Jihad Watch (Spenser) Blind Leader with Followers

Introduction - Part One

The historical method - why is it important?

"It is dishonest to divorce the Quran from the historical context", says Nadir Ahmed.

The historical and scriptural cases show that early Muslims didn't wage war on "peaceful people."

The Christians who fought the Muslims were violent; they went with armies and killed not only Muslims and Jews but even other Christians.

Often the Crusaders had no intent of even conversion when dealing with the Muslims. They gave no choice of conversion or death. It was probably apparent that Muslims would not have converted to Christianity, so the only option before the Crusaders was genocide, or constant war with the Muslim armies.

A most important debate topic

Did the Muslims fight the non-Muslims because they were disbelievers?

Ch:8:39, is given, also Ch:4:75. These verses are “telling” and reveal “Muslims true intentions” with regards the Christians (and Jews) of the world, as all Muslims should bear witness.

Before I explain about the two verses above, I will leave you this verse to think about:

“Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of taghut (idols/false gods or wrong beliefs, etc) So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak.” (Ch: 4, V:76, The Qur’an).

We understand the above verse to mean that Muslims are fighting “evil” people, evil ideas or the devil himself. But apart from the existential discussion we can have about the forces of good and evil, the previous two verses will shed more light on the reasons for Jihad.

Ch: 9, V: 29 "tells us who to fight but not why to fight", explains Ahmed.

(Similarly, there are verses which tell Muslims to fight other Muslims, and why to fight them; which I will get to later.)

The next verse states, “The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah”, and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah …May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded” (Ch: 9, v: 30, The Qur’an).

While the verse obviously condemns the sayings of the People of the Book (their former scriptures having been altered to include wrong beliefs about God e.g. His need for a son, besides other inventions) it doesn’t order the Muslims to fight the non-Muslims based solely on their beliefs. Allah says He will destroy them. But if they repent, Allah will not destroy them, is also to be understood. They must become Muslims or Allah will not accept their worship and good deeds. Allah says in the Quran that He is “at war” with non-believers, or "at war" with the enemies of Muhammad or the enemies of Angel Gabriel.

See another post I have written on the same subject of “Muslims and why to fight them” (see Part 2 of “Complacency in Religion” elsewhere in the blog – revising; add link)

Non-specific verses: not about any people in particular; these verses can refer to any people who behave in the manner described or who have certain characteristics, and are to be understood generally.

"And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause...?” - is admonishing the Muslims for not fighting the evil people - and it continues to the end, "... of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and chldren who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppresssive people and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" (Ch: 4, V: 75, The Qur'an)

A similar verse has, “And fight them until there is no fitnah [chaos or persecution], and (until) the religion (i.e. worship), all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease – then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.”(Ch: 8, v: 39, The Qur’an)

Both verses encourage Muslims to aid those innocent people suffering persecutions and torture, irregardless of their religious beliefs.

Comparing Hadiths and Qur’an, on Jihad:

“I have been ordered to fight against people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and until they perform the prayers and pay the Zakat, and if they do so they will have gained protection from me for their lives and property, unless [they do acts that are punishable] in accordance with Islam, and their reckoning will be with Allah the Almighty”.

It was related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

E.g. Two different verses about the same subject – how to deal with polytheists:

“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Ch: 9, V: 5, The Qur’an)

“And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah [i.e., the Qur’an]. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.” (Ch: 9, V: 6, The Qur’an)

Protection and ceasing of fighting are dependent on 1 – conversion to Islam, 2 – asylum seekers (below) or 3 – ceasing of hostilities and peace treaties

When the Quran was being revealed piecemeal – being arranged later by Muhammad (as per God’s instructions) into the chapters and a book - over two decades, many different conditions existed at different times, therefore, we cannot judge the whole Qur’an on one or two verses only. The Quran is meant to be studied as a whole, to get the real meaning of Islam and what Allah, Most High, wanted to convey to His slaves (humanity at large).

The next verse in connection with polytheists in Arabia mentions the fact that Allah would not have any polytheists remain in the Arabian Peninsula, as a result the final stand on polytheists is that they must be evicted or eradicated from there. The same is not true for the People of the Book, the Christians and Jews. (Or others with a holy book or scriptures, such as the Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etc.) And Allah knows best.

“How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].” (This verse still permits some polytheists at the time the verse was revealed, specifically “those with whom you made a treaty at the [Kaaba]”.)

