Here is a You Tube video that was made of a newsletter, Islam Is Not Part of Western Civilization.
Thank you to David Pax, who did the work of producing the video.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/islam-is-not-part-of-western-civilization-you-tube/
Copyright © 2012 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Obama said at a White House Iftar dinner years ago:
Like so many faiths, Islam has always been part of our American family, and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country, in all walks of life.
These words have no basis in fact. Islam is not part of our civilization because its foundational principles are opposite to ours. Our civilization is built on the foundation of critical thought (how we think) and the Golden Rule (ethics). Islam is built on submission (authoritative thought) and ethical dualism.
Let’s compare the principles, of these different thought systems, starting with authoritative thought and critical thought. Critical thought (also: analytic thought, scientific thought) is the necessary reasoning or intellectual basis for our culture of democracy. Critical thought is objective–no matter who does the work, they get the same results. It is fact-based, uses cause and effect, and is intellectual, not emotional. Critical thought’s tie into morals is that you don’t lie or cheat about data.
Let’s look at some authoritative reasoning. Authoritative reasoning is based on expert opinion and asserts its truth by power. It is so, because the Establishment says it is so.
The Meccan Koran, the early Koran, has one new idea—Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. (The ideas found in the Koran are derivative.) The proof of Mohammed’s prophecy is repetition of “Mohammed is the prophet” and what happens if you don’t accept that. The reasoning is circular—Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, because Allah says so. (Actually, the archangel of Allah says so.) How do we know what Allah says? Mohammed tells us what Allah says.
The Koran of Medina (the later Koran) contains one new idea—if you don’t believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you can be murdered in jihad. If you are not persuaded, then you can be eliminated. Now that is authoritative reasoning.
More on authoritative reasoning can be found in the Sharia. The Sharia says that apostasy (leaving Islam) is a capital offense. And what entails apostasy?
- To be sarcastic about Allah or any verse in the Koran
- To deny the consensus of the Islamic scholars
- To deny that Islam is to be the world’s only religion
- To be sarcastic about Sharia
And people say that Islam just needs to be reformed. Good luck on dealing with the authoritative rules of thought and reform. It is not that you are wrong, you are dead wrong. Want more examples of authoritative thought? Try Salman Rushdie, the author of the Satanic Verses, a novel. Islam’s reaction to the novel was a death fatwa. When the Mohammed cartoons were published, people died in riots.
So far in America what happens if you differ with Establishment thought about Islam, you are called names, such as bigot or hater, and insulted as a punishment. However, the Establishment keeps flirting with the expanded versions of hate speech being criminalized. Hate speech is speech that the Establishment doesn’t like.
Critical thought does not deal with punishment, just cause and effect along with Aristotelian logic. If you lose an argument under the rules of critical thought, you have had a learning experience, not a life threatening experience. Nor do insults and threats play a part in critical thought.
Now to ethics, the Golden Rule is that we should treat ALL others as we would be treated. This is a unitary ethic, one rule for all peoples. Islam does not see it that way. Islam has one set of ethics for the Muslim and another set for the Kafir. The Hadith and the Koran are very clear that a Muslim is a brother to all other Muslims. A Muslim is a brother to any Muslim before he is the brother to any member of his Kafir blood family.
Look at Mohammed’s ethics. Mohammed is the divine human prototype, the perfect man, as it says in 91 Koranic verses. How did Mohammed treat his neighbor? In Medina he gave neighboring tribes the chance to become become Muslims and to submit to Islam. If they did not, he attacked them. Submit or die–no Golden Rule.
Mohammed repeatedly said that Muslims should lie to Kafirs if it would advance Islam—pure ethical dualism. Here we have the hadith:
Bukhari 5,59,369 Mohammed asked, “Who will kill Ka’b, the enemy of Allah and Mohammed?”
Bin Maslama rose and responded, “O Mohammed! Would it please you if I killed him?”
Mohammed answered, “Yes.”
Bin Maslama then said, “Give me permission to deceive him with lies so that my plot will succeed.”
Mohammed replied, “You may speak falsely to him.”…
Our Constitution’s Bill of Rights is an expansion on the Golden Rule. We eliminated slavery based on the Golden Rule. Do we live up to the Golden Rule on every occasion? No, but that does not diminish its guidance, because we can use the Golden Rule to criticize those that fail to meet it.
To sum it all up: our civilization is based on the principles of the Golden Rule and critical thought. Islam is based on dualistic ethics and authoritative thought. There is no compromise between the opposites of the Golden Rule and dualistic ethics. There is no half-way between authoritative thought and critical thought. Islam’s principle of submission means that only active resistance can let us survive.
We have a 1400 year history of the interaction between Islam and Kafir nations. The data matches the theory. Centuries after Islam enters the culture, the host culture is annihilated–see Turkey. There is no compatibility between Islam and us. Islam is not now, nor can it ever be, a part of our civilization. It is the final goal of Islam to annihilate all Kafir civilizations. Its first stage of–we are just like you, only different—should be seen for what it is. No amount of preaching by apologists can change Islam’s political doctrine and history.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/islam-is-not-part-of-our-civilization/
Copyright © 2011 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
//////////////////////
Islam Is Not Part of Our Civilization
Ислам — не часть нашей цивилизации
Несколько лет назад, Обама сказал в Белом дом на обеде по случаю праздника Ифтар:
«Как и многие другие религии, Ислам всегда был частью нашей американской семьи, и американцы-мусульмане давно вносят вклад в укрепление и характер нашей страны во всех сферах деятельности.
Эти слова не подкрепляются никакими фактами. Ислам — не часть нашей цивилизации, поскольку его основополагающие принципы противоположны нашим. Наша цивилизация построена на основе критического мышления (нашего образа мыслей) и Золотого правила (этики), а ислам построен на подчинении (авторитарном мышлении) и этическом дуализме.
Давайте сравним принципы таких разных систем мышления, начав с авторитарного мышления и критического мышления. Критическое мышление (также аналитическое мышление, научное мышление) — это непременное рассуждение или интеллектуальная основа нашей культуры демократии. Критическое мышление объективно, и независимо от того, кто выполняет эту работу, результат будет одинаковым. Оно основано на фактах, использует причину и следствие и является функцией интеллекта, а не эмоций. Связь критического мышления с моралью установлена для того, чтобы вы не лгали и не искажали информацию.
Давайте посмотрим на авторитарное рассуждение. Авторитарное рассуждение основано на экспертном мнении и утверждает истину силовым путем. Это так, потому что истеблишмент говорит, что это так.
Мекканский Коран (ранний Коран) нес новую идею — Мохаммед является пророком Аллаха. (Идеи, обнаруженные в Коране, производны). Доказательством пророчеств Мохаммеда является повтор высказывания «Мохаммед — пророк», а что случится, если вы с этим не согласны? Рассуждение имеет форму круга — Мохаммед является пророком Аллаха, потому что Аллах так сказал. (На самом деле, архангел Аллаха так сказал). А как мы узнаем, что сказал Аллах? Мохаммед говорит нам, что сказал Аллах.
Мединский Коран (поздний Коран) содержит одну новую идею — если вы не верите, что Мохаммед является пророком Аллаха, то вас могут убить в джихаде. Если вы не убеждены, то можете быть ликвидированы. Таково авторитарное рассуждение.
Больше сведений об авторитарном рассуждении может быть обнаружено в шариате. Шариат говорит, что отступничество от веры (уход от Ислама) карается смертной казнью. А что предполагает вероотступничество?
• Проявление сарказма в отношении Аллаха или какого-либо стиха в Коране;
• Отрицание консенсуса исламских ученых;
• Отрицание, что Ислам будет единственной религией мира;
• Проявление сарказма в отношении шариата
А люди говорят, что Ислам надо просто реформировать. Всяческих успехов в рассмотрении авторитарных правил мышления и реформировании! Вы не просто ошибаетесь, вы в корне ошибаетесь. Хотите больше примеров авторитарного мышления? Посмотрите на Салмана Рушди, автора романа «Сатанинские стихи». Исламской реакцией на роман было вынесение фетвы о смерти. Когда вышли карикатуры на Мохаммеда, люди погибали в беспорядках.
До сих пор, это то, что происходит в Америке, если вы расходитесь с мнением истеблишмента по поводу Ислама. Вас обзывают фанатиком или ненавистником и оскорбляют в качестве наказания. Тем не менее, истеблишмент продолжает флиртовать с расширенными версиями речи ненависти, которая является уголовным преступлением. Речь ненависти — это речь, которая истеблишменту не нравится. Критическая мысль касается не наказания, а причинно-следственной связи, наряду с аристотелевской логикой. Если вы теряете аргумент в соответствии с правилами критической мысли, у вас появляется познавательный опыт, а не опыт, опасный для жизни. Точно также, оскорбления и угрозы не играют решающей роли в критической мысли.
Теперь, что касается этики. Золотое правило состоит в том, что мы должны относиться ко ВСЕМ другим так, как мы хотели бы, чтобы относились к нам. Это унитарная этика, одно правило для всех народов. Ислам не рассматривает это таким образом. У ислама есть один набор этики для мусульман, а другой набор — для Кафира. Хадисы и Коран очень четко поясняют, что мусульманин является братом для всех других мусульман. Мусульманин, прежде всего, является братом мусульманина, раньше, чем он станет братом любого кровного члена своей кафирской семьи. Посмотрите на этику Мухаммеда. Мухаммед — это божественный человеческий прототип, совершенный человек, как говорится в 91 стихе Корана. Как Мохаммед относился к своему соседу? В Медине он давал соседним племенам возможность стать мусульманами и подчиниться исламу. Если они этого не делали, он нападал на них. Подчинись или умри — не Золотое правило. Мухаммед неоднократно говорил, что мусульмане должны лгать Кафирам, если они хотят продвигать ислам — этический дуализм в чистом виде. Относительно этого есть хадис: Бухари 5,59,369: «Мохаммед спросил: «Кто убьет Ка’бу, врага Аллаха и Мухаммеда?» Бин Маслама встал и спросил: «О, Мохаммед! Понравится ли тебе, если я его убью?» Мохаммед ответил: «Да». Тогда Бин Маслама сказал: «Разреши мне обмануть его ложью, чтобы мой заговор преуспел». Мохаммед ответил: «Ты можешь солгать ему» …
Наш конституционный Билль о правах есть расширение Золотого правила. Опираясь на Золотое правило, мы ликвидировали рабство. Всегда ли мы соблюдаем Золотое правило? Нет, но это не отменяет его руководства, потому что мы можем использовать Золотое правило для критики тех, кто его не соблюдает.
Подведём итог: наша цивилизация основана на принципах Золотого правила и критической мысли. Ислам основан на дуалистической этике и авторитетной мысли. Между противоположностями Золотого правила и дуалистической этикой нет никакого компромисса. Между авторитарной и критической мыслью нет полпути. Исламский принцип подчинения означает, что только активное сопротивление может позволить нам выжить. У нас есть 1400-летняя история взаимодействия между исламской и кафирской нациями. Данные соответствуют теории. Через несколько веков после того, как ислам внедряется в какую-либо культуру, она погибает (пример, Турция). Между Исламом и нами нет никакой совместимости. Ислам не является сейчас и не может быть в будущем частью нашей цивилизации. Конечная цель ислама — уничтожение всей цивилизации Кафиров. Первую стадию этого — мы такие же, как вы, только другие, следует видеть, как она есть. Никакая проповедь апологетов не может изменить политическую доктрину и историю ислама.
By the time Mohammed died in 632 AD, Islam had used persuasion and jihad to subjugate Arabia. The annihilation of native Arabic culture is Sunna, the perfect example for all times and all Muslims. Said another way, the political theory of Islam is annihilation of Kafir civilization. How well did this political theory work out in history? Is this theory of annihilation at work today?
We have records of Mohammed’s last jihad against the Christians north of Arabia. After he died, Umar, the second caliph, took Mohammed’s jihad against the Christians and developed it into a war that conquered half of the Christian world. But this conquest was only the beginning of the political transformation. Sharia law was put into place and the Christian Kafirs became dhimmis. But Umar was not able to conquer Anatolia, the site known today as Turkey. For centuries, Islam attacked Anatolia and finally took Constantinople, now known as Istanbul, Turkey.
Take a look at the demographic history of the annihilation of the Greek Christian civilization:
This demographic growth chart of Islam has many things to teach us. The first is that the process of annihilation took centuries. Some people think that when Islam invaded, the Kafirs had the choice of conversion or death. No, absolutely not. Sharia law was put into place and the Christian dhimmis continued to have their “protected” status as People of the Book who lived under the Sharia law. The dhimmi paid heavy taxes, could not testify in court, hold a position of authority over Muslims and was humiliated by social rules. A dhimmi had to step aside for the Muslim, offer him his seat, could not carry a weapon and defer to a Muslim in every way. In all matters of society the dhimmi had to yield to the Muslim. Over the centuries, the degradation, lack of rights and the dhimmi tax caused the Christian to convert. It is the Sharia that destroys the dhimmis.
Notice where the curve is headed—100% Islam, just like Arabia. Today, Turkey is 99.7% Muslim. The Christian and Greek civilization of Anatolia is gone. It is annihilated.
What is tragic is that it seems that no one knows or cares. The Fethullah Gülen Movement (Turkish Muslim Brotherhood) of today pays for Christian ministers to go to Turkey and see an Islamic tolerant country where Christians live in beautiful harmony with Islam. And the ministers come back talking about what a wonderful society Turkey is and how well Christians are treated. After all, 0.3% of the Christians are still there in wonderful Turkey.
Look at two more Christian lands—Lebanon and Kosovo. This data only covers modern times and we do not see the beginning as we did in Turkey. See where these areas are going. In short decades, Lebanon and Kosovo will be 100% Islamic and two more Kafir civilizations will be annihilated.
It is a terrible irony that some Christians look at the destruction of Christianity and say that “those” were not real Christians. Indeed, that was the first reaction to the Islamic conquest of the first Christians, condemning those “other” Christians as heretics and saying that the jihad just pruned the garden of false doctrine.
Now, look at the next two demographic growth charts:
Pakistan and Bangladesh used to be Hindu cultures. Now they are Islamic and the few Christians and Hindus left are persecuted every day. While non-Muslims make great distinctions between religions, Islam sees them all as Kafirs. Orthodox Christians are Kafirs, Evangelical Christians are Kafirs, Hindus are Kafirs and atheists are Kafirs. ALL KAFIR civilizations must be annihilated. It is Sunna.
Let us look at one last feature of these curves. Once it starts, it never reverses. Islam never retreats. Slowly, year by year, century by century, the native Kafir civilization vanishes and is never able to fight back, never reverses Islam’s gains.
There is one exception to this law—force and the acceptance of war. Twice in history Islam has been driven out in Spain and Eastern Europe.
Today we see another approach to dealing with the Islam of annihilation. We ignore the history of annihilation and say that all we need to do is love Muslims and we will live in harmony, a wonderful multicultural civilization. A history of 1400 years without a single exception to the rule of annihilation and we will repeal it with a smile and a hug. All you need is love; love is all you need; all you need is love; love is all you need. Repeat that again and again, it will make a doctrine and history of annihilation go away. Actually, the way it works is that the history is never known. It is a cliché to say that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. It is a cliché but it is true. We have our foot on the path to annihilation today because we refuse to know history.
What is the lesson? Islam, peaceful Islam, is about destruction of all Kafir civilization. Only if the Kafirs realize the goal of Islam is annihilation of their culture, can the destruction be stopped. Islam is at war with Kafirs, and Kafirs are trying to “nice” their way out of destruction. Islam is at war, we are at nice. Mohammed has a dream that is coming true while we sleep.
Sources
Kosovo: http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/011.shtml#6
Turkey: http://home.att.net/~dimostenis/greektr.html
Lebanon: Tomass Mark, Game theory with instrumentally irrational players: A Case Study of Civil War and Sectarian Cleansing, Journal of Economic Issues, Lincoln; June 1997.
Pakistan, Bangladesh: http://hrcbmdfw.org/blogs/bangladesh/archive/2007/07/13/722.aspx
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/the-annihilation-of-civilizations/
Copyright © 2011 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
On May 12 Bill Warner was the opening speaker for Geert Wilders in Nashville, TN. His 14 minute speech about our civilization and Islam is found at:
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/sharia-silliness/
Copyright © 2011 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
THE CIVILIZATION OF ISLAM
One of the clearest lessons about Islam is found in the Sharia. The largest part of the Sharia is devoted to regulating the life of Muslims down to the smallest detail. There is no aspect of life that is not regulated-sex, food, art, business, education, prayer, manners, speech and how to think and not to think. There is no aspect of life that is outside the power of Sharia-religion, politics, ethics, culture are included. The Sharia is the operating manual for a complete civilization. Islam is complete within itself and needs nothing from the outside.
The Sharia has one other quality that is as important as the totality of its scope. The civilization of Sharia is not just different, it contradicts our civilization.
Inside Islam justice, religion, politics, law, human rights and compassion do not mean what they mean to us. All of these ideas are based on the principles of submission and duality as found in the Sharia.
OUR CIVILIZATION
Our civilization is based on the principles of the Golden Rule and critical thought. We do not always fulfill the principles, but they are the ideals we strive for, and can be used for debate and self-criticism to correct and improve our culture.
Our principles lead to the ideals of critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and a free-ranging humor.
These are beautiful ideals and they are worth keeping and striving towards. Do we meet them? No, but what is more important they contradict the Sharia. It is one thing to fail to achieve these ideals, but it is entirely another to see them disappear as a public option under the impact of Sharia. Sharia law limits critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and humor.
CIVILIZATIONAL WAR
Part of the genius of Islam is the totality of Sharia, which includes a concept of war that attacks the host civilization at every aspect of its being. In modern times the military power of Islam is weak, but this is more than compensated by its ability to attack along legal and cultural lines under the guise of being a religion.
As Sharia is applied to a society, the host civilization is annihilated in each and every manifestation of culture. This annihilation is demonstrated by a peculiar fact about the history of Islamic countries-part of it is missing. Afghanistan used to be a Buddhist civilization. We see its remnants in ruins and fragments such as the Bamiyan Buddhas that were destroyed by the Taliban. Who knows the Buddhist history of Afghanistan? Practically speaking, it does not exist. Who knows the history of how Turkey, North Africa, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq went from being Christian to Islamic?
We don’t know the history because of the total annihilation of the past cultures by Sharia law. As time goes on customs, law, art, literature, and ethics of the host culture are replaced by Islamic values under the application of Sharia. The result is that there is nothing left of the history before the implementation of Sharia law.
There is a second aspect of this annihilation-the dhimmitude of the Kafirs (non-Muslims) remaining inside Islamic society. If you talk to Christians who are left in Islamic countries, they are an abused people who are unable to fight back after centuries of suffering and degradation under Sharia law. They are not supported by other Kafirs and are left to suffer under the oppression that will eliminate their few numbers. Whatever memory they have of the past is ignored by those who should be defending them.
If we are to go down the Sharia road, history teaches that it has always led to an Islamic mono-culture. In the end, there is no such thing as a little Sharia.
Posted at American Thinker, August 19, 2010
Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Guest Columnist
Today we have something a little different. Dr. Bukay is from Israel and is not commonly read on the Web. His work is very authoritative.
David Bukay (Ph.D.), teaches at the School of Political Science in the University of Haifa. his main fields are: International Terrorism and Islamic fanaticism; al-Qaeda and World Jihad; Inter-Arab Relations and the Arab Israeli Conflict; State and Conflict in the Middle East; the Arab State: Militarism vs. Islamism; Syria, Lebanon and Israel: the Politics of Power Politics.
His last two books are: Yasser Arafat: the Politics of Paranoia (Mellen Press, 2005) and From Muhammad to Bin Ladin (Transaction, 2007). He has written numerous articles (mostly in Hebrew). his forthcoming book is Arab-Islamic Colonialist Expansionism: Islamization and Arabization of the Dar al-Islam
Islamic Propaganda (da`wah) Towards the West
by David Bukay
The Islamic propagation is very highly pronounced, and one can find it in numerous publications, written and electronic. One can sum up their main arguments: all individuals in Islam are equal. No authority may deprive any citizen of his rights and powers, and his opinion should be decisive in the formation of the government. The political system of Islam is a democracy, even if it is not secular. Islam does not accept a system which involves any kind of dictatorship, nor does it accept a system of monarchy. Islam was the first institution ever to advocate and implement such human rights as universal equality. In fact, Islam promoted the universality of the human experience over 1,300 years before the United Nations declared it to exist. Islam grants basic human rights to all people, Muslims and non-Muslims, regardless of their race, nationality, ethnic origin or language. Islam grants the individual the right to freedom. It is categorically forbidden to capture a free person and make him a slave or sell him into slavery. Islam recognizes absolute equality between people. There is no superiority of Arab over non-Arab, white over black. Islam protects the rights of the citizens, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim, the right of freedom of thought and expression; the right to freedom of association and formation of parties or organizations; and the right to participate in the affairs of state. Islam is strongly opposed to all forms of injustice and takes all measures to ensure that justice prevails in every field.
In time of war, Islam decreed humane rules of war, many centuries before such ideas were put into conventions and agreements in the West; it is prohibited to kill anyone who is in captivity; residential areas should not be pillaged, plundered or destroyed; treaties must not be broken, and Muslims are prohibited from opening hostilities without properly declaring war against the enemy. Islam set an unprecedented standard for the ethics of dealing with captured enemies. They treated prisoners of war in a manner that has yet to be imitated in history. It instructs Muslims either to free captives who cannot offer ransom or to ransom prisoners of war. Prisoners of war have the right to their human dignity and to be protected. The Islamic ethic of treating prisoners of war is part of the whole system of Islamic ethics, which places utmost importance on the preservation of human dignity and rights. All forms of barbarism, unnecessary acts of violence and unjust aggression are forbidden by Islam. The use of the concept of “jihad” for acts of aggression against innocent people that is for terror would be unjust and a great distortion and it is quite different from the wars of Joshua. Religiously, Islam proved a more tolerant religion, providing greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians.
Islamic propaganda towards the West uses mainly verses from the Qur’an and related sayings of Muhammad in the Hadith – to prove their case of a peace-loving Islam. The ultimate and overall message of the Qur’an is only peace.
1) The Prohibition of Killing Women and Children
Muslim propagandists quote verses from the Qur`an and Hadith to prove that in Islam there is the prohibition of killing of women, children and the elderly. Then they attack the Old Testament to prove that this is not the case in Judaism and in Christianity.1
From the Qur`an:
Surah 5 verse 32
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.
In this noble verse we clearly see that Allah almighty honors all the innocent souls that he created. Killing an innocent soul is so hated by Allah that he considers it as a crime against all of mankind.
Nevertheless, it is so typical to quote only part of the verse, ignoring the other which is the opposite. The full verse is:
That is why we decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever kills a human being except for murder or for spreading corruption in the land it shall be killing all humanity. And whosoever saves a life saves the entire human race. Our apostle brought clear proofs to them, but even after that most of them committed excesses in the land.
The next verse reveals the whole issue clearly:
The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and his prophet and perpetrate disorder in the land is to kill and hang them or have a hand on one side and a foot on the other cut off. Or banish them of the land. Such is their disgrace in the world, and in the hereafter their doom shall be dreadful.
To this horrific and violent commandment, the Islamic propagandists explain that killing any innocent soul is hated by Allah and he considers it as a crime against mankind.
Surah 2 verses 190-191,
…order to “fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah loves not transgressors”.
However, not transgressing the limits of war can mean anything but not exactly to love peace and be compassionate. Moreover, who determines the limits? According to what? The promise is that Islam prevails and will dominate all other religions:
It is he who sent his messenger with the guidance and the true faith, in order to make it superior to other religions, even though the idolaters may not like it.2
It is he who sent his messenger with the guidance of the true faith, so that he may exalt it over every other creed…3
The radical change to offensive jihad was exemplified by Surah 9, the only Surah which does not open with bismillah al-rahman al-rahim: in the name of Allah the benevolent, merciful. We find “the verse of the sword” (ayat al-sayf):
But when the sacred months prohibited for fighting are over, slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them, and take them captives or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every likely place. But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat, then let them go their way.4
We then find then that the behavior towards the Jews and Christians also changed drastically:
Fight those People of the Book who do not believe in Allah and the last day, who do not prohibit what Allah and his messenger have forbidden, nor accept divine law, until all of them pay the poll tax (al-jizyah) out of hand (`an yadin) in submission (wahum saghirun).5
After fighting the idolaters, the unbelievers and the “People of the Book”, came the turn of the hypocrites:
Fight, O prophet, against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal with them firmly. Their abode is hell and what a wretched destination.6
We also find the command of fighting all the abovementioned enemies of Islam, which is the basis of the horrific acts of beheadings:
When you clash with the unbelievers, smite their necks (fadarb al-riqab) until you overpower them… until war (al-harb) shall have come to an end.7
From the Hadith
The Islamists bring narrations from the Hadith, which relate to the same one event: 8
Narrated by `Abdullah: Allah’s Apostle forbade the killing of women and children, by al-Bukhari and Muslim.9
Narrated by Ibn `Umar: Allah’s Apostle forbade the killing of women and children, by al-Bukhari and Muslim.10
Then come three narrations:
Narated by Rabah Ibn Rabi`: the apostle of Allah told Khalid ibn al-Walid not to kill a woman or a hired servant. 11
Malik brings prohibition against killing women and children in military expeditions, but if there is no choice to kill the enemy, than it is possible. 12
Narrated by Ahmad al-Tirmidhi: Ibn `Abbas says: The messenger of Allah, when dispatching his troops, would tell them, “Do not behave treacherously, nor misappropriate war-booty, nor mutilate those whom you kill, nor kill children, nor the people in cloisters.” 13
However, according to al-Tirmidhi himself, the main reason for sparing the life of women and children is to take them captives, to convert the children to Islam and take the women as concubines:
And there is no group of people on earth in which you cannot bring to me from them Muslims. And the best I like that you bring their wives and sons and kill their men.14
Taking part in jihad with soul and body is the utmost recommended action for the Muslim believer. The mujahid’s best prize is paradise:
Muhammad said: Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the shahid who, on seeing the superiority of jihad, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in the way of Allah).15
Mohammad: Nobody who enters paradise likes to go back to the world even if he got everything on the earth, except the mujahid who wishes to return to the world so that he may be martyred ten times for of the dignity he receives.16
al-Miqdam b. Madikarib reported Allah’s messenger as saying: the shahid receives six good things from Allah: he is forgiven at the first shedding of his blood; he is shown his abode in paradise; he is preserved from the punishment in the grave; he is kept safe from the greatest terror; he has placed on his head the crown of honor a ruby better than the world and what it contains; he is married to seventy-two wives, comprised of the maidens with large dark eyes; and he is made intercessor for seventy of his relatives.17
Muhammad said: No doubt I wish I could fight in the way of Allah and be a shahid and come to life again to be shahid and come to life once more.18
Muhammad said: paradise is under the shadow of the swords.19
One should also pay attention to the amount of energy devoted to proving something which is very common, acceptable and an integral part of Western civilization (not to kill civilians, especially women and children). And still, the question is, why do they boast of something which is obvious? Indeed, from the “no” (not to kill women and children), one can deduce the “yes” (it is permitted to kill males, youngsters and elders).
2) “Verses which Refute the Terrorism Lie in Islam”
Surah 8 verse 61:
But if the enemy inclines towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for he is one that hears and knows (all things).
This is really interesting, because the verse which precedes it (verse 60) explains it all:
…strike terror in the hearts of the enemy of Allah and your own, and others beside you not known to you but known to Allah…
Now verse 61 can be understood: “if they are inclined to peace”, means, if they accept the rule of Islam, by conversion or submitting to Islam, “make peace with them”. This is really the Islamic peace.
Surah 5 verse 28:
If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, cherisher of the worlds.
However, the problem is that this is the story of Adam and his two sons, Cain and Abel, and the quotation is the answer of Abel to Cain before he was murdered. What is the connection to the refutation of terrorism in Islam?
Surah 60 verse 8:
Allah does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. Allah loves just dealers.
This is perplexing if not amusing, because the correct meaning of the verse is: it is possibly showing kindness and dealing justly towards those who do not fight the Muslims over faith and do not drive the Muslims out of their homes. If the Muslims attack the enemy territory, and there is no issue of religion and/or territory – there is no problem, since it means that the enemy was defeated or subdued. If the enemy attacks the Muslims, surely the issues of religion and territory become crucial. Moreover from the “no” (when and whom the Muslims are ordered not to fight), one can deduce the “yes” (against whom Muslims can fight). If any, this verse shows precisely the aggressive face of aggressive occupying Islam.
Surah 2 verse 193
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.
This is amazing. The commandment is to fight the unbelievers “until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah”, which means there is no resistance to Islam as a supreme religion. Now, most important are the words “if they desist”. This means stop fighting the Muslims, which includes accepting the rule of Islam either by conversion or by submitting to it. Indeed, now it is understood – accepting Islam means no hostility, and only those who resist are fought by jihad.
Surah 2 verse 256
Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.
This verse was delivered by Muhammad at the beginning of his career in Medina, when he needed the Jewish and Christian support to organize his small community (Muhajirun) and to expand the number of his new supporters (Ansar). He encouraged avoidance of conflicts with the Jewish and Christian communities and to accept them as legitimate. This attitude was changed shortly after, when Muhammad had his military success. Moreover, this is a request and not a commandment (“let there be…”), and the question is how does it stands with other commandments from the same period at Medina. For example:
So fight them until opposition ends and obedience is wholly Allah’s.20
So when you clash with the unbelievers smite their necks until you overpower them and hold them in bondage…21
Surah 15 verses 2-3
Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to Allah’s will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them).
These verses are from Meccan period, when Muhammad was weak and persecuted, and his followers were small in number. Muhammad had a modest conception of his duty. His religious views had evolved: at first it was the “Lord” who had been the source of his revelation. After about two years he began to use “al-Rahman”, the merciful one, and finally, “Allah”, which was originally the pagan Quraysh god.22 Muhammad kept moderation with regard to war, and kept preaching to Arabs on the spiritual level, as a da`wah. They were too small and too weak to fight. As a general rule, all the Surahs from Mecca (90 out of 114) are the same regarding this issue.
Surah 18 verse 29
Say, “The truth is from your Lord”: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)…
Surah from the Meccan period. See above.
Surah 10 verse 99
If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed – all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe.
Surah from the Meccan period.
Surah 24 verse 54
Obey Allah, and obey the messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The messenger’s duty is only to preach the (message).
This is almost a joke. The question relates to the connection between this verse and the ambition to prove the claim of refuting terrorism? The verse is simple but out of context.
Surah 109 verses 1-6
Say: O ye that reject faith! I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship… To you be your Way, and to me mine.
Surah from the Meccan period.
Surah 25 verses 68-69
Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; – and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell Therein in ignominy.
Surah from Meccan the period. The verses are deliberately misquoted:
…who do not invoke any god apart from Allah; who do not take life which Allah has forbidden except for a cause that is just, and do not fornicate, and any one who does so will be punished for the crime. Whose punishment will be doubled on the Day of Judgment and he will live forever in disgrace.
The verses do not say innocent souls, whether Muslim or not. Moreover, it insists on “except for a cause that is just”, which is only Islamic. All in all these are rules for the community of believers on how to behave (notice the fornication mentioned, as a proof), and has nothing to do with peace and compassion towards the others, the unbelievers.
Surah 2 verse 178
O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.
This is part of Muhammad’s moral legislation for the Muslims, and takes its sources from the Bible. There is no connection whatsoever to refuting terrorism, and one cannot deduce anything from this issue.
Surah 16 verse 126
And if ye punish, then punish as ye were punished (by them). But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient.
Surah from the Meccan period. It deals with domestic moral legislation.
Surah 4 verse 90
Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah has opened no way for you (to war against them).
This verse is deliberately misquoted.
Except those who take refuge with a people allied to you, or those who, weary of fighting you or their people, come over to you. If Allah has so willed he would surely given them power over you and they would have fought you. If they keep aloof and do not fight and offer peace, Allah has left you no reason to fight them.
This Surah deals with the issue of the hypocrites among the Muslims, so disturbed Muhammad’s followers. After declaring in the previous verse to “seize them wherever they are and do away with them”, Muhammad encourages his community to believe in Allah’s abilities to overpower the hypocrites. That is all, and nothing is connected to refuting terrorism.
Surah 9 verse 7
How can there be a league, before God and His Apostle, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God doth love the righteous.
The verse means the opposite of peace-loving. It says there can be no treaty between the idolaters, on the one side, and Allah and his apostle, on the other. And there is no need to fight those who have made treaties, meaning they have joined Islam, or are in alliance with the Muslims. The next verse clearly shows that the idolaters cannot be trusted, since they neither observe pacts nor good faith, and accordingly their fate is death.
3) “Verses that Deal with Peace”
For the Islamic propagators, Islam commands the Muslims to offer peace to the enemy, so that he can become a friend. Muslims are prohibited to kill people in churches or temples, or in hospitals, or children and elderly, or the enemy soldiers who are not carrying weapons. For that, they quote Surah 2 verse 190; Surah 5 verse 32; Surah 25 verses 68-69; Surah 8 verse 61; Surah 5 verse 28; Surah 60 verse 8; Surah 2 verse 193; Surah 2 verse 256; Surah 15 verses 2-3; Surah 18 verse 29; Surah 24 verse 54; Surah 109 verses 1-6; and Surah 10 verse 99.
We have already analyzed all these verses, and found most of them to be irrelevant to the subject matter. Moreover, the Muslim propagators use the same verses to refute terrorism and to prove that Islam means to love peace. Refuting the terrorism lie, if proven, is not synonymous to peace. We would also like to add that Surah 10 verse 99, we have analyzed, if any, is most aggressive in nature, and hints that mankind should come to believe in Islam, that its fate is to be subdued to Islam if not converted.
Surah 18 verse 86
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.”
However, again, the verse is clear: even in far away regions, the Muslim community has permission to fight them or treat them with kindness. Where is the peace-loving issue? If any, it means aggression, since the commandment declares: when Muslims meet the unbelievers they should:
Invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to Islam; if they respond, accept it and desist from fighting against them (which means conversion to Islam). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizyah. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands (which means, subduing to Islam and accepting its rule). If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.23
A substantial part of the doctrine includesjihad among the very pillars of Islam, along with prayer and fasting:
Muhammad said: there is no hijrah after the conquest of Mecca, but jihad and good intentions (to fight in jihad). If you are called for fighting in jihad in the way of Allah, go forth immediately.24
A man came to Muhammad and asked, “A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame, and a third fights for showing off. Which of them fights in the way of Allah?” Muhammad said: “He who fights that Allah’s word should be superior, fights in the name of Allah.”25
Surah 45 verse 14
Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the days of Allah: It is for him to recompense (for good or ill) each people according to what they have earned.
This Surah is from the Meccan period.
Surah 2 verse 182
But if anyone fears partiality or wrong-doing on the part of the testator, and makes peace between (the parties concerned), there is no wrong in him: For God is oft-forgiving, most merciful.”
This verse is a continuation of set of moral commandments to the community. The relevant section begins in verse 177 and ends in verse 182. Moreover, the verse does not say “makes peace between (the parties concerned)”, as it is quoted, but instead brings about a settlement. That is all, and nothing relevant to peace concerning the others outside of Islam.
Surah 2 verse 224
And make not Allah’s (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for Allah is one who hears and knows all things.
The verse is totally misquoted. The section begins in verse 211 and ends in verse 216. The crucial issue is to see the parallel between the fate of the Children of Israel and the Muslim believers. The relevant verse says: do you think (the Muslim believers) your way to paradise even though you have not known what the others before you have gone through? They (the Children of Israel) had suffered affliction and loss, so that even the Apostle (Moses) had to cry out: the help of God arrive? Remember (you, the Muslim community) the help of Allah is ever at hand.
Again, even not to mention the misquotation, where is the connection to peace-loving in Islam?
Moulavi Ali Cheragh constitutes a typical example
Almost all Muslim and European writers think that the religious war of aggression is one of the tenets of Islam, and prescribed by the Qur`an for the purpose of proselytizing. I do not find any such doctrine enjoined in the Qur`an or preached by Muhammad. His sole mission was to enlighten the Arabs to the true worship of one Allah. These have nothing to do with popular jihad and exterminating the idolaters. All the verses of the Qur`an are related only to defensive war without exception, and none of them has any reference to make warfare offensively. All fighting injunctions within the Qur`an are only in self-defense, none of them has any reference by which to make warfare offensively. There are several passages in the Qur`an which forbid taking offensive measures and enjoin only defensive war.26
So you see, the issue is very simple – there is nothing in the Qur`an, which relates to aggression and expansionism, and Muhammad was totally compassionate with his enemy and never shed their blood, this is the nature of Islam.
In a booklet “The Basics of Islam at a Glance” prepared by The Islamic Cultural Center in Tempe, Arizona, we read:
There is no historical proof that Islam was “spread by the sword”. Even non-Muslim scholars now admit that this is nothing more than a vicious myth which cannot be substantiated by historical fact. Islam is a religion of love and peace and forgiveness.27
Murad Hoffmann, a German converted to Islam, declares shamelessly:
In almost every Surah, the Qur`an also encourages man to contemplate, to use his powers of reason, to harvest the fruits of his thought, instead of simply repeating the authorities parrot fashion. Islam rejects extremism, excessive emotions and hatred, violence and revolution.28
He quotes verses from the Qur`an to prove Islamic tolerance, yet the problem is that he quotes only part of them, neglecting the full text, which denotes a different reality. He quotes Chapter 18 verse 2929
Say: the truth is from your Lord, so believe if you like, or do not believe if you will.
Yet, the verse continues as such:
We have prepared for the sinners a fire which will envelope them in their tents. If they ask for water, they will be helped to liquid like molten brass that would scald their mouths. How evil the drink and evil the resting place.
Moreover, the record reaches its peak by his statement: “I could complete a chapter with a single sentence: the concept of holy war, even the phrase, does not exist in Islam.”30
This brings us to a prominent exegete of Islam: Mahmoud Shaltut:31
Whenever the truth is clear and simple and easy, it speaks for itself and does not require further means to enlist adherents. However, when a truth is contradictory and complicated, it is obscure and repulsive to people. Now consider to which of these two categories the Islamic mission belongs?
Muhammad revealed a book containing the principles of happiness. It commands to judge by reason, it propagates science and knowledge, it gives clear rules, it proclaims mercy, it urges to do good, it preaches peace, it gives firm principles concerning politics and society, it fights injustice and corruption. The Islamic community is commanded to do only what is good and is forbidden to do what is reprehensible and evil. The Islamic mission is clear and evident, easy and uncomplicated. It is digestible and intelligible for any mind. It is a call of natural reason, and therefore not alien to human intellect. This is the mission of Muhammad to humanity.32
Now, if Islam, according to Shaltut, claims to be a religion that has all these traits, where should we look to find an example of what true Islam should look like? Where do we find peaceful harmonic relations even between Arabs states themselves? And as for human progress and development, where can we find an example of a modern developed democratic liberal Arab and/or Muslim state? What about Arab and Muslim leaders; which of them represent the Islamic values of peaceful, egalitarian, civil rights’ religion and tolerance? What about any Arab-Muslim contributions to humanity, or to science and progress? How many scientific breakthroughs and inventions were revealed and introduced by them in the last centuries?
This is the political language of the Islamists, and Muslim scholars and spokesmen. They declare, without blushing, that jihad is only a defense and a last resort mechanism. But, is this really the case? If it is, then what about the processes of Arabization and Islamization imposed by the Arabs after the invasion from Arabia, by conquering the vast areas from Morocco to India? Between the years 710 and 712, Islamic troops were battling jihad wars in the territories of India and China in the east, and Spain and France in the west. Were these defensive wars of jihad? The same are the Islamic conquests during the Ottoman Empire, in the 15th and the 16th centuries. Indeed, these jihad wars had nothing to do with defense of the Muslim religion or Arabs’ souls, but were all aggressive-expansionist imperialist ones.
4) “The Old Testament is Different and Legalizes Killing”
After bringing verses to prove their case, the Islamic propagators turn to the issue of killing women and children according to the Bible, and to prove that it permits terrorism. They bring the story of the Midianites in Numbers, 31: 17-18; in Deuteronomy 20: 16; and the Amalekites in Samuel 15: 2-3.
Indeed, this is true. The Jews were ordered to kill the seven nations of Canaan, but with a big difference as compared to Islam; the Jews fought for Eretz-Yisrael, because it belongs to the People of Israel alone, which is also stated in the Qur`an.33 If one can equate this situation to Islam, then it is as if the Muslims were to perpetrate jihad war in Arabian territory. The problem is that Islam is not confined to Arabia but its ideology extends to the whole world. Their definition of Dar al-Islam includes the territories conquered, from India to Spain (Andalusia), and they wish to bring these territories back to the fold of Islam.
Muslim propagandists also turn the charge against the Jews, by quoting Ezekiel, Chapter 23 verses 45-47, as if it is a general commandment. However, this is a private story of two prostitutes: Ahola and aholibah, and the command from God is to dispatch them with swords, to slay their sons and daughters, and burn their houses. Why this harsh measures? Verse 48 explains: I will cause lewdness to cease out of the land. The other one is from 2 Chronicles, Chapter 15 verse 13, which tell the story of those from the Children of Israel who transgressed during the reign of Asa, and the command was to slay all the Jews whosoever would not seek the Lord, God of Israel. These two stories relate to interior issues of sinners among the Jewish community who have sinned and their punishment. What is the relevance to violence and terrorism which allegedly is permited in the Bible? Then they bring the story of “Mighty Samson” in Judges Chapter 16 verses 26-30. The Muslim’s challenge to Jews and Christians is to prove that the in the Bible one cannot find that God condemned Samson’s actions.
The only problem with this claim, that it shows a total ignorance. “Mighty Samson” was imprisoned. He was tortured and stood before his death, and commit suicide out of the inevitable. He did not come willingly and freely to murder the innocents and civilians.
The next stage the Muslim propagators bring is the story of Saul and his Children in 1 Samuel, Chapter 31 verses 1-6. However, this is the story of the Philistines fighting Israel on Mount Gilboa, and Israel’s defeat. The Philistines killed Saul sons, and he was injured. Out of this desperate situation, Saul wished to die and fell on his own sword. Where is the connection to the Muslim homicide bombers? But the Muslim propagators boast happily by declaring that in reality suicide bombings were allowed in the Bible.
1 http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/pregnant_women_ripped_open.htm, http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/politics/Politics/article05.shtml, http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/politics/Politics/article04.shtml, http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/politics/Politics/article02.shtml
2 Surah 9 verse 33; the same as Surah 61 verse 9.
3 Surah 48 verse 28.
4 Surah 9 verse 5.
5 Surah 9 verse 29. It is qualifying Surah 9 ayah 5 in severity: Meir Bravermann, “The Ancient Arab Background and the Qur`anic Concept of al-Jizyatu `an Yadin”, Arabica, vol. 11, 1964, pp. 307-314; and ibid., vol. 14, 1967, pp. 90-91, 326-327.
6 Surah 9 verse 73.
7 Surah 47 verse 4.
8 http://hadith.al-Islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=4747. The ahadith below-mentioned are quoted in many Muslim internet sites with variety of narrations, but from the same source.
9 Muhammad Ibn Isma`il, al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Lahore: Kazi, 1979, Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 257; Ibn al-Hajjaj Muslim, Sahih Muslim, Cairo: Dar al-Kitab al-Misri, n.d, Book 19, Hadith 4319.
10 Sahih al-Bukhari: Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 258; Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Hadith 4320.
11 Ibn Majah Abu-Da`ud al-Sijistani, Sunan Abu Da`ud, Cairo: Dar al-Misriyah, 1988, Book 8, Hadith 2663. See also http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=4&Rec=3291
12 Malik Ibn Anas, al-Muwatta`: The First Formulation of Islamic Law, London: Kegan Paul, 1989, Book 21, ahadith 8, 9, 10. See also Imam Nawawi: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=4215
13 It does not bring any footnote, but we take it as it is reliable.
14 Al-Tirmidhi, Sahih. Vol. 7, p. 36.
15 Al-Bukhari, Sahih, vol. 4, no.53; Muslim, Sahih, vol. 11, no. 2013.
16 Al-Bukhari, Sahih, vol. 4, no.72.
17 Transmitted by al-Tirmidhi and Muslim: According to Mishkat al-Masih, Lahore: Ashraf, 1975, Vol. 1, no. 808.
18 Al-Bukhari, Sahih, vol. 4, no. 216.
19 Ibid., vol. 2, no. 70; Muslim, Sahih, vol. 5, no. 1841.
20 Surah 8 verses 39 and 67.
21 Surah 47 verse 4.
22 Francis E. Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994, p. 160.
23 Muslim, Sahih, Book 19, no. 4294.
24 Al-Bukhari, Sahih, vol. 4, nos. 42, 311.
25 Ibid., vol. 4, no. 65.
26 Ali, A Critical Exposition of the Popular Jihad, pp. 114-119. See also pp. 16-27.
27 Surah 23 ayah 96; Surah 28 ayat 54-55; Surah 41 ayah 34; Surah 42 ayah 40. Of course all these are from the Meccan period. See below in Chapter 2.
28 Ibid., pp. 74, 85 respectively. See also pp. 33-42.
29 This Surah is from the Meccan period.
30 Hoffmann, Islam the Alternative, p. 161.
31 Mahmoud Shaltut, al-Qur`an wal-Qital, Cairo: Matba`at al-Nasr wal-Ittihad al-Sharqi, 1948.
32 According to: Surah 2 ayat 136-138; Surah 3 ayah 64; Surah 6 ayat 101-103; Surah 29 ayah 46; Surah 30 ayah 30; Surah 42 ayah 13.
33 Surah 5 verse 21; Surah 7 verse 137; Surah 17 verse 104; Surah 10 verses 93-94.
Bill Warner
Signup for our weekly newletter.
Copyright © 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com
Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/islamic-propaganda-towards-the-west/