Dare to Speak: Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise (I)
Section 5:
Koran’s view of non-Muslims
Westerners usually think of a religion as a set of beliefs that form a world view distinct enough to deserve its own name. A perusal of the religious texts of Buddhists, Confucians, Taoists, and Hindus, as well as the New Testament, reveals that they focus on relationships, both with God (or gods) and with people. None of them emphasize hostility toward other religions.
While Jesus may have been personally involved in a mission to reform the Judaism of his day, his actual teachings were about personal ethics, relations with God, relations with other people, and evangelizing. His goal was not to subdue or kill the Jews, or anyone else. If anything, his famous instructions to “go the extra mile” [1] and “turn the other cheek” [2] taught just the opposite.
Conversely, the Mosaic and historical books of the Old Testament can remind one of the Koran when they record how God commanded Moses, Joshua, the Judges, Saul, and David to wipe out entire cities, right down to the babies and livestock, because they did not worship the one true God. In fact, throughout both the Koran and the Hadith, there are passages that defend the Old Testament, sometimes to the dismay of Jews themselves. For example, Sahih Bukhari relates the following episode, which is retold in several hadiths: [3]
Sahih Bukhari
- , Volume 9, Book 93, Number 633:…
A Jew and Jewess were brought to the Prophet on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked the Jews, “What do you (usually) do with them?” They said, “We blacken their faces and disgrace them.” He said, “Bring here the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful.”
- They (fetched it and) came and asked a one-eyed man to recite. He went on reciting till he reached a portion on which he put his hand. The Prophet said, “Lift up your hand!” He lifted his hand up and behold, there appeared the verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning of the adulterers to death). Then he said,
“O Muhammad! They should be stoned to death but we conceal this Divine Law among ourselves.” Then the Prophet ordered that the two sinners be stoned to death…I saw the man protecting the woman from the stones.
In fact, if Moses had been alive during the time of Muhammad, he probably would have made Muhammad look like an easy-going guy. However, the Old Testament’s version of God’s instructions do not threaten other faiths today because, for better or for worse, the religions that Jews were commanded to destroy have not existed for thousands of years. Moreover, the geographical claims of Judaism are quite limited. The “promised land” of Moses is roughly the size of New Jersey, not the entire world.
Islam is unique among major world religions in that its holy scriptures are openly hostile to people of every other living religion, including agnosticism and atheism. Islam also aspires to bring the entire world under its yoke, by persuasion if possible, and by force if necessary. It repeatedly goes out of its way to specifically name Jews and Christians as groups of people to despise, to hold in contempt, to subdue, and to kill. While it occasionally offers an olive branch to these religions, the goal of the olive branch is to give Infidels an opportunity to convert voluntarily to Islam before Muslims subdue them by the sword. People of faiths other than Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism are simply lumped together as heathens, idol-worshippers, or polytheists, and are considered the worst of all Infidels. As for Atheists, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran says:[4]
- The Koran teaches that some, but not all, will earn hell’s punishment eternally.
Atheists
- , for instance,
will earn membership in the group that earns eternal punishment:
Those who deny My existence and die with such attitude will be subject to the condemnation of God [Allah]
- , the angels, and all people.
They will live condemned forever, will have no relief from the torment
- , and no attention will be paid to them. (2:161-162)
[5]
A popular trend among Muslims today is to paint Christians as Polytheists because they worship a “Holy Trinity” – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this way, they can place Christians among those who are most despised in the Koran. The irony of this treatment is that Muslims actually believe in the same three things, but they manufacture distinctions in order to accuse Christians of blasphemy. To see this, consider:
1.Muslims believe in God,
2.They believe in a virgin birth of Jesus through God’s will, with the specific intent of having Jesus proclaim the Gospel, and
3.They believe in the Holy Spirit, as the Koran explicitly states in verse 2.253. Both authoritative versions of this verse are presented to demonstrate that the term “holy Spirit” is not a fluke of translation:
[2.253] YUSUF ALI: …to Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit.
[2.253] PICKTHAL: …We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty) and We supported him with the holy Spirit.
The Koran for Dummies
- also discusses a term called Imminence, which it describes as “The avenue whereby God is known and His presence felt in human experience on earth.”
[6]
- This is what Christians call the Holy Spirit. When Muhammad describes Imminence in the Hadith Qudsi, his words again sound like a Biblical description of the Holy Spirit:
- My servant constantly approaches Me through supererogatory acts of worship until I love him, and when I love him, I become his eyes with which he sees, his hands with which he holds, and his legs with which he walks.
- When Christians make such statements, however, Muslims feel free to accuse them of calling themselves gods.
The bottom line is that Muslims believe the same three tenets that they claim are hallmarks of Christian “polytheism.”
