I have listened to a great deal of “Da’wa” (from Vision TV — a cable channel I believe which should have its license revoked by the CRTC), but I have yet to hear an actual “moral” coming from those preaching Islam, or any edifying story. I am coming to the conclusion that Islam lacks a moral center. The “morality” simply isn’t there…it’s absent…there’s a void. Rather than “morality” it appears to be all about power and lording it over hapless victims. How is this a “religion”?

J.S. on July 23, 2007 at 2:15 PM

All of Muhammad’s vices are enshrined as virtues in the Qur’an, Hadith, and the Siras.

I have listened to a great deal of “Da’wa” (from Vision TV — a cable channel I believe which should have its license revoked by the CRTC), but I have yet to hear an actual “moral” coming from those preaching Islam, or any edifying story. I am coming to the conclusion that Islam lacks a moral center. The “morality” simply isn’t there…it’s absent…there’s a void. Rather than “morality” it appears to be all about power and lording it over hapless victims. How is this a “religion”?

Belief in Christianity doesn’t mean Judaism isn’t correct.

True. Christianity isn’t obscessed with discrediting Judaism, Judaism is the foundation of Christianity. The foundation of Islam, OTOH, is the specific discrediting of both Judaism and Christianity.

I noticed that ‘Fire’ is capitalized, so goes the interpretation of Yusufali. Placing these verses in context, just who these pagans defeated at the Battle of Badr, whom this passage refers to? They obviously think that ‘The Fire’ will only touch them temporarily after death in battle. Just curious.

The vast majority of commentators see this as the Jews, denuing that they will be in hell for very long.

Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 669:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Khaibar was conquered, Allah’s Apostle was presented with a poisoned (roasted) sheep. Allah’s Apostle said, “Collect for me all the Jews present in this area.” (When they were gathered) Allah’s Apostle said to them, “I am going to ask you about something; will you tell me the truth?” They replied, “Yes, O Abal-Qasim!” Allah’s Apostle said to them, “Who is your father?” They said, “Our father is so-and-so.” Allah’s Apostle said, “You have told a lie. for your father is so-and-so,” They said, “No doubt, you have said the truth and done the correct thing.” He again said to them, “If I ask you about something; will you tell me the truth?” They replied, “Yes, O Abal-Qasim! And if we should tell a lie you will know it as you have known it regarding our father,” Allah’s Apostle then asked, “Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?” They replied, “We will remain in the (Hell) Fire for a while and then you (Muslims) will replace us in it” Allah’s Apostle said to them. ”You will abide in it with ignominy. By Allah, we shall never replace you in it at all.” Then he asked them again, “If I ask you something, will you tell me the truth?” They replied, “Yes.” He asked. “Have you put the poison in this roasted sheep?” They replied, “Yes,” He asked, “What made you do that?” They replied, “We intended to learn if you were a liar in which case we would be relieved from you, and if you were a prophet then it would not harm you.”

Robert, do you think that much of the Islamic craziness in today’s world is truly do to passages like the seemingly innocuous Sura 3:3-4, or the ideas of the Quran’s interpreters? Which has more influence? Note, that I am not ignoring the more militant passages in the Quran, I am convinced that they are there, but do the interpreters make it more militant than it was intended to be?

Well, I don’t see 3:3-4 as entirely innocuous even on its face, since it is appropriating Judaism and Christianity by saying that the Qur’an confirms the Torah and the Gospel, and warning hellfire for those who disagree. This entirely strips Judaism and Christianity of legitimacy, leaving Jews and Christians as renegades who have twisted the true faith. The interpreters who take this farther certainly make matters worse, but they have plenty to work with.

“One cannot force these people to accept, but can merely advise them. Inviting them to accept Islam is the duty of the Muslim.”

Why is this ignored? Why now does radical Islam follow that it is their duty to kill you if you don’t believe?

Because the prerogative of calling an offensive jihad and calling a non-Muslim state to accept Islam or become dhimmis belongs to the caliph, and there is no caliph. So the jihads waged today are viewed as defensive jihads against the non-Muslim aggressor. We are not called to accept the Islamic social order and become dhimmis because in the jihadist view the Islamic social order is not established anywhere for us to be able to accept it.

So, muslims only suffer when they go away from allah. Well then how do they explain the ass whoopin’ the taliban sufferred at the hands of the U.S. Armed Forces? Who is more pious than the taliban? There is considerably LESS suffering in Afghanistan now than there was under the “righteous” talibs.

This sort of thing is a source of continual cognitive dissonance. But so far it hasn’t led to any large-scale reevaluation of the principle; instead, it just leads to calls for even more Islamic purity.

Of course, his son is now sneaking out at night, skipped school and got into an accident,and is involved with a gal from school that writes him letters describing how she wants him to tie her and her friend up and do whatever sexually deviant thing he would like to them. He’s 15.

Dammit, I went to the wrong high school as well! I can’t get anything right!

Next week Allah sets the record straight about Christianity.

Ooh I can’t wait.

Isn’t Islam the only religion that specifically talks about other religions?

Nope. The Mormons and the Bah’is are two just off the top of my head. But then Mormons consider themsleves Christian and Bah’is consider themselves Muslim so I suppose its a matter of interpretation.