Ch: 9 v. 29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah …"

Spencer quotes the above without the remainder of the verse. "I didn't give you Quran? I gave you Quran", he says later.

Interestingly, Spencer doesn’t even say “and the Last Day” (maybe) because he doesn’t want to insult others who do not believe in the Last Day (Day of Judgment). He is a weak Christian, and an apologetic one. There are some Christians who do not believe in the Day of Judgment any longer, such as the Jehovah’s witnesses (If I am wrong, please inform me of the fact.) Jehovah’s witnesses also do not believe in Hell. Or maybe Spenser himself doesn’t believe in the Day of Judgment? Hell?

He also mentions a Muslim scholar's viewpoint with direct quotes (Ibn Jauziyah - to be discussed) to support his view.

The Context of the verse, Ahmed

"Believers, fight the unbelievers" and "When you meet the unbelievers..."

'"When you meet the unbelievers..." (continues) tells Muslims "how to fight". “Smite their necks”, and so forth.

And it is in the context of a battle.

I hope there are not people dense enough to really believe that Muslims would be ordered by God to kill the people they "meet" anywhere (marketplace? playground? street corner?) under any or all conditions??

I don't believe there are people that naïve or stupid. I hope not.

I will get later to the point many non-Muslims make that Muslims interpret the Qur'an violently and then act with violence against the non-Muslims because of the above verse (Ch: 9, v: 29). Just give me a few moments to explain some other things. You can also see the following blog post(s); "Complacency in religion" (Parts 1, 2).

Nadir Ahmed defends "his version"

Nadir's version is actually the general Muslims' belief. We don't kill people because they are non-believers. Otherwise, most of the general Muslims would be mass murderers. It is the West especially America that has a much higher prevalence of mass murders by "ordinary citizens" than does any Muslim country today. We are talking about people who murder out of some misplaced anger, not out of religious convictions.

"Background check"

Muslims do not believe that murder is alright. Even "honor killings" for example, are done out of the wrong beliefs or even "family honor" and are not permitted in Islam. It is Islam that forbids killing other than a life for a life. The Islamic authority puts to death rapists, or murderers. Only the Islamic government has the authority under God to stone adulterers (when four reliable witnesses are brought forth). Muslims are not permitted to take the law into their own hands, as a rule.

It is unfortunate that a large number of men in some Muslim societies kill women or girls in the name of "honor" or in the name of Islam, but it is not defensible according to Islam. We find these crimes are numerous but we do not find many mass murders in Muslim societies, or in the Western society perpetrated by Muslims. The unfortunate case recently of one Muslim in the US Army, General Nadel, I think, exemplifies "mass murder", and there are some examples of "honor killing" in the west, recently an Indian American killed his wife, but that also appeared to be a crime of passion, which the Westerners are no doubt familiar with and happens among Christian and other communities within the United States and Canada and all over the world.

Pay attention!

I think Ahmed has a tough time getting his message across to Spencer.

Probably much of the audience has the same problem focusing as Robert Spencer does; it is a problem of not listening or paying enough attention to the actual "words".

The verse Ch: 9, V: 29 was revealed in a certain (important) context and at a certain important moment in history.

Many of the quranic verses are revealed at a specific time or place, with a specific goal in mind. Allah gave Muslims at the time "the instructions" on what to do on those occasions.

One could say, as some people in the military that these were “tactical” or “strategic” verses. Not to be understood as applicable in all times or all places, or all situations, as I alluded to earlier.

Again, it must be reviewed and properly understood by the immediate context.

As Nadir says, "These are just "marching verses" or ‘marching orders’.

Look closely at the words:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day". In other words, fight non-Muslims only.

But the verse doesn't stop there. It continues, "...until they give the Jizya or are humbled".

The above fighting ("Qaatilu") involves more than one group of people engaged in a fight. It doesn't mean fighting civilians, for one thing. Secondly, the Arabic "Qaatilu" (which I am looking at now to verify it in my copy of the Qur'an with corresponding English meanings) isn’t the same as "Aqtil", which means "kill"; therefore, when we examine the word this way, even in the English translation of the Arabic, it becomes very apparent that the right meaning of "fight" is not "kill" indiscriminately, but "fight" other people who also are fighting you. I believe this is clear and as concise as I can make this point.