To get a fuller sense of Islam’s malice toward other religions, we can again turn to The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, and its section on the Taliban’s destruction of Afghanistan’s ancient and irreplaceable standing Buddhas: [7]
- Recently, the extremist political group known as the Taliban, who rule Afghanistan as of this writing, became the object of a lot of international criticism for their decision to destroy the ancient Buddha statues in the Bamiyan Valley…
- While the Muslim world debated the merits of the Taliban policy, and the non-Muslim world deplored the destruction of this ancient Buddhist art, the Taliban continued with the demolition. The actions of the Taliban bring up an interesting but contradictory situation.
When you look at the situation from the point of view of the Shahadah[8], the Taliban can rightly say they did nothing wrong, yet to Western minds their actions appear very wrong.
- In the Taliban’s understanding, they were merely destroying idols, or graven images, as the Bible would label them. In fact,
Taliban representatives expressed their puzzlement at the opposition from the Jews and Christians, whose own religious book, the Bible, also requires the destruction of idols (see Exodus 20:1-5).
What is astounding about these words is that they were published in 2002, many months after the September 11 attacks, and yet the author, an American convert to Islam named Yahiya Emerick, did not bother to acknowledge those attacks anywhere at all in the entire book. Apparently, those attacks were not worth mentioning, but it was worth the author’s time to devote pages to a discussion on the Buddhist statues, where he explains that, while the Taliban may have been a bit overzealous, they were certainly acting within the bounds of Islam. In fact, he notes that Jews and Christians are a bit hypocritical to criticize the Taliban because their faiths call them to do the same thing. Subsequently, Emerick’s book points out that the Buddhist statues were originally defaced by the British Army in the nineteenth century during their battle for Afghanistan. [9] He states that the British “destroyed” the statues but, if one looks at pictures from that era, one finds that a more accurate term is, literally, “defaced,” in the same manner that Napoleon’s soldiers shot off the nose of the Sphinx. While the impulsive vandalism by a group of British soldiers is to be deeply regretted, it is quite different from a systematic government-planned demolition.
Emerick concludes his discussion with these words: [10]
- The Taliban concluded that since no one was there worshipping the statues, they could be rightly destroyed as false idols without reneging on the rights granted to religious minorities…The merits of their actions will continue to be debated in the Muslim world, but one fact remains: They sincerely believed in what they did.
Thus, in a few breezy paragraphs, Emerick manages to trivialize the obliteration of two irreplaceable Buddhist monuments by Islamic zealots, while accusing Christians and Jews of hypocrisy, and implying that the British were no better than the Taliban, while ignoring an atrocity perpetrated under the Taliban’s protection. He also ignored the fact that, regardless of the number of Buddhists in Afghanistan, half a billion of them live throughout the world, and the Taliban’s actions were hurtful to them.
Emerick’s discussion leaves the reader wondering these questions:
How could an American publish a book that discusses the Taliban in such sympathetic tones after the 9/11 attacks? Has Emerick forsaken the “Infidel” nation of his birth?
How could Emerick make such obvious and callous misrepresentations about Christian and Jewish doctrine, British history, and the Taliban’s harm to Buddhists? Isn’t he obligated by his religion to have integrity?
Actually, he isn’t.
A tool for Islam’s war against Infidels: Taqiyya (dissimulation)
A disconcerting way in which Islam reveals its political, rather than religious, nature is in its principle of Taqiyya (also known as “Taqiya”), which translates as “dissimulation,” or “misrepresentation,” or “lying.” According to Webster’s On-Line Dictionary, [11]
In Islamic law and tradition, Taqiyya is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs to non-Muslims.
- It is most often used in times of persecution or danger. Often thought as peculiar to the Shi’a Muslims, Taqiyya is acknowledged by Sunni Muslims as well.
- …
- Taqiyya, like any other Islamic tenet, has guidelines and limits. However, these guidelines vary from group to group; no one interpretation…is accepted by all groups of Muslims.
- According to many Shiite Muslims,
dissimulation can
- only
be legally used by Muslims verbally, when a Muslim believes that he or she is being wrongly persecuted
- …The Qur’an states that if one lies, then the liar is guilty of sin and is a transgressor “except he who is compelled while his heart remains steadfast with the faith”.
- The first use of Taqiyya found historically in Islam was when Muslims were beginning to be tortured by the Quraishites. ‘Ammar bin Yasir, a follower of Muhammad and whose friends had been killed for being Muslim by the Quraish, was confronted by a Quraishite. ‘Ammar, using Taqiyya, pretended to re¬nounce Islam and thus saved his life when asked if he was a Muslim.
Muhammad himself was known to have used Taqiyya when he kept his prophetic mission hidden for three years from the Quraish when prolonged hostility was occurring towards the Muslims.
In its politically correct effort to be non-judgmental about a world religion, the authors of this definition present Taqiyya in a way that sounds fairly reasonable. Even at a surface level, though, the above definition becomes unnerving when one considers how determined Islam’s leaders are to make Muslims feel “wrongly persecuted.”
