Too many people want to know Islam only as "the religion of peace."
The tragedy at Fort Hood has sparked much debate over whether to classify the incident as a terrorist act. Some fear that by using the label "terrorism," the Islamic faith will be implicated. Others jump at the chance to define it as terrorism in order to blame the current administration for the first terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001. If we connect the dots of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's actions — the communication with Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, the comments he made publicly concerning Islam, his belief that Muslims should not fight other Muslims, as well as the fact that he shouted ""Allahu Akbar" (God is great) prior to "allegedly" opening fire — we can easily define the incident as an Islamic-motivated act of violence.
Before we can reply to the typical objection that there is nothing peculiarly violent about Islam, that it is "a religion of peace," we must first inquire into the meaning, or, rather, meanings, of "peace." In referring to Islam as a "religion of peace," is the objector suggesting that Muslims are pacifists, or that the punishments they dispense for the violators of their laws are essentially reasonable, humane, and just? Is Islam a "religion of peace" because it's assumed Muslims don't initiate wars?
To answer these and all other questions regarding Islam, we need first and foremost to consult, not the fanciful wishes of our imaginations, but the sacred texts of Islam itself, for only in so doing can we simultaneously achieve a genuinely informed understanding of the topic at hand as well as succeed — at long last — in treating Muslims, not as cartoonish caricatures that conform to our contemporary Western preconceptions, but real flesh and blood individuals with a faith that, in spite of its ancient history, is very much alive.
In a recent CNN article entitled "Murder Has No Religion" Arsalan Iftikhar states that, "Most of the world's 1.57 billion Muslims know that the Holy Quran states quite clearly that, 'Anyone who kills a human being . . . it shall be as though he has killed all of mankind . . . If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all of mankind.'" However the entire verse actually reads:
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (Surah 5:32)
There are a couple of critical details here of which we must not lose sight. First, the text refers to the Jewish people and is a modification of a teaching found in their Oral law known as the Mishnah which pre-dates Islam by several centuries. Second — and here in lies the Islamic modification — one is permitted to kill someone if they spread mischief in the land.
The following verse reads:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; (Surah 5:33)
Those who "spread mischief," the Quran informs us, are those who reject Allah, and those who reject Allah are those — like Christians, Jews, and everyone else who refuses to recognize Muhammad as Allah's prophet — who reject Islam.
Those who reject Allah and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah – for them will We add Penalty to Penalty; for that they used to spread mischief. (Surah 16:88)
Elsewhere Jew and Christians — known as People of the Book — are identified as the worst of humanity:
Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (Surah 98:6)
Or how about the tradition of Muhammad — known as Hadith — which until recently was published in Saudi Arabian school books that states:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177.
Many non-Muslims — and no doubt Muslims as well — are unfamiliar with the Islamic teaching known as the Doctrine of Abrogation. Simply put, it states that the most recent verse written abrogates an older and contradictory verse (The Quran is not laid out in the order that the chapters — known as "surahs" — were written). This comes from the Quran itself:
Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? (Surah 2:106)
Thus, the verse that speaks of forgiving non-Muslims for their unbelief,
Say to those who believe (that) they forgive those who do not fear the days of Allah that He may reward a people for what they earn. (Surah 45:14)
is abrogated by the following verses:
And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do. (Surah 8:39)
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. (Surah 9:29)
Does this holy book which instructs fighting until Islam is the only remaining religion, chopping off hands and feet of those who cause "mischief" and making non-Muslims pay a tax in their subjected state sound "peaceful?" The fact of the matter is that too many people want Islam to be peaceful, so they immediately grab hold of any sound bite they can in order to put their mind at ease and most importantly, not offend any Muslims. But is it so outlandish to think that a holy book commands its faithful to fight those who don't believe? Americans' inexcusable ignorance concerning what their holy books actually say, and their lack of conviction regarding their faith — whatever it might be — precludes them from accepting the fact that there are some Muslims — definitely not all Muslims — who take their religious texts literally and are so convicted that the words contained in those texts are from God that they are willing to die — and kill — for their faith.
In the final analysis it's irrelevant whether Americans can comprehend such convictions — fundamentalist Muslims do.
I don't believe that many people have any difficulty understanding the methodology behind Islamic extremism; the problem stems from their inability to articulate it.
A cursory glance at Middle Eastern history reveals that not only have Muslims been 'at war' with Christians for millennia, but that there has also been a long documented trail of violence between the rival sects of the 'Religion of Peace'. The warring between Irish Catholics and Protestants is an example albeit a poor one. At the height of their anger with each other, they looked like amateurs when compared with the slaughter Islamic Fundamentalists have been foisting on each other for the last 1,200 years.
This is the cusp of the issue whenever the West tries to deal with the Middle East. We deliberately continue to mis-diagnose exactly who we are dealing with. These people have, for over a thousand years, earned admiration among their peers by being more ruthlessly violent than their neighbors. High station is earned at the point of a sword.
For the balance of the last thousand years their propensity for such 'goings-on' were of little import. As long as the weapons and the feuds remained 'personal' we could afford to shake our heads and 'tisk-tisk' at our cocktail parties concluding that nothing could be done.
Unfortunately for us, Islam (which by the way is literally translated as 'Submission') went national over a generation ago. Fundamentalists began to preach jihad against the 'Great and Lesser Satans' of the West. These Middle Eastern people really hold a grudge. They had never forgotten their defeats at the hands of the British generations ago. You can ask a Muslim; "Why did you kill that man?" and he will reply; "Because 60 years ago, his Father's Father's Father disrespected my Father's Father's Father." These people make the Hatfields & McCoys look like pikers! At the same moment the sword morphed into the IED, the machine gun, and the C-4 vest.
Now take into account that the more the Western Nations develop into 'cradle-to-grave' entitlement states, the more birth rates decline in these Western democracies. Someone has to do the work. So the increasingly older populations of these nations import labor from places that have excess population, and the overwhelming majority of these nations are also overwhelmingly Muslim.
Muslims don't assimilate into their new populations. Rather they demand the new populations 'assimilate' to them. If a Jew marries a Catholic they may both retain their respective religious beliefs. If A Catholic marries a Muslim, someone is converting and I'll just bet it's not the Muslim.
All these point to an almost unsolvable problem. We attempt to negotiate with people who deliberately eschew negotiation, believing it stems from weakness. Reference the negotiations between the West and Iran, or the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Jews. In both cases, negotiations are long and drawn out. Once a concession is won by the Islamic side, it becomes the new 'floor' for further concessions; with violence, either real or imagined, as the threat if further concessions are not forthcoming. What we cannot grasp is that to even offer to negotiate is seen as a sign of weakness by these people, and they despise the weak.
In times past, Muslims have been defeated. Their surrenders aren't even permanent. They will pretend to acquiesce, and bide their time until they believe they, once more, have the capacity to fight and will then immediately renew hostilities.
So, given all this, what is the answer? The choice they provide is clear; assimilate or die. The choice we must make is kill or be killed. I choose kill.
The similarity of these long feuds (Protestant vs. Catholic, Muslim vs. Everyone), I believe, comes from the similarity of their environments, natural and political/cultural.
In both cases, these are rough physical environments. It is difficult to earn a living in those environments. For the Irish, the best land was in the hands of the English. The Irish retained ownership of the played-out, small patches of rocky land – hard to raise a family on that. For the Muslim, the best land is near the water sources – which are generally in the hands of a few. Most of the people barely manage to survive.
So the environment encourages the development of a national character that is insular, suspicious, unwilling to work with outsiders, and sufficiently hard-up that justice is brutal (the culture can't afford leniency).
Over time, all others who don't share the culture come to be regarded as "the enemy".
[...] faith, and under cover of that protection Islam has steadily advanced into the heart of our culture.Deliberately spreading falsehoods about Islam on CNN: (Surah 5:33) explained, hereArticle continues beneath the fold….Moe's Jihad News:Don’t worry, Switzerland: [...]
Re: Doctrine of Abrogation: if a Muslim was following the word of god (God? what's the etiquette here?) which was contradicted by a later teaching, which is now recognized as the correct one, then is he seen by contemporary Muslims as having been a valid Muslim, or an infidel?
Oy! What a mess.
It would only seem appropriate that since Muslim Fundamentalists seem to be using their own books to judge us and find us 'wanting' that we should be able to use our books to do the same.
The Old Testament: Psalms Chapter 28, verse 4 says;" Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavors: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert."
In this above passage I believe it says we should judge people by their deeds. Therefore we should judge Muslim Fundamentalists by their 'deeds'.
Hiding behind civilians in order to engage troops. Placing rocket launchers in Palestinian school yards along the Israeli boarder. Sending suicide bombers into markets, mosques, and hospitals. Capturing civilian news reporters and video taping their beheading in order to place the pictures on the internet. Killing their own female family members for perceived 'dishonors'. Let's not forget the repeated deliberate targeting of civilians in case after case.
I think Ann Coulter said it best when she wrote; "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
Re: “Before we can reply to the typical objection that there is nothing peculiarly violent about Islam, that it is ‘a religion of peace,’ we must first inquire into the meaning, or, rather, meanings, of ‘peace.’”
Before we do that, we must first inquire into the meaning, or, rather, meanings, of “religion.” I am not even convinced it qualifies as a religion.
Re: “In referring to Islam as a ‘religion of peace,’ is the objector suggesting that Muslims are pacifists, or that the punishments they dispense for the violators of their laws are essentially reasonable, humane, and just? Is Islam a ‘religion of peace’ because it's assumed Muslims don't initiate wars?”
An astute observation! In my debates with Muslims, I have notice that they might use the same vocabulary as we in the West, but it has an entirely foreign meaning.
Sure it's a peaceful religion. They intend to be peaceful with each other, after the infidels are gone.
Religions have varying degrees of "aggressiveness" in promoting their message, but I consider that a seeker of truth has to choose a religion, or it's not a religion. For example Scientology is not a real religion, to me, because you're not free to leave. Not without the fight of your life.
So to the Muslims it's a religion, because there would be no valid reason to consider another, or a non-theist world-view. At least if you take these scriptures literally. To me it's an ultimatum.
However, many Muslims don't take everything they're taught literally, or there would be more terrorism.
The hard truth is that every pathology that afflicts Islam can be traced directly to its founder, the 'holy prophet' Muhammed.
The Koran fetes Muhammed as "an exellent model of conduct", and Islamic tradition upholds Muhammed as "al-insan al-kamil" or "the perfect man", but was he?
As can be easily discovered in the Islamic holy texts, the Koran, Ahadith, Sunnah and Sira, Muhammed was far from a perfect man or an excellent model of conduct.
In reality, Muhammed was a sadistic sociopath, a murderer, a mutilator, a decapitator, an amputator, a torturer, a slaver, a human trafficker, a kidnapper, a looter and a thief, a perfidious liar, a rapist, a sex slaver, a sexual deviant, a promiscuous sexual glutton, a child rapist, a genocidist, and a self proclaimed terrorist motivated by lust, greed and power.
By any objective standard, Muhammed was one of the most vile examples of a man to have ever lived. He was simply a successful Charles Manson, who, like Manson, should be reviled, not revered.
Just look at these two passages from the Koran and the Ahadith:
Koran (8:12) – "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Bukhari (52:220) – Allah's Apostle Muhammed said… 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Muhammed….the 'holy prophet'…..the man who set the moral compass for Islam and all Muslims. Is there any doubt as to why Islam is so violent?
~The Infidel Alliance
THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR (Part 1)
Now that we have an understanding about the reason Islam is so violent (MUHAMMED), we should understand what the prime objective of Islam is, as found in 2 different Islamic texts:
Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah, Muhammed, said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah"
Bukhari (8:387) – Allah's Apostle Muhammed said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah"
Pretty clear. Muhammeds prime directive was to forcibly convert, subjugate or kill all non-Muslims in all non-Islamic lands. This is JIHAD….HOLY WAR…and it has been raging non-stop for 1,400 years.
This is the reason why the Cathedral of Saint Sophia in Constantinople (the seat of eastern Christianity) was turned into a mosque in what is now Turkish Istanbul.
This is why India and her Hindus and Sikhs suffered centuries upon centuries of Islamic assault.
This is why the Zoroastrians were all but exterminated in Persian (now the Islamic Republic of Iran).
This is why the Jews, the first victims of Muhammed, have suffered for centuries under Islamic oppression.
This is why the ancient Buddhists were wiped out of Afgahanistan.
THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR – this is where it began.
~ The Infidel Alliance
THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR (PART 2 – TODAY)
We must face the fact that we are not in some kind of "War on Terror". We are in nothing less than an ISLAMIC WORLD WAR.
And we must understand that 9/11 was not a 'terrorist attack'. 9/11 was a military attack, an Islamic blitzkrieg targeting our financial, military and political centers.
It is not us against them, and never has been. It is them against us, Dar al-Islam against Dar al-Harb in a holy war for global domination. Let's look at the facts:
Islam against:
- the Catholics in the Philippines
- the Buddhists in Thailand
- the Hindus & Sikhs in India
- the Zoroastrians and Baha'i in Iran
- the Chaldean Christians in Iraq
- the Jews in Israel and Yemen
- the Coptic Christians in Egypt
- the Christians and animists in Sudan
- the Christians in Nigeria
- American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
- the atheists in Europe
- train commuters in Spain
- tube commuters in London
- airports in Scotland
- Dutch politicians like Geert Wilders & Ayyan Hirsi Ali (death fatwa)
- Dutch cartoonists (death fatwa)
- Novelists like Salman Rushdie (death fatwa)
- Journalists like Daniel Pearl (decapitated)
- Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, Kim Sung-il, Piotr Stanczyk (decapitated)
- Jewish centers in Buenas Aries, Caracas, Toronto, Seattle and Mumbai (attacked)
- office workers in the World Trade Center (attacked twice)
- defense workers in the Pentagon
- soldiers at Ft. Hood (slaughtered)
- military recruiters in Little Rock (slaughtered)
- cafe patrons in Bali (blown up twice)
And on, and on, and on…….
THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR. Here. Now. On every continent except Antarctica, against everyone and everything non-Islamic.
THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR. It's real.
~The Infidel Alliance