshine.
No, its not. Where in my post did I talk about the Muslim historical record or how they used it for Jihad? All I talked about was my first impression of the Quran. Spencer also ignored the second half of the article where I said that the Quran says the previous Scriptures are pristine which is not what Muslims have believed throughout the centuries. Maybe there is a connection here?
………………………
What claptrap. Muslims believe that Jews and Christians have “corrupted” the “Torat” (Torah) and “Injeel” (Gopsels), which were originally supposedly as vicious as the Qur’an itself. Never mind that there is no historical or archaeological evidence for this.
More:
I felt weird doing this response. I felt like I was defending Islam when I was really defending my post. Let me be clear now; I think Islam, like every other false religion on this planet is straight from the devil and every Muslim should reject it and embrace Christ and His Church. I’ve probably written over a hundred posts against Islamic theology on this page but Spencer only responds to this one…
………………………
Implying that all other faiths are as savage as Islam is is absurd.
More:
Today after Church I was having coffee and talking with my priest. He told me to always read the Bible with a Catholic commentary. He cares about the context. We both agree that it’s better to go for context than for soundbites from Scripture. When studying the Quran, the context shows that the vast majority of violent passages outside of Surah 9 are in a war context as I have shown and therefore I don’t find them too troubling.
………………………
So Ruhl has no problem with Muslims constantly attacking Infidels–and apparently considers all Muslim savagery valid as long as it is large enough to be deemed a war? *Just horrifying*.
gravenimage says
Apologies–“Gopsels” should, of course, have been “Gospels”.
Mark Swan says
Thank you gravenimage, for unraveling Mr. Ruhl’s nonsense.
gravenimage says
When a Christian reads the Quran for the first time — with blinkers on
………………………….
Blinkers indeed with Allan Ruhl.
The first time I read the Qur’an–shortly after 9/11–I knew nothing about abrogation or the book’s chronology. I also had not heard about the Hadith or Sira, and had only a sketchy view of the “Prophet”.
I just wanted to see if Jihadists–and critics of Islam–were right that the Qur’an preached violence. My assumption was that I would run across a few verses dealing with war–pretty much like the Old Testament–that *might* be interpreted as advocating violence.
Instead I was utterly shocked by the amount of violence against unbelievers in the Qur’an–as well as how much of it seemed to apply for all time. Of course, this first impression would be intensified as I learned about the chronological order of the Qur’an and abrogation–as well as centuries of Qur’anic commentary from Islamic scholars.
That anyone can read this book, even casually, and *not* see its violence means that one either has incredibly low reading comprehension or that–likely the case here–they are deep in denial and don’t *want* to know how violent Islam is.
Wellington says
Only a few passages in Sura 9 are a bit troubling and really nothing more than these that can be found in the Koran?
This man, Allan Ruhl, is either a liar or a fool. Whichever, he harms the cause of liberty—and other good things like equality under the law, women’s rights, not killing someone for apostasy—most terribly. He is an enabler of evil and enablers of evil are lesser human beings, if not outright despicable human beings. Herein lies Ruhl’s legacy, whether he is a mendacious person or just your standard over-educated dolt.
gravenimage says
Yes, Wellington–Sura 9, as ugly as it is, is just the tip of the iceberg of the viciousness of the Qur’an.
Westman says
What I wouldn’t give to be at a debate on Islam between Allan Ruhl and John Hagee. As an agnostic I don’t have a religious dog in that fight but the entertainment value would be extreme and worthy of putting on the Net.
KWJ says
Well, this guy is just a liar. I have pages of Qur’an quotes under the title of Hate and Discrimination. So much of the Qur’an is devoted to hating non-Muslims and how they will be tortured in hell. It is a very depressing and disturbing book.
This Christian apologist dorsn’t Mention the words “break the cross,” which means destroy Christianity. He also doesn’t mention that Jesus in the Qur’an is nothing like the Biblical Jesus, as well as all the other prophets.
He’s a liar, plain and simple or else he has a 70 IQ.