A deeper investigation reveals other disturbing characteristics. One of the links that appears with this word on Webster’s on-line dictionary leads to a 3-part essay entitled Al-Taqiyya /Dissimulation, from www.Al-Islam.org. [12] This essay provides many useful insights into the true nature of Taqiyya, as well as the reason why Shiites and Sunnis contend over it:
From Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation Part I:
The word “al-Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas,
- feelings, opinions,
and/or strategies
- at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time,
to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury
- .” A one-word translation would be “Dissimulation.”
- …
The following exposition will…demonstrate the existence of al-Taqiyya in the Quran, Hadith, the Prophet’s…custom, and the companions’ custom…
- …
- It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that:
After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet…was approached by Hajaj Ibn ‘Aalat and told: “O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to escape persecution)?” The Prophet…excused him and said: “Say whatever you have to say.”
- …
- It is narrated by al-Ghazzali in his book, “Ihya ‘Uloom al-Din,” that:
- Safeguarding of a Muslim’s life is a mandatory obligation that should be observed; and that
lying is permissible when the shedding of a Muslim’s blood is at stake.
- …
- Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, “al-Ashbah Wa al-Naza’ir,” affirms that:
“it is acceptable…to utter words of unbelief; and if one is living in an environment where evil and corruption are the pervasive norm,
- and permissible things (Halal) are the exception and a rarity,
then one can utilize whatever is available to fulfill his needs.”
- …Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p102, that Abu al-Darda’ said:
“(Verily) we smile for some people, while our hearts curse (those same people).”
Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation Part II
- includes a strange assurance from Shiites: lying is not mandatory whenever a Muslim is under duress, especially when truthfulness helps further the cause of Islam:
The Shia did NOT innovate or concoct anything new, they simply followed the injunctions of Allah…, as stated in the Quran, and the custom of…Muhammad.
- Nonetheless, one must also examine what the Shia themselves say about al-Taqiyya:
- …al-Mudhaffar in his book, “Aqa’id al-Imamiyah,” wrote that:
- “…
It is not mandatory to practice it (al-Taqiyya) at all times; on the contrary, it is permissible, and sometimes necessary, to abandon it (al-Taqiyya) altogether; as in the case where revealing the truth will further the cause of the religion, and provide a direct service to Islam
- …”
Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation Part III discusses the basis of the dispute between Shiites and Sunnis regarding Taqiyya: Shiites feel that a history of religious persecution by Sunnis justifies al-Taqiyya against them. It also makes a plea, from Shiites to Sunnis, to put away this dispute and join with them as brothers, so that they can unite in lying to the Infidels:
- The Shia HAVE TO practice al-Taqiyya as part of the persecution that they have suffered from day one of the death of…Muhammad.
It is enough to say “I am a Shi’I” to get your head chopped off even today in countries like Saudi Arabia
- …
- My comment here is that Wahhabis themselves do indeed practice al-Taqiyya, but they have been psychologically programmed by their mentors in such a way that they don’t even recognize al-Taqiyya when they do actually practice it…
- Dr. al-Tijani [a Shiite] wrote [of a time when] he was sitting next to a Sunni scholar on a flight to London; they were both on their way to attend an Islamic Conference. At that time, there was still some tension due to the Salman Rushdie affair…The Sunni scholar said: “The Shia must drop certain beliefs and convictions that cause disunity and animosity among the Muslims.” Dr. al-Tijani answered: “Like what?” The Sunni scholar answered: “Like the Taqiyya and Muta’ [temporary marriage] ideas.” Dr. al-Tijani immediately provided him with plenty of proofs in support of these notions, but the Sunni scholar was not convinced, and said that although these proofs are all authentic and correct, we must discard them for the sake of uniting the Ummah!!! When they both got to London, the immigration officer asked the Sunni scholar: “What is the purpose of your visit sir?” The Sunni scholar said: “For medical treatment.” Then Dr. al-Tijani was asked the same question, and he answered: “To visit some friends.” Dr. al-Tijani followed the Sunni scholar and said:
“Didn’t I tell you that al-Taqiyya is for all times and occasions!” The Sunni scholar said: “How so?” Dr. al-Tijani answered: “Because we both lied to the airport police: I by saying that I came to visit some friends, and you by saying that you are here for medical treatment; when, in fact, we are here to attend the Islamic Conference!”
- The Sunni scholar smiled, and said: “Well, doesn’t an Islamic Conference provide healing for the soul?!” Dr. al-Tijani was swift to say: “And doesn’t it provide an opportunity to visit friends?!”
This intriguing dissertation also reveals the ease with which Muslims can resort to Taqiyya. This quote demonstrates that Islam effectively condones lying to Infidels, particularly in an Infidel nation, whenever it serves the interest of Islam.
The idea that a world religion like Islam could incorporate dissemblance to the point of making it a field of study, with its own special name, can seem almost unbelievable to non-Muslims. This does not imply that people of other faiths never lie when pressed. For example, Dