Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 2, “The Cow,” verses 211-221

posted at 9:00 am on July 8, 2007 by Robert Spencer

When is it permissible to break moral laws? When the Islamic community is being persecuted. That is the impact of the small and easily-overlooked phrase “persecution is worse than slaughter,” which appears in Qur’an 2:217 (as well as in 2:191).

Verses 189-242 of Sura 2, “The Cow,” answer various questions that apparently the Muslims had asked Muhammad, since Allah begins his answers to Muhammad with “They ask you” (vv. 189, 215, 217, 219, 220, 222). One of these questions was whether or not fighting was permissible during the sacred month, which Allah takes up in v. 217.

Muhammad’s first biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, gives the background of this verse. After the Hijrah, Muhammad’s move from Mecca to Medina, the Muslims began raiding caravans of the pagan Quryash – Muhammad’s own tribe, which had rejected him. Muhammad himself led many of these raids. These raids served a key economic purpose: keeping the Muslim movement solvent. At one point Muhammad sent one of his most trusted lieutenants, Abdullah bin Jahsh, along with eight other Muslims out with orders to watch for a Quraysh caravan at Nakhla, a settlement not far from Mecca, and “find out what they are doing.”

Abdullah and his band took this as an order to raid the Quraysh caravan, which soon came along, carrying leather and raisins. But it was the last day of the sacred month of Rajab, during which, by longstanding Arab custom, fighting was forbidden. This presented them with a dilemma: if they waited until the sacred month was over, the caravan would get away, but if they attacked, they would sin by killing people during the sacred month. They finally decided, according to Ibn Ishaq, to “kill as many as they could of them and take what they had.”

On the way home to Medina Abdullah set aside a fifth of the booty for Muhammad. But when they returned to the Muslim camp, Muhammad refused to share in the loot or to have anything to do with them, saying only: “I did not order you to fight in the sacred month.” But then Allah revealed v. 217, explaining that the Quraysh’s opposition to Muhammad was more offensive in his eyes than the Muslims’ violation of the sacred month: the raid was therefore justified: “for persecution is worse than slaughter.” Whatever sin the Nakhla raiders had committed in violating the sacred month was nothing compared to the Quraysh’s sins. Ibn Ishaq explained this verse: “they have kept you back from the way of God with their unbelief in Him, and from the sacred mosque, and have driven you from it when you were with its people. This is a more serious matter with God than the killing of those whom you have slain.”

Once he received this revelation, Muhammad took Abdullah’s booty and prisoners. Abdullah was considerably relieved, and asked, “Can we hope that it will count as a raid for which we shall be given the reward of combatants?” Here again Allah answered in a revelation, saying that those who “strive in the way of Allah…have hope of Allah’s mercy” (v. 218). “Strive” here is jahadu (جَاهَدُو) which is a form of jihad, and “jihad for the sake of Allah” or “jihad in the way of Allah” (جَاهَدُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ) always in Islamic theology refers to jihad warfare, not to more spiritualized understandings of jihad.

Ibn Kathir, following Ibn Ishaq, also recounts this incident, which was a momentous one: good became identified with anything that redounded to the benefit of Muslims, and evil with anything that harmed them, without reference to any larger moral standard. Moral absolutes were swept aside in favor of the overarching principle of expediency. Sayyid Qutb explains that “Islam is a practical and realistic way of life which is not based on rigid idealistic dogma.” Islam “maintains its own high moral principles,” but only when “justice is established and wrongdoing is contained” — i.e., only when Islamic law rules a society — can “sanctities be protected and presevered.” So evidently they need not be before that point.

Verses 211-216 again remind the Jews of all of Allah’s spurned favors toward them (v. 211) and notes how the unbelievers scoff at the Muslims (v. 212). V. 213 contains in capsule form the Islamic view of salvation history: Allah sent prophets to the world, and “with them He sent the Book in truth,” and even “the People of the Book” — mainly Jews and Christians — agreed with one another, “except through selfish contumacy.” Then Allah guided the Muslims to the truth about the things the People of the Book disagreed about. Ibn Kathir explains that they disagreed about the “day of Congregation”: “The Jews made it Saturday while the Christians chose Sunday. Allah guided the Ummah [community] of Muhammad to Friday.” They also disagreed about the direction to face when praying (qiblah), postures of prayer, fasting, and the true religion of Abraham: “The Jews said, `He was a Jew,’ while the Christians considered him Christian. Allah has made him a Haniyfan Musliman” — that is, a pre-Islamic monotheist.

V. 216 exhorts the believers to fight, even though they “dislike it.” Maulana Bulandshahri explains the traditional view: “While the Muslims were in Makkah, they were weak and few in number, never possessing the capability nor the divine permission for Jihad (religious war). After migrating to Madinah, they received the order to fight their enemies in defence, as a verse of Surah Hajj [chapter 22 of the Qur’an] proclaims: ‘Permission (to fight) has been granted to those being attacked because they are oppressed’ [22:39]. Later on the order came to fight the Infidels (kuffar) even though they do not initiate the aggression.” Bulandshahri was a modern-day theologian, but this view of the three stages of development of the Qur’an’s teaching on warfare is found in Ibn Ishaq’s eighth-century work, and in the writings of mainstream Islamic theologians throughout the ages, including Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Juzayy, As-Suyuti, and many others.

V. 219 concerns alcoholic drinks and gambling. Several early authorities — Ibn `Umar, Ash-Sha`bi, Mujahid, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and `Abdur-Rahman bin Aslam — say it was the first of three verses to be revealed on this subject, and that would mean that the other two would take precedence over it. Here Allah says that there is “some benefit” in alcohol, but in 5:90 he says that it is “Satan’s handiwork,” which would rule out the ol’ demon rum as being beneficial at all.

V. 221 forbids Muslims to marry “unbelieving women.” Ibn Kathir records a large amount of disagreement among Islamic authorities over whether this prohibition applies to Jewish and Christian women, or just to polytheists. However, he notes that there is Ijma` — consensus — among Islamic jurists that such marriages are allowed, although of course Muslim women are not allowed by any school of Islamic law to marry Jewish or Christian men. In a culture that requires women to be utterly subservient to men, these unequal laws ensure that non-Muslim communities remain subjugated, not enjoying equality of rights or equality of dignity with Muslims.

Next week: When you might need a “temporary husband,” and an exploration of the much-vexed question of what it means that “there is no compulsion in religion.”

(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic/English Qur’an, here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Mohammed- Hey, just had a talk with the “big guy” and as it turns out, it’s all good. So I can go ahead and take the leather and rasins now. Besides, I could use a new pair of sandals.

Good blog Robert. I enjoyed that.

conservnut on July 8, 2007 at 9:15 AM

Hey Robert (Assuming you post these yourself), I’m not sure if it’s something you did or if you’re able to fix it.. but no earlier posts are showing up on the home page right now.

RightWinged on July 8, 2007 at 9:27 AM

Know this, you sinners, Oden is lord
Cast off all these middle eastern mythologies

TheSitRep on July 8, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Thanks Robert! After 4 blogs, I think I can probably just take any insane bastardization of faith and be supremely confident that it will be found within the sick mind of Muhammad and the pages of the Koran.

csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 9:56 AM

Hey, Mohamed… what part of “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn” don’t you UNDERSTAND?

stevezilla on July 8, 2007 at 9:58 AM

Robert, I know this is an important subject, but all the other articles have done gone and disappeared from the right side of the site.

Coronagold on July 8, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Thank you Robert,
I own a Qur’an (the book I own spells it that way)and had tried to read it way before 9/11.
For me it was a hard read although the copy I have is a
very good one (side by side Arabic and English and so forth)
but with out the context, that you have provided us with, over the past few weeks its hard to get some of the finer points. Of course thats the point.
This religion has been around for centuries, without so much notice from the world. and has been interpreted by a million Mullahs. Sad that its only the Squeaky wheel that gets the oil. So again thanks for the context, and the insight.

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on July 8, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Thanks Robert.

Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Muhammads last sermon is very enlightening, if what he says in his last sermon is the essence of the religion then it puts into doubt mr spencers claim that the essence of the religion is war and slaughter. thanks for the link mccguyver

zane on July 8, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Most individuals guilty of such pathological rationalization of wrong behavior would nowadays be institutionalized.

Connie on July 8, 2007 at 11:36 AM

V. 221 forbids Muslims to marry “unbelieving women.” Ibn Kathir records a large amount of disagreement among Islamic authorities over whether this prohibition applies to Jewish and Christian women, or just to polytheists.

Of course, Muslims insist that Christians are polytheists because they believe in the Trinity.

Connie on July 8, 2007 at 11:44 AM

All Muslims know that unjust violence, shedding innocent blood will be rewarded to them in kind. It is what they fear the most. That is why they hate getting caught.

Mcguyver on July 8, 2007 at 10:58 AM

The problem here is in the Islamic definitions of “justice” and “innocent.”

Connie on July 8, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Interesting similarities exist b/w Joseph Smith and Muhammed. Joseph, also, received a “revelation” after a question given to him–specifically telling his current wife that it was okay for him to take another…Muhammed has revelation just like that, so I read somewhere.

Handy to have a god around on call that tells you it’s okay to do whatever, whenever it is to your benefit.

Vanquisher on July 8, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Weird…Dan Riehl seems to be having an issue with HotAir this week…he wrote this in a comment at http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/07/islams-death-cu.html#comments

The issue is one of interpretation and Spencer’s work has no practical extension except as a rationale for banning a religion.

He MIGHT just be attacking HotAir to expand his readership…that’s what it looks like anyway, since he made ridiculous comments about one of Bryan’s recent posts…it got me over there to challenge him, but he’s now appearing to just be a tool and a fool, so I’m not wasting my time at his site ever again.

It’s just interesting how whenever anyone starts to have influence, the leeches try to either hop on (as in Riehl’s case) or they attack to try to bring down.

JustTruth101 on July 8, 2007 at 1:28 PM

zane:

Muhammads last sermon is very enlightening, if what he says in his last sermon is the essence of the religion then it puts into doubt mr spencers claim that the essence of the religion is war and slaughter. thanks for the link mccguyver

Actually, I have never said that “the essence of the religion [Islam] is war and slaughter.”

If you think I have, please provide the quote.

Robert Spencer on July 8, 2007 at 1:57 PM

I see a certain paradox. The more like Christ a Christian is the better person he likely is. The more like Mohammad a Muslim is the worse person he likely is.

So I guess we should all want Christians to be good at being Christians and Muslims to be poor at being Muslims.

Frankly the best Muslims seem to be those who are not very good at being Muslims.

MB4 on July 8, 2007 at 1:59 PM

JustTruth101:

You quote Dan Riehl as saying that “the issue is one of interpretation and Spencer’s work has no practical extension except as a rationale for banning a religion.”

I don’t know where Dan Riehl is getting this. Here I argue against banning Islam. In the United States we do not ban religions, but have a Constitutional guarantee on the free exercise of religion, and I have never advocated that this be contravened.

Robert Spencer on July 8, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Mcguyver – “Bin Laden’s violence is a heresy against Islam.”

ROFLMAO!

OBL is an excellent follower of Mohammad.

MB4 on July 8, 2007 at 2:05 PM

I just read Riehl’s post.

He says “But I also know this – you can take elements from any religion, or religious tract and parse them to demonize that religion.” And that that is what I am doing, and that someone could do it with Christian sacred texts also.

Go ahead, Dan. Blog the New Testament, going through what it says and adding in copious references to Christian commentators of all sects.

Because that’s all I am doing here.

Does quoting the Qur’an and quoting Ibn Kathir and other Islamic commentators amounts to “demonizing the religion”? Either I am reporting accurately on mainstream understandings of the Qur’an, or I am not. If I am not, show where I am wrong. If I am, and you think the picture I am painting is an exercise in demonization, maybe the problem lies within the content of the texts themselves, and how you regard that content.

If you think you could Blog the New Testament and Christian commentaries and come up with a similar “demonization,” then by all means go to it, and I will read it with great interest. But the bottom line is that I did not originate the doctrines of war and supremacism, and contempt for unbelievers, that I suspect make you characterize this as a “demonization.” They were there already. Millions of Muslims arund the world believe just these things, and don’t think there is anything “demonic” about them at all. And they didn’t hear them from me.

You are shooting the messenger, rather than having to deal with unpleasant facts. I certainly hope that thoughtless smears and prejudice such as yours don’t become common in the conservative movement.

Robert Spencer on July 8, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Mcguyver:

In the Islam for Today article “Bin Laden’s violence is a heresy against Islam,” which you link above, it says this:

All this amounts to an odd and extreme violation of the normal methods of Islamic scholarship. Had the authors of such fatwas [non-binding legal opinions] followed the norms of their religion, they would have had to acknowledge that no school of traditional Islam allows the targeting of civilians. An insurrectionist who kills non-combatants is guilty of baghy, “armed transgression”, a capital offence in Islamic law. A jihad can be proclaimed only by a properly constituted state; anything else is pure vigilantism.

This, I believe, is the crux of the criticism of bin Laden: that he kills civilian non-combatants, and that a jihad can only be proclaimed by state authority.

I am glad that any Muslim holds these views. But please be so kind as to explain how you would answer arguments (by Al-Qaradawi, Ghannouchi, etc.) that there are no civilians in Israel, and thus all people there can lawfully be killed as kuffar harbi, or the contention by Anjem Choudary here that no non-Muslims are innocent, and thus all can be killed in accord with Islamic law. I’ve never seen moderate Muslims answer these arguments, which are commonly made by jihadists, and I trust you will agree that it would be essential to have answers for them so as to blunt the force of these arguments in jihadist recruitment efforts.

Same thing for the question of state authority: only the caliph can call offensive jihad, but isn’t defensive jihad fard ayn — obligatory on all believers — whenever a Muslim land is attacked? And that is how OBL et al justify their jihad actions today. How, as a moderate Muslim, would you answer them on Islamic grounds?

Looking forward to any light you can shed on these matters.

Robert Spencer on July 8, 2007 at 2:20 PM

How long till we get to “The Pig”?

km on July 8, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Robert Spencer – “How, as a moderate Muslim, would you answer them on Islamic grounds?”

They can’t.

***First of all, Mohammad, the Messenger of Allah’s
eternal word, was not moderate. No moderate can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammed himself did. Also, the Qur’an condones violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda.

People whom we call moderates are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Moderates will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”***

MB4 on July 8, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Go ahead, Dan. Blog the New Testament

What a great idea…I was taught a long time ago when someone attacks Christianity to direct them back to the bible (but I apparently forgot, thank you for the reminder!) People are saved daily by reading the bible, and a lot of hard-core unbelievers wind up being converted by being dared to prove the bible false. It takes the air out of whatever attack they are making, because an honest look at the bible reveals truth. And directing them back to the bible is the opposite of a personal attack, it’s a suggestion to engage in intellectual pursuit.

Riehl almost appears to be anti-Christian, maybe that is why he is turning into an apologist for Islam? Just a thought.

Anyway, I’m not going to waste my time with Riehl anymore…once someone makes unsupported ocnjecture smearing someone else that is completely unsupported (which he has done twice this week) I am done.

Conservatives should be more polite…Riehl is going to make us look bad.

Thank you, Robert Spencer, for posting a cordial reasonable reply on his blog.

JustTruth101 on July 8, 2007 at 2:31 PM

good became identified with anything that redounded to the benefit of Muslims, and evil with anything that harmed them, without reference to any larger moral standard.

Sums it up nicely…

Who is Riehl and why should anyone care what he thinks? I often ignore Marketing and Sales Directors when they are talking about their own products (which they often know little about). So, why should I pay attention to one now when it comes to Mr. Spencer and his work?

TheBigOldDog on July 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Same thing for the question of state authority: only the caliph can call offensive jihad, but isn’t defensive jihad fard ayn — obligatory on all believers — whenever a Muslim land is attacked?

Robert Spencer on July 8, 2007 at 2:20 PM

A question, Robert. What is a Muslim land?

Connie on July 8, 2007 at 5:07 PM

The only “morality” that matters to a practicing follower of Mohammad’s Koran is whatever serves the interest of Islam.

Because anything that hinders Islam must be subjugated or destroyed.

It is thus “moral” to do anything that removes the heretics, the infidels, the sinners, from power, if not from the Earth.

Lie, cheat, enslave, steal, assassinate poets, war, behead, car bomb children and women in markets, burn down churches, blow up mosques, even obliterate entire civilizations.

All “moral” if they aid Islam to ascendancy.

Morality is silly putty to the psychopath.

profitsbeard on July 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM

Thanks Robert. Great as always.

Interesting similarities exist b/w Joseph Smith and Muhammed. Vanquisher on July 8, 2007 at 12:35 PM

You’re the only other person that I’ve ever heard bring this up. I mentioned that this week to a friend of mine.

Joeseph Smith and Mohammad said: The Jews and the Christians have it all wrong.
Joeseph Smith and Mohammad said: My way is the only way to heaven. (The highest level of heaven for Mormons.)
Joeseph Smith and Mohammad said: Anyone who turn away from the faith goes to hell.

Mojave Mark on July 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM

Joeseph Smith and Mohammad said: Since I’m the prophet God told me that I get to have a bunch of wives.
Joeseph Smith and Mohammad both use the Bible as their jumping off point.
Joeseph Smith and Mohammad said: That Jesus is a created being and not the Son of God (ie. 2nd person of the trinity)
Joeseph Smith and Mohammad’s version of things are totally unverifyable by history, prophecy, or archeology
Joeseph Smith and Mohammad said that Christianity is an abomination to God

There are a lot of uncanny similiarities. It’s as though they’re both working from the same template.

Mojave Mark on July 8, 2007 at 5:16 PM

It seems a shame that Mr. Auster cannot work with you. There is more to be gained for the benefit of America by doing so. Is he simply looking for personal recognition, perhaps? That is the first time I’ve read the particular piece you linked to above, but it seems as though you have given him credit for having some good ideas.

Connie on July 8, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Kuffar = The devil made me do it
Muslim = Allah sez’ it’s cool

Hening on July 8, 2007 at 5:25 PM

Connie:

What is a Muslim land?

Traditionally, any land that was any time ruled by Islamic Sharia law is considered to belong forever to the Dar al-Islam (House of Islam), and it is the umma’s responsibility to fight to recover it. This goes today for Israel and, we are hearing increasingly, Spain — as well as other places also.

Robert Spencer on July 8, 2007 at 5:25 PM

Ok. So, if Muslims manage to take political control of a small Muslim community in America, and they allow sharia law to take precedence within that community, is that enough for them to now refer to that community as “Muslim land?” I know I’m pushing it a bit. Legally, it cannot be, but is that ideological mindset there, do you think?

Connie on July 8, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Connie, I doubt it. It would have to be an independent polity, at least in the traditional view.

Robert Spencer on July 8, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Semi-OT:

Are we fast-tracking Iraqi refugees?

Connie on July 8, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Answering my own question with your piece here.

I haven’t tried to get back into Jihad Watch since I sent you email saying I was having a problem. Perhaps I will try again tomorrow. At least I can enjoy just reading for now.

Connie on July 8, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Krykee. This is one bloated cow!

I still come back to this notion of ‘blood feud’. Mohammed feels ‘dissed by the Jews; the pagan Quryash; the Christians, etc. This dude has a chip on his shoulder the size of a mosque! So, (according to mohammed) tis better to kill than to risk insult? Talk about a persecution complex. Paging Dr. Freud.

That adds prophetic credence to Genesis 16:12 –

“And he (the descendants of ishmael) shall be as a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his brethren.”

So I believe Sayyid Qutb mis-spoke: He should state:

“Islam is based on rigid idealistic dogma and is not a practical and realistic way of life.”

Thank you, Robert. Another excellent lesson.

locomotivebreath1901 on July 8, 2007 at 7:06 PM

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—hereafter known as the Mormons—was founded by a gifted opportunist who, despite couching his text in openly plagiarized Christian terms, announced that “I shall be to this generation a new Muhammad” and adopted as his fighting slogan the words, which he thought he had learned from Islam, “Either the Al-Koran or the sword.” He was too ignorant to know that if you use the word al you do not need another definite article, but then he did resemble Muhammad in being able only to make a borrowing out of other people’s bibles.

-Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

aengus on July 8, 2007 at 7:08 PM

aengus

Taught by an angel named Moroni.

(Only the final “c” was missing… perhaps a heavenly typo?)

profitsbeard on July 8, 2007 at 7:35 PM

aengus-

Taught by an angel named Moroni.

(Only the final “c” was missing… perhaps a heavenly typo?)

Heh

aengus on July 8, 2007 at 7:40 PM

The angel Moron (never mind the -i-)

There’s another similarity–revelation from angel–

“…which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” Gal 1:7-9

Note the difference between “let him be condemned” and “kill the unbeliever.”

Vanquisher on July 8, 2007 at 10:18 PM

Vanquisher-

Note the difference…

Condemned I can handle.

Killed, I got a problem with.

profitsbeard on July 8, 2007 at 11:05 PM

Wow. Compelling post. Compelling thread.
I guess now the only question left is where do we put the camps?
Also: do we have separate wings for muslims and mormons, or do we just let ’em stew together?

billy on July 8, 2007 at 11:25 PM

Go ahead, Dan. Blog the New Testament, going through what it says and adding in copious references to Christian commentators of all sects.

To take Riehl’s logic to its conclusion, anyone can take any text and twist it however one wants. Therefore, language and writing is inherently not understandable and essentially meaningless.

PRCalDude on July 9, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Mcguyver

I looked up Mohammed’s last sermon, and here is what it says: (al-Tabari, Vol IX, No. 1754)

“O people, listen to my words. I do not know whether I shall ever meet you again in this place after this year. O people, your blood and your property are sacrosanct until you meet your Lord, just as this day and this month of yours are sacred. Surely you will meet your Lord and He will question you about your deeds. I have [already] made this known. Let he who has a pledge return it to the one who entrusted him with it; all usury is abolished, but your capital belongs to you. Wrong not and you shall not be wronged. Allah has decreed that there will be no usury, and the usury of Abbas b. Abd al-Muttalib is abolished, all of it. All blood shed in the pre-Islamic days is to be left unavenged. The first such claim I revoke is that of Ibn Rabiah b. al-Harith b. Abd al-Muttalib, who was nursed among the Banu Layth and was slain by the Banu Hudhayl. His is the first blood shed in the pre-Islamic days with which I shall set an example. O people, indeed Satan despairs of ever being worshipped in this land of yours. He will be pleased, however, if he is obeyed in a thing other than that, in matters you minimize. So beware of him in your religion, O people, intercalculating a month is an increase in unbelief whereby the unbelievers go astray; one year they make it profane, and hallow it another [in order] to agree with the number that Allah has hallowed, and so profane what Allah has hallowed, and hallow what Allah has made profane. Time has completed its cycle [and is] as it was on the day that Allah created the heavens and the earth. The number of the months with Allah is twelve; [they were] in the Book of Allah on the day He created the heavens and the earth. Four of them are sacred, the three consecutive [months] and the Rajab [which is the month of] Mudar, which is between Jumada and Sha’ban.

Now then, O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. You have [the right] that they should not cause anyone of whom you dislike to tread on your beds; and that they should not commit any open indecency. If they do, then Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain from [evil], they have the right to their food and clothing in accordance with the custom. Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves. You have taken them only as a trust from Allah, and you have made the enjoyment of their persons lawful by the word of Allah, so understand and listen to my words, O people. I have conveyed the Message, and have left you with something which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray; that is, the Book of Allah and the sunnah of his Prophet. Listen to my words, O people, for I have conveyed the Message and understand [it]. Know for certain that every Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, and that all Muslims are brethren. It is not lawful for a person [to take] from his brother except that which he has given him willingly, so do not wrong yourselves. O Allah, have I not conveyed the message?”

I fail to see any reference to your citation above. The closest that it comes to is the last statements highlighted above, where it only orders Muslims to be gracious towards fellow Muslims: nowhere does he extend that consideration to Infidels.

P.S. Mojave Mark and others, can we avoid sliming Mormonism with the same brush as Islam? When the Mormons start trying to terrorize other people, use billions of unearned money in proselytizing worldwide with the goals of undermining other societies, set up governments in countries that persecute non-Mormons, etc, you may have a point. Until then, while people may have their individual reservations/prejudices about different faiths, none of them – not even Atheism or Scientology – deserve to be equated with Islam, since none of them have the supremacist underpinnings that we are going through with the Quran.

infidelpride on July 9, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Also, both Mohammad and Joseph Smith claimed visits by an Angel. Somebody could almost do a book with all the similarities.

Camps? I think they’ll pop up, seriously, in Europe first. Despite the fact that right now they’re just a bunch of Euro-weenies over there let’s remember something. Spain, Italy, and Germany were all fascist states at some point during the 20th century. I find it no stretch to see them going back to their fascists roots after a few nukes go off in major population centers. Fascism is much closer to European Socialism then we might think. It would be the neo-crusades with the Europeans leading the way (as unlikely as that may sound) to counter the current jihad Muslim culture.

Mojave Mark on July 9, 2007 at 12:50 AM

infidelpride on July 9, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Just sayin’

Same “angel” visitation
Same “simpleton” prophet chosen
Same decree that the Jews and Christians have it ALL wrong
Same decree that Jesus is not God (ie 2nd person of the trinity)
Same decree that Christianity is an abomination
Same decree that the “prophet” gets to have lots of wives
Same unseen mysterious source material
Same decree that only the new religion’s followers will go to heaven
Same decree that hell awaits those new believers who apostacize from the new religion
Same doctrine that we have to earn our way to heaven instead of salvation by grace.
The list gets longer.

No one would suggest that Mormons and Muslims act the same, but you have to admit that the similarities between Mohammad and Joseph Smith are uncanny. One big difference in faiths is that Muslims believe in the existance of only one god whereas Mormons believe in the existence of a pantheon of gods. Where else but places like Hot Air can one even broach a subject like this?

Mojave Mark on July 9, 2007 at 1:05 AM

Mojave Mark on July 8, 2007 at 5:16 PM

Not that I’m a Mormon, but I had to spend 2 weeks in the Salt Lake area for work and met and worked with a bunch of them. They were some of the nicest, most family-orented (and conservative) people I’d ever met. They were really a pleasure to work with. This was back in the late 90’s and it was very refreshing to hear a bunch of people in their 20’s and 30’s who were just as discusted with Clinton’s misadventures as I was (I was still living in Massachusetts back then).

Sure, you could draw similarities between Mohammed and Joseph Smith, but it’s the actions of their followers that dictate how we should judge their teachings. For instance, Mormons don’t go around flying jet airliners into skyscrapers. Just sayin…

crazy_legs on July 9, 2007 at 10:26 AM

From the WND Link \”There is something you can do to be friends. You can become Muslim.”

“Say, for instance, I was a Muslim in America. Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America? No. So where is the freedom of religion? There is none.”

Islamic leaders in the U.S. largely have been careful to not assert publicly the Muslim belief that Islam ultimately will gain worldwide supremacy.

Of course they don’t. That’s so anyone suspected of being a Christian or exhibiting Christian sympathies who suggests there is reason to distrust Muslims can be roundly trounced and denounced for their religious bigotry.

boris on July 9, 2007 at 10:41 AM

aengus on July 8, 2007 at 7:08 PM

I hope you’re not a follower of any religion if you’re quoting Hitchens about the LDS church.

I’m sure we could find tasty little passages he’s written about Christianity, Judaism, and any other group that believes in a higher power as well – so, unless you are atheist or agnostic as well, I’d find a different source (or heck, you could even write your own biting commentary, if you’re feeling the creative juices flowing).

JadeNYU on July 9, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Robert:

I wasn’t able to post yesterday for some reason but did I want to say thanks again for your efforts. I’ve come to the conclusion that radicals muslims can find a way to justify anything.

CCRWM on July 9, 2007 at 7:51 PM

crazy_legs on July 9, 2007 at 10:26 AM

I had a similar experience.

MB4 on July 9, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Why are we comparing Mormons and Islamics? As a Christian do I believe in the Mormon church? No! But I also don’t believe there is any parallel to these Islamic pricks that strap bombs onto their babies and blow them up! And I hear NOTHING from the Islamic community here in America! NOTHING!!! Stop comparing a peace loving people to these idiots!

sabbott on July 10, 2007 at 3:35 AM

Quite possibly the most important series on the internet today. Without a basic understanding of what motivates those who would destroy us, we are lost. Thank you Mr. Spencer.

ncc770 on July 10, 2007 at 7:56 AM

Bush removes shoes for Allah

Connie on July 10, 2007 at 12:31 PM

All blood shed in the pre-Islamic days is to be left unavenged. The first such claim I revoke is that of Ibn Rabiah b. al-Harith b. Abd al-Muttalib, who was nursed among the Banu Layth and was slain by the Banu Hudhayl. His is the first blood shed in the pre-Islamic days with which I shall set an example.

This is from Mohammad’s last sermon? Wow, I must have a profound misunderstanding about the claims of Islam. As I understood it, Allah created the world, made mankind and established Islam from the beginnings of creation. That claim that Islam pre-dates every other religion is a necessary underpinning to the claims of Islam. Didn’t Mohammad claim that the Jews and Christians had gotten the “religion” wrong because of errors in their books and that he was sent to set the record straight by reasserting the ORIGINAL religion, Islam?

If that claim is true, then how can Mohammad then talk about “pre-Islamic days” as if they are days that are basically concurrent with Mohammad’s lifetime (and his “revelations”)? How can he abbrogate the claim of vengence for “Ibn Rabiah b. al-Harith b. Abd al-Muttalib, who was nursed among the Banu Layth and was slain by the Banu Hudhayl.” as a claim for a slaying that occured in the “pre-Islamic” days, and is therefore without a valid basis for vengence if Islam is the “orginal” religion given to man by Allah basically at the time of creation?

I have conveyed the Message, and have left you with something which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray; that is, the Book of Allah and the sunnah of his Prophet. Listen to my words, O people, for I have conveyed the Message and understand [it].

I’m glad he “understands” it, because it is so full of contradictions, revelations and abbrogations that I doubt anyone else does.

Fatal on July 10, 2007 at 12:41 PM

pre 9/11

Title: Islamic concept of Al-Taqiyah to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries
Author: Dr. Walid
Publication: BHARATIYA PRAGNA
Date: JUNE 2000 VOLUME 2 NUMBER 6

Islamic concept of Al-Taqiyah to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries

Connie on July 11, 2007 at 2:46 PM

There are two religions in the world. One that teaches that we must earn salvation through good works and one that teaches that nothing that we do is good enough and that we must rely on the sacrifice of another, God’s own Son Jesus Christ. All other religions (Islam included) teach that one can obtain salvation through meritorious works. In the bible we are taught that man is a fallen creature that cannot in any way please God apart from Christ’s saving grace. But through the gift of faith in Christ’s work at the cross we are made perfect in God’s sight. Quite a contract to Islam or any other religion…

sabbott on July 12, 2007 at 8:13 AM

All Muslims know that unjust violence, shedding innocent blood will be rewarded to them in kind. It is what they fear the most. That is why they hate getting caught.

Mcguyver on July 8, 2007 at 10:58 AM

The problem here is in the Islamic definitions of “justice” and “innocent.”

Connie on July 8, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Exactly, Connie. Very well said.
It is quite obvious from Robert Spencer’s Blogging the Qur’an and other commentators since 9-11 has brought the Radical/Islamic view to the forefront, that there are conflicting messages on what Muslims in general understand, believe and practice.

Besides doing a great job of blogging the Qur’an, writing a good book on the Islamic religion, and keeping us updated on all such pertinent issues, Robert also has been consistent with his message. For example: declaring Radical Islam as the problem, but not calling for it’s eradication.
also:

Actually, I have never said that “the essence of the religion [Islam] is war and slaughter.”

If you think I have, please provide the quote.

Robert Spencer on July 8, 2007 at 1:57 PM

So why my posting?

Let me explain:
These radicals are operating from a “Dark Age” mentality and come from a “fight or flight” history of survival.
As such

Morality is silly putty to the psychopath.

profitsbeard on July 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM

puts it into proper perspective.

Therefore we cannot address these radicals in a normal civilized manner of debate. They do not understand.

They fear what they set into motion, war. This is a “fight or flight” response.

How do you think, Robert Spencer, you would’ve addressed the radical Catholics as they killed, slaughtered, maimed, and butchered, the reforming Christians in those dark days?

The Catholics were simply responding to a “threat” of their old ingrained belief system!

Those radical Catholics were operating in the “fight” mentality, which they justified as similar to what YAHWEH in the Old Testament (or Torah) commanded the Jews to do with any Godless clan as they “possessed the Land” that was given to them. The radical Catholics were so sure of being the only “correct” Christian believer!!

How would you, Robert Spencer, address href=”http://www.educ.msu.edu/homepages/laurence/reformation/Luther/Luther.htm”>Martin Luther who is known for his antisemitism, quoted here:

Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of scholarly debate. His statements that Jews’ homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated, and liberty curtailed were revived and given widespread publicity by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45. As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.

And yet the Protestant reformation which is alive and well today, is not antisemitic,(except for radical Protestants).

Now above are examples of radicals that really cannot be addressed in a civilized manner. They must be dealed with unrelenting forceful strength within every means and effective tools available.

How would you, Robert Spencer, on the other hand, address Pope Benedict regarding his recent statement making it real clear that the Catholic Faith is the ONLY true Christian Faith? Obviously, the tactic here is quite different. Couldn’t it be debated with Pope Benedict in a civilized manner and thereby get him to admit that that kind of statement is exactly what induced, or led up to the killing of the Reformers?
But of course he is civilized, which is why a serious civilized debate works.

How would you, Robert Spencer, address the various moderate civilized Muslims. One of which Hassan Butt is showing all the signs of a reformed Muslim.

Hassan Butt is making statements such as: “the current text of the Qur’an is outdated and does not apply to todays world. It needs to be rewritten”. (Click on the Listen button)

Don’t you think that Hassan Butt needs an opportunity for a much broader influence?

Would you Robert Spencer consider giving him a blog on your website given his staunch reformed platform?

He could really be the “Martin Luther” of the Muslims! Hassan may not be all clear headed about the Jews (who knows, but it takes time for change of heart) as wasn’t Martin Luther, but who’s followers embrace the freedom of religion for Jews.

I say, unless Hassan Butt’s actions relapses, the time is now to strongly support and give him a larger platform.

We have a tremendous opportunity here for a great debate with and support for Hassan.

Mcguyver on July 13, 2007 at 1:12 AM

Further comments on Hassan:
What is inherent in Hassan Butt’s confession is the realization that violence is not going to win any friends, or the World.
Since the Dark Age mindset is an instinctive “fight or flight” impulse, a losing battle on the Jihadist’s front will eventually progress to them switching to a “flight” from violence. And, it will begin with those Jihadist that are the most susceptible to persuasion.

Hassan’s article in The Observer:

My plea to fellow Muslims: you must renounce terror

As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong.

Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Friday’s attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4’s Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: ‘What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.’

He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.

I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I’d be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN – I met him on two occasions – and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.

How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn’t enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no ‘rendering unto Caesar’ in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: ‘Are you British or Muslim?’ But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don’t want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.

This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.

Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don’t have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.

But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don’t actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.

The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we’ll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.

However, it isn’t enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada – the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston – has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.

Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I’d like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

Mcguyver on July 13, 2007 at 1:35 AM

How do you think, Robert Spencer, you would’ve addressed the radical Catholics as they killed, slaughtered, maimed, and butchered, the reforming Christians in those dark days?

The Catholics were simply responding to a “threat” of their old ingrained belief system!

Those radical Catholics were operating in the “fight” mentality, which they justified as similar to what YAHWEH in the Old Testament (or Torah) commanded the Jews to do with any Godless clan as they “possessed the Land” that was given to them. The radical Catholics were so sure of being the only “correct” Christian believer!!

I’m not sure how Robert will respond (or even if he will, as this is rather far back and he might not check it…I was only coming back to see what else might have been said) But I would respond by pointing out that there are literally dozens of passages that had to be totally ignored in order to put in place those policies from the top down–second, I would point out that the popes who inacted such policies were famous for their debauchery and their extreme noncompliance to anything even vaguely scripturally supported as “Christian” (just stroll through Galatians chapter five for a compare/contrast of the fruits of the Holy Spirit vs the flesh. I would also point out that those passages you refer to were all time/place/and even people specific! Allah is NOT.

I would also point out to you the stark differences between Christianity’s history with that of Islam’s: It took centuries for Christianity to become a state sponsored religion, and even more centuries for it’s leaders to become so corrupt and so far seperated from it’s own scriptural mandates that something like the Inquisition was possible…while in stark contrast Mohammed HIMself led the Muslim conquest–Islam’s borders have ALWAYS been bloody when they can afford it.

How would you, Robert Spencer, address href=”http://www.educ.msu.edu/homepages/laurence/reformation/Luther/Luther.htm”>Martin Luther who is known for his antisemitism,

Again, I don’t know what Robert would have said…but I would have pointed out Romans chapter 11 to start with:

18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.

19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;

21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

24For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery–so that you will not be wise in your own estimation–that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”
27″THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience,

31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.

32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

As I pointed out earlier–there are scads and scads of Christian scripture exhorting the believer to love, forgive, live peacably etc etc etc–one can not even shoot a murdering abortionist and be in compliance with OUR scripture (as many Christians have pointed out to those very misled AoG folks)

The Koran is completely different.

And yet the Protestant reformation which is alive and well today, is not antisemitic,(except for radical Protestants).

Now above are examples of radicals that really cannot be addressed in a civilized manner. They must be dealed with unrelenting forceful strength within every means and effective tools available.

I would point out that contrary to what you’re trying to say–Christians who have been misled, or have tried to twist scripture to support violence HAVE been dealt with in a civilized manner! We simply go back to those scriptures and point out that in no manner shape or form does Christ stand for violent conquest of any sort. Our scriptures never needed to be rewritten….and that’s where your main problem really lies

You’d like to see this guy get a wider platform–and that sounds great as far as it goes–but it’s not going to go very far at all precisly because of the differences between our scriptures. Those reasonable voices within Christianity, who were willing to die if need be to protest the Inquisition, or violence of any kind from the Church–those folks knew they were pleasing God because His Holy Word SAID so. This guy doesn’t HAVE that kind of backing.

Anyone disagreeing with the Pope has only to point out where scripture specifically forbids anyone calling their teachers “father” and point out the passages in three gospels where Jesus refers to anyone who listens to His commands and follows them as His brothers AND His Mother! (I asked a good catholic friend of mine about several of these scriptures…he’s a baptist now) There are several Catholic traditions that have absolutely NO basis in scripture (Mary’s immaculate conception comes to mind) IF Christianity were comparable to Islam (as SO many KEEP saying) as a Protestant I’d hate Catholics for twisting scripture etc–but instead, since I actually believe the scripture when it says that who so ever breaks the least of the commandments and even teaches others to do so will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven–I listen to that part about them still being IN the kingdom! I also listen to all those passages about God loving the whole world–enough to send Jesus to die for them ALL…and that part about His wanting EVERYONE to come to a saving knowledge of His Son. the list goes on and on and on–The Bible teaches that God loves all peoples–all nations: In Isaiah

He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also make You a light of the nations
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

According to Islam, Allah hates the unbelievers. (period)

Auralae on July 14, 2007 at 4:10 AM

IF Christianity were comparable to Islam (as SO many KEEP saying)
Auralae on July 14, 2007 at 4:10 AM

I was not comparing Christianity to Islam.
I am simply comparing the process of a Reformation and a reformer’s heart and how it takes time.

Note in your own life how changing any bad habit takes time… it’s a process that has to involve admitting there is a problem and then substituting the old habit with a new one, otherwise the person falls back into the old habit.

Hassan Butt has a new article that puts further emphasis on this.

One of the commentators says it very clearly, quoted here:

Hassan :Thank You. Your pauline conversion from your former jihadi persona has been published on the Drudge Report and hung upon by most every observer of the muslim terrorists’ onslaught on the unsuspecting West. We needed your insight into this mindset.Your intellect overcame your indoctrination. You recognized the need for a “Reformation” of Islam, just as Christianity evolved and overcame its propensity for violent inquisitional and crusading conversion to its supposed monopoply on the truth. Science shredded its
believability.Atheism and secularism supplanted rigid theology. America instituted separation of church & state.
Hassan , you have correctly identified the need for a new interpretation of the Koran. Many verses call for the
subjugation or, failing that, murder on non-believers- infidels. As with Judaism & Christianity , there is much love in Islam.People all come from the same basic ancestors -2000 humans 60,000 years ago-healing needs you out there Hassan. Do it.

wilfred knight, orange county, usa/california

and then another:

Hassan, you’re a brave boy – now all we need is a few hundreds of thousands more Muslims like yourself to come forward in the UK – and together, you might just start to make a difference :o) For the truth is very simple and you’ve pretty much hit the head of the cliche nail…it is time for the New Koran to be written.

David Downes, Chester, UK

Because Christianity has a historical record of killing people (not out of self-defense) one cannot debate the radicals on a broad scale in comparative religious theory for the purpose of State policy implementation.

The States’ policy of self-defense needs to be coupled with a policy of support for the true reformers so that it’s believers can vacate the “fight” mentality with a “flight” to reformation. And then from there, when you can trust that believer to not kill you, perhaps you (Auralae) can round up your religious troopers and discuss comparative religious theory.
That’s all I’m trying to say.

Or perhaps you would like to go into Mogadishu, Somalia now with your religious troopers and discuss comparative religion.
Be my guest.

Mcguyver on July 15, 2007 at 12:09 PM