Westman says
You’re correct KWJ. Speaking as an agnostic, just the sadistic descriptions of Allah’s punishment for the unbeliever should inform any intelligent person that Allah is not God(Jesus) and fits the personality described as Satan. All the earmarks are there: Coercion to a plan under threat of extreme punishment, no freedom of thought, hogging the glory to himself for the forced obedience of humans, and not an iota of sacrifice for the salvation of “Mankind”.
This may be the common first goal of progressives acting as fellow travellers to jihadists: Replacing real men with government. Of course, in the end, Islam intends to replace government with Sharia and kill all the opposition.
Lydia Church says
There are tons of violent verses in there, and even one of them is enough… and obviously the muslims know that it translates into jihad and are interpreting it in exactly that way!
Boy, another idiot was born!
Not only that, but some of the worst stuff about islam is exactly what he cited as ‘okay’!
islam denies the Trinity, the deity of Christ, hence all the focus on ‘one God.’ Yes, there is only one God, in the three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! They deny the Son and thus have not the Father either, as John the Apostle said so well. They are of antichrist.
And their god allah is NOT the same God as the one true God of the Bible, the Christian God!
But all of that in the koran is satanic deception leading people into the arms of the one world religion where… it’s all just the same god… it’s all just one… it’s okay…we can unite with them… and that way there will be less terrorism and more… world peace… if you just give them what they demand… no one will get hurt… at least for now.
“The main emphasis of the Quran is that there is one God and no partners with this true God. This God is the same God who sent Moses, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary.”
No, Jesus has no partners, He alone is God with the Father and Holy Spirit as one God. But is that what is being said??? They are denying the Trinity and he has no issue with it. And NO, it is NOT ‘the same God’ who sent Moses, Jesus (who IS God), and the Virgin Mary!!! The true God was responsible for them, the other ‘god’ called allah is the devil with a mask!!!
But sadly, this is typical of the deception of the last days great apostasy that so many so called ‘Christians’ are falling for! Leading them straight into the arms of antichrist with his one world religion, government, economy, and rainbow sin inclusion agenda!
They fall right into the trap because they never read their Bible, which affirms the Trinity and makes a distinction between the true God and false gods that contradict what God said.
Another note on that Parliament of World Religions that met in Toronto earlier this month, there are two posts about this, one at Emergent Watch blog and another at Lighthouse Trails Research Project’s blog. THAT last one is a must see as well. They literally have a rug with some pagan figure on it who is holding decapitated heads dripping blood and one of them is supposed to be Kavanaugh! Folks, I could not make this stuff up! You need to see this!!!
Bible prophecy. You know the rest.
shoehorn says
“This God is the same God who sent Moses, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary.”
Then why does the Qur’an curse Christians for saying Jesus is a son of Allah?
Because [answering my own question] Allah = Satan.
DeepWheat says
The reality of Islam in the 21st century is what its adherents, believers, and *apologists* BELIEVE it to be in their own hearts, NOT what they piously pronounce it to be to others… and they BELIEVE the words of the Quran, even or *especially* when they deny the literal meaning of those words.
Non-muslims everywhere MUST comprehend & accept that self-serving deceit, dishonesty, perfidy, mendacity, and bald-faced LIES are the rotten foundation of their culture, just as Mohammad himself ordained it in the 6th & 7th century. They would sooner LIE to “get over” on the “other guy” and congratulate themselves for their cleverness, whether it’s in pursuit of strategic geo-political targets or just purchasing goats & slaves in the marketplace.
No one who professes to believe in the Quran can EVER be trusted in matters great or small. As the centuries-old internecine feuds between Sunni & Shia Islam amply demonstrate, they have NO reluctance even to lie to other Muslims.
They… have… NO… HONOR…
Dave says
I was wondering why do you call Jews “rabbinic Judaism”? It seems you have a complete antisemitic story. You are obviously an antisemite liar, willing to believe any lie about Jews. Among the group of antisemites invented for one of your newer antisemitic schemes, it is very common to accuse the Jews of “Talmudic rituals” usually ritual murder, Abass did so last week in fact. I would like you to tell me how true that is. To show what you really are.
More importantly, Muslims did actual ethnic cleanings of all Jews from nearly every Muslim country, for example Syria, Iraq and Egypt. What is your view on that? I’m sure you have a way to blame that on the Jews, that they went from actual influential many to complete zero. Unlike the fake group of “paleswine” who were nothing, and now are something. Jews of Syria were something and now are nothing. But alas, you are evil.
Frank Anderson says
Dave, to help your understanding and not to support or defend any other view or statement:
Before the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE/AD the era of priestly Judaism prevailed. I understand that a theological contest between the priests and rabbis went on for more or less 200 years before that date. After that date the entire sacrificial system and all priests were eliminated from Judaism worldwide; and the Rabbis took over to this day. There is not one Jewish sacrificial altar anywhere in the world, and has not been since 70. Nor has there been a Jewish priest, high or otherwise. Priests before that date had to submit totally to Roman governors or be deprived of their “vestments” meaning they could not conduct services or receive the benefits of their station. As collaborators helping the Romans control the Jewish population, priests were not “liked” by many Jews who also did not like Roman occupation. Jews were the only group that fought the Romans 3 times for their freedom. More or less 2 million Jews, a substantial portion of the total world population of Jews, died in those wars. I have my opinion, and mine alone, that the Temple may have been destroyed by Jews instead of Romans.
For more information please take a look at Jews, God and History, along with What is a Jew. I am sure my explanation is incomplete. Talking with most any Rabbi could also prove helpful.
Benedict says
How good is this bozo, being a Christian with regards to the Holy Bible, how come he did not explain the Holy Bible to this friend from Gaza
commonsense says
Folks, your comments posted here, critical of Allan Ruhl, should be sent directly to Ruhl himself at the link provided by Robert below the photo of screaming Muslims. For the time being, at least,
Ruhl’s article is still open to readers’ comments. Please act quickly before the comments section is closed!
James Foard says
On his website:
“About Me
by Allan Ruhl
I was born and in Western Canada and was raised in the Catholic Church. In the last few years I have been researching apologetics and church history. The purpose of this website is to share my accumulated knowledge.”
What a joke.
mach37 says
The typical violent Koranic verse starts with killing and maiming, then tells the Muslim how to treat the survivors, if any. This treatment usually has conditions such as converting to Islam, or agreeing to be the footstool or slave of all Muslims, and then closes with “how forgiving and wonderful” Allah is.
I am trying to find some verses that say Allah is peaceful, loving and forgiving that aren’t preceded immediately by, or followed by, the verses that tell what displeases Allah, and how to avenge Allah for those displeasures.
Docent says
Interesting exchange between Spencer and Ruhl. The website known as ‘Religion of Peace’ contains a larger listing of violent verses throughout the Quran (https://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx), both in and outside of so-called war contexts. Nevertheless, and just for the purpose of argument, if Ruhl’s observation is accepted as making a legitimate point in his direct challenge to Spencer in his original article (why did he specifically mention Spencer?), it is always to be understood that many if not most things of a religio-theological nature written in a “war context” do not simply have application to a particular war or during war and nothing else. Lessons from individual events are also used to guide more mundane affairs. Moreover, Islam basically claims that it is at war with all infidels, so anything in the “war context” does have application to people in general and their beliefs, and this makes these passages something to indeed be more upset about than Ruhl is who basically dismisses/diminishes them based on the flimsy “war context” claim that fails to understand their broader application, which is most unfortunate.
And it should also be understood that religion is also a war in many respects, and much teaching of the bible comes from “war contexts” with applications to basic living as well. Consider the great war in Heaven featuring Michael and Satan, and the ongoing meaning of it beyond merely a “war context.” Similar realities hold for war stories in the Quran and lessons drawn from them for Muslims to indeed engage in despicable acts of violence as promoted throughout their book of malevolent violence.
Noel says
If you have the time then please read the article (link under the photo).
“I’m against interfaith relations with all religions as well. I’m Catholic, why would I want to dialogue with this false religion despite bishops in my Church collapsing on this.”
unbeliever1 says
Alan Ruhl obviously had no idea that his article would have reached Robert Spencer.
His “knowledge” has proved to be no match for Robert’s. As of Nov 11/2018, he promised to respond to this JW article. Let’s hear him, folks. Get your popcorn ready.
I tried to make a comment on his -Allan’s site and was unable to.