…He wrote that . . ….

I think it certain that Osama regards Muhammad as a model for emulation, and takes that very seriously.

Boy, talk about the difference between the two role models. Jesus Christ forgave sinners and commanded you to love your neighbor as yourself. Muhammad beheaded unbelievers and killed their children.

And this is the fundemental difference between Judeo-Christianity and Islam. Sure, the OT has its own violent passages, but those a) predict and b) are superceeded by a peaceful reconcilliation between God and Man in the NT. So far the Koran is only more and more violence.

Robert Spencer on October 28, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Thank you sir! And another great blog entry. Was shocked the first time I learned that war-booty is talked about and promoted in such a brazen fashion, in a religious text of all places.

Especially if you consider his example “perfect”.

How to draw the poison out of the Koran?

Or would that only leave a blank book?

Lots of room in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Bahai’ism, and Taoism, O’ Muslims.

If you need another faith.

And they don’t threaten to kill you if you want to leave.

Was curious: How are the words or concepts of al-Anfal and ghanimah related or differentiated? (I had read somewhere before that the word “ghanimah” meant booty or spoils.)

In the Qur’an and Sunnah, the words anfal, ghanimah and fai’ are all used for the spoils of war or booty taken from the unbelievers in jihad warfare.

Thanks.

In regards to the first part where Muhammed gets revenge against the people who rejected him, do you see a parallel between this event and Osama Bin Laden’s quest to destroy the Saudi government?

I think it certain that Osama regards Muhammad as a model for emulation, and takes that very seriously.

They need to make a movie about all this. What a fascinating time in history! It would illuminate many kufirs as well.

Jimmy the Dhimmi on October 28, 2007

I have thought that for a long time.

No compassion. Muhammad is from the dark side.

We’ve all heard quite often enough about the “religion of peace” claim since 9-11. But this is not proffered on the basis of textual reference, in stark contrast to the confident use of Islamic texts by the jihadists.

T J Green on October 28, 2007 at 1:38 PM

Actually, they do use text reference. Just not in context. In other words, when they claim Islam forbids the killing of innocents, they conveniently forget to mention that only Muslims are considered “innocents”.

Was curious: How are the words or concepts of al-Anfal and ghanimah related or differentiated? (I had read somewhere before that the word “ghanimah” meant booty or spoils.)

If the opinions of “moderate” Muslims are to become relevant and meaningful, a scholarly stand against textual use of the Koran and hadith material to justify Islamic totalitarianism must be undertaken. This past week the voice of moderate American Muslims on campus was simply outrage that infidels would presumptuously link terrorists with their faith; these Muslims (and their infidel supporters) fail to offer any direct textual rebuttal to the terrorists themselves and simply repeat, ad nauseum, their catch phrases that promise peace.

We’ve all heard quite often enough about the “religion of peace” claim since 9-11. But this is not proffered on the basis of textual reference, in stark contrast to the confident use of Islamic texts by the jihadists.

There is a reason the terrorist textual position is not publicly denounced: Without permanently deleting much of the textual material, or writing whole passages anew, moderate Islamic apologetics is simply impossible. And changing that which was supposedly dictated from above without error is inherently problematic.

darwin on October 28, 2007 at 11:10 AM

Muhammad was pretty good at making stuff up as he went along, wasn’t he?

[/immaturity]

The Prophet, the most merciful, ordered [his army] to strike the necks of some prisoners in [the battle of] Badr and to kill them….And he set a good example for us.

Well, you can’t argue with people who believe something like that.

In regards to the first part where Muhammed gets revenge against the people who rejected him, do you see a parallel between this event and Osama Bin Laden’s quest to destroy the Saudi government?

Your pieces are always well written, articulate, and an enjoyable read.

Yes, there are decent muslims out there, but it because they have internalized their evil holy book. Many people don’t understand the religions they profess. I’ve meet self-professed fundamentalist Christians who couldn’t name the four gospels.

This was in accord with a special privilege that Allah had granted to Muhammad. Muhammad explained: “I have been given five (things) which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me.”

How convenient … just like everything else in the quran.

2:216: “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you.”

I believe this to be one of the most dangerous passages in the entire Koran, more so even than the so-called Verse of the Sword. Allah seems to anticipate the emergence of moderate Muslims and warns them against moderation. Any Muslim who takes this to heart is one step away from radicalization.