“….mainstream Islamic tradition regards the Jewish and Christian Scriptures as corrupted: they don’t, after all, confirm what is in the koran, and so Jews and Christians must have dared to alter them – and now “their forgeries deceive them as to their own religion”…”

Wowser. My head is spinning – almost as rapidly as that type of reasoning.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but so far this is all very convoluted stuff comprised of staggering rants by a desert nomad with a massive inferiority complex mounting spiritual & military assaults against people of other religions – namely the Jews.

Color me perverse, I guess:

Allah warns that it is only “those in whose hearts is perversity” who “follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah.”

Jews just don’t believe He is the Messiah. It’s not that they believe the religion is corrupted, it’s that they don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah they have been waiting for.

That’s fair enough. I personally believe that He is – that makes me Christian. If you don’t believe Jesus is Lord (Messiah, God the Redeemer of Mankind), you aren’t Christian.

Do Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Jews depend on the corruption of any other religion in order for them to be true? I don’t think so, and that was my point.

well presumably Judaism depend on christianity being corrupted doesnt it? im not sure…

Belief in Christianity doesn’t mean Judaism isn’t correct. My point is that Islam NEEDS to discredit other religions in order for theirs to be accurate. While Christianity or Judaism depend only on the religion and texts itself for truth.

I mentioned the wars between Israel and different tribal religions in the OT such as Ba’al for example. But it doesn’t say, the followers of Ba’al corrupted our scriptures so we are the true interpretation of this other religion.

Christianity doesn’t say that Judaism is wrong and Christianity is the actual Judaism, or Hindu, or Buddhism. Islam depends on other religions being corrupted for it to be true – and it claims to be the ‘true religion’ of the religions that it says were ‘corrupted’ anyway.

Do Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Jews depend on the corruption of any other religion in order for them to be true? I don’t think so, and that was my point. I may not have stated it appropriately, and I still may not have explained my point appropriately, but I’m working on my communication skills.

Isn’t Islam the only religion that specifically talks about other religions?

Christianity in the New Testament spends much of its pages discussing the Judaism of the Old. Galatians specifically is addressing Christians in Peter’s camp who felt the Laws of Judaism needed to be continued. Paul’s argues in that letter that Judaism was not necessary for Gentile Christians. There is plenty more besides that. Does that count?

This because they say: “The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days”: For their forgeries deceive them as to their own religion. But how (will they fare) when we gather them together against a day about which there is no doubt, and each soul will be paid out just what it has earned, without (favour or) injustice?

I noticed that ‘Fire’ is capitalized, so goes the interpretation of Yusufali. Placing these verses in context, just who these pagans defeated at the Battle of Badr, whom this passage refers to? They obviously think that ‘The Fire’ will only touch them temporarily after death in battle. Just curious.

According to Qatada and many other Islamic authorities this “criterion” is the Qur’an itself, although others say it refers to all the revealed scriptures – in their uncorrupted form, of course.

It reads like the later is the correct interpretation to me, but when Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani sees this: Surely they who disbelieve in the communications of Allah they shall have a severe chastisement; and Allah is Mighty, the Lord of retribution. – v4, as proof of the non-divinity of Jesus, then I have no hope of interpreting the Quran. Robert, do you think that much of the Islamic craziness in today’s world is truly do to passages like the seemingly innocuous Sura 3:3-4, or the ideas of the Quran’s interpreters? Which has more influence? Note, that I am not ignoring the more militant passages in the Quran, I am convinced that they are there, but do the interpreters make it more militant than it was intended to be?

Robert Spencer:

Allah warns that it is only “those in whose hearts is perversity” who “follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah.”

Consider 2Peter 1:20-21

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Truth be told, until we get to verse 21, much of Sura 3:1-20 looks like it could easily have been borrowed from Jewish and Christian scriptures.

Islam says, you know that Abraham guy in the Bible sacrificing his son? Well the story is true, but somebody changed it for some reason and Islam has the ‘actual story’ some 2500 years after the fact.

Why do they maintain the same story if they insist it was corrupted. If ONE part was corrupted (ie. which son it was), why do they depend on the STORY ITSELF to be accurate?

I’ll be interested to see how Islam explains Jesus. It is amazing how Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies in the Bible. Mohommed wanted to be ‘messiah’, but in order to fulfill ONE prophecy he had to say the text was changed. Jesus just fulfilled the prophecies. Mohommed had to change the prophecies to fulfill what he did.

Isn’t Islam the only religion that specifically talks about other religions? Certainly there are mentions of other religions of other tribes in the Bible, but it doesn’t harp on them over and over again. Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, etc, etc, etc are not mentioned and not necessary to the Jewish or Christian faith. Yet Islam depends on discrediting other faiths (while opportunistically using portions of it) in order to be ‘true’.

Thank you Robert Spencer. You have helped my understanding of the ideology tremendously. I just get frustrated now when I talk to people who are ‘moral relativists’ who haven’t studied the religions. They just don’t know, and they don’t want to know.

“One cannot force these people to accept, but can merely advise them. Inviting them to accept Islam is the duty of the Muslim.”

Why is this ignored? Why now does radical Islam follow that it is their duty to kill you if you don’t believe?

Tony737 on July 22, 2007 at 11:56 AM

No, not yet. It’s on my list, but toward the bottom.

Thank you for any comments either by private email or publicly.

Unwarranted Attack on Diana West a response!

CSDeven, thanks for that example, it just proves that “charity starts at home”. By the way, did ya read “Lone Survivor” yet? I’m now in the middle of “Shooter” by and about the top U.S.M.C. sniper in Iraq. Pretty good, but not as good as Survivor.