(Nadir fails by not examing the words closely, or pointing out the meaning of the word “Qaatilu”, in Arabic, and the meaning of "fight" in English. It is not translated nor can it be translated as "kill", which is (often) the same as "murder". Allah didn't tell the Muslims to "murder" people.

Does Islam Permit Discrimination or Racism?

Part two will be next, as well, "Ayaan Hirsi Ali's lies about Islam"

Islam in America and Europe Targeted

Is Islamic culture respected? (Part One)

Examine the Free Speech in Countries like America and Denmark.


Problem: free speech is not regulated, like say, the food industry.


In other industries, for example, we know that there are certain guidelines, for ex. Food must not pose a threat to health.


Toys must be safe; no lead paint, if there are small parts, then toys must be labeled, as such.


Health equipment; is another example of regulation.


Laws on “freedom of expression” are “no racism”, no “hate”, etc.


Are the laws sufficient? Too vague?

Because countries like America and Britain, which are the biggest proponents and in practice allow the most so-called “free speech”; they also have the highest incidents of hate crimes, and violent threats directed at “Free speech” proponents. Such as writers/artists, or in Denmark, it was the editors of newspapers carrying the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad, years back.


The non-Muslims should be taught (tolerance), or governed by/ laws which allow free speech, enacted under “appropriate conduct”.


For example, if you have a problem with Muslim women’s dress in western countries, being forced to/or wearing the face veil, of their own free will, does that constitute a threat to your liberty, or safety? You believe that the public should be able to see anyone’s face.


What about tattoos? Do they not also cover the face? That person can no longer be identified except by his tattoo, for example. If several people then have such tattoos, doesn’t it mean that there is confusion about who is who?


Free speech should be able to show that it is somehow important, or expresses, either art, or culture, or seeks to right some wrong, or so on….


It should be specific: i.e. Don’t complain about Islam in general, is a bad religion; there are examples in the Bible about things which most people would not agree with, yet, the Bible as a whole is not being banned, or attacked, as a whole, nor are certain Christians, denominations, sects, or groups being attacked as a whole.


For example, someone could protest that Muslim women should not wear Islamic clothing, such as the burqa, or a face veil, and give reasons why. There should be a clear and defensible argument why this is not good in a Western society. (I.e. People can merely teach their children that Muslims believe they must dress this way, if it bothers them or their children).


Laws, denying men unilateral divorce, for example. Laws; denying men the right to practice polygamy; these apply to all Muslims; might/might not be seen as violating the basic right to religious freedom. In a secular society, which decides matters in a legal or constitutional framework, what things does the government have a right to ban, or legalize?


But the banning of a covering overcoat? Will Muslim women be allowed to wear “London fog” coats in summer, or will that constitute something illegal. I.e. trying to over cover up in the summer when people should be uncovering?


Should free speech which is “provoking” anger, with no other intention except to “provoke” a group of people, or a religious sect then be illegalized? Considering that such free speech, serves no other purpose; it is not (construed as) being done from an (largely) artistic perspective, it is not challenging a specific idea or belief dangerous to the wide public.


We find that countries like Canada, which have not banned the face veil, have fewer problems. The Muslims are perhaps not choosing extremism, as a result of more freedoms. Definitely, they are happier than Muslims in France at the moment.


Isn’t the government’s direct involvement in banning Islamic clothing, or Islamic teaching, going to anger Muslims, cause resentment, anger, and possibly extremist views? Should the government not make it its job to target specific religions, or sects?

“Then should We turn the message away, disregarding you, because you are a transgressing people?” (43:5)Qur’an

13/10/2009 by DD (from MyIslamfeed)

Extremism in the Home/Work Environment

I am on my way to realizing a dream, of telling everyone who cares to listen, or read about my opinions on many topics of interest.  I have just finished revising, adding a dictionary to one of my blogs, which I will post immediately after I can get the 'box' away from the 'kid'.  The kid apparently is an extremist, according to the definition, usually one with extreme religious or political ideas, sentiments - who will stop at nothing to reach his goals…I'm coming back to that…

In our home there is such a thing as a 'black box'…this 'box' (for short) is not the black box recorder on airplanes, no, it's the 'black box' otherwise known as 'wifi' of which most ppl who have one, it's sufficient to give them broadband, internet access, or whatever…so they can enjoy unlimited connectivity, at least that's what I thought. I apologize profusely - my ignorance of internet technology runs long and deep… kind of the 'China Wall' of ignorance in our home...

Enter, 'kid' no 1. He enjoys playing cd's/ games on the p.c. which his father generously 'loans' him until he is old enough to afford his own, in which case he'll be adult enough to have other things to do…like, oh I don't know, things that guys do, as a religious young man (hopefully), getting a part-time job while he's studying in University…

…problem arises…the 'wifi' has another box to help it, a helper…called the 'beige box'.  Black boxes (like ours) are vertical, thin from one view, from another view a lot wider (still only 5? Inches).The beige box is vertically challenged (apparently a joke I've stolen. If I get sued, I plead no 'mens rea', which means -  I don't know, it's not me, somebody else stole my joke before I used it…or in Latin, prove it!) This short flat, somewhat smaller other-colored 'box' makes a network between the p.c. in the 'kid's' room to a laptop in an unnamed person's bedroom, which is shared by a few ppl at the moment…the bed and the bedroom are shared… the laptop has a username, which is really stupid, like it knows it exists to begin with, so someone called it 'Toshiba' which is, how original? Anyway, our home has doors and in between the doors there is space, some floor, and a few meters of electrical wiring, part of the "matrix" I guess. If I tried to remove any of it and couldn't replace wire A where wire B should go, then you know, some things understandably feel lost; but we also have printer and laptop battery competing for space in the "ac. power" which are always moaning about something, like "low battery"…other ppl/wires that feel 'left out' complain about being "disconnected", etc. I've read some of these complaints by other users…basically I can't wrap my head around most of the jargon, or the explanations in any of the help articles/blogs…let K worry about it!   

…not getting any place with this…my freedom of speech is seriously being curtailed here, by 'kid' no 1...by the time 'older brother' no 1, the numero Uno, shows up for afternoon post- lunch/school's-over before-dinner- break…and wants to munch in front of the p.c. which will quickly turn into 'war of the networks' in our tiny abode, mostly a war of words, but then things sometimes get nasty…which has led to problems with the laptop, which with all its emotional problems cannot handle another stressful situation coming from the boys' room… she goes,”mmbbzzttt”. Toshiba is on sleep, may be narcoleptic, hmmm…how often does it happen, you wonder?…almost as often as big brother comes, takes the main network cable away, and another time, literally pulled too much on one of the cables (an extension) running at the time, under the door as well as through the space between the doorframe and the door to desktop, quickly and painfully cut some wiring, which resulted in the same loss of network connection …so only one person, or at least one computer with several ppl watching illegal downloaded stuff IS SATISFIED while I have to wait for a minimum 3 hours until the kids mafia feel placated enough to return to me my 'black box', my "dream box" (which I'll call it from now on).This family problem, which can be quite divisive along, children to children, parent to children, parent to parent lines, reminds me of  a song  called, "good fences make good neighbours" from the late 80's - 90's? A onetime famous boy band stole the name, I guess, from a poem by Tennyson? I can see a metaphor here, the network cables, the discord, the "wall of China", it's all beginning to make sense…I can see a wall, not the wall of China, it's not there, another wall, much taller probably than the Wall of China, also very long…it runs between homes, through homes! It goes on and on, running through the land, separating families…like the "matrix" in my home, sowing fear and discord, leaving pain and hurt, ruining their lives, disrupting life, separating families - some whose homes have literally been split down the middle. It's in Palestine; the wall is simply called "the Wall". 

 'Toshiba' is doing much better these days, I have devised a schedule, not really written in blood, but which might stop the wrong that the poor laptop, as well as 'kid no 1' has been feeling these days. Thus I explain that extremism is not always religious or political; by definition it IS "getting what you want by hurting another opposing person, group, or point of view"

"…and me", as all good stories go, "I'll be walking into the sunset", huh?

I'll be FINISHING UP this writing before you can say "blog". *

DICTIONARY

Mens rea: a judicial (term)/legalese, from the Latin; lawyers use it to mean, "my client is innocent because he 'didn't mean to' do the act/ crime"…but if the judge and/or jury believe otherwise then the defendant is found guilty (anyway). This happens a lot when circumstantial evidence is in play.

Fundamentalist: "the practice of following very strictly the basic rules     and teachings of any religion…" 

*THE END                     

Comments

Diamond Draw - 17/10/2009 5:19:39 PM

The Berlin wall is a better metaphor than the Wall of China, which was built to keep out marauders and its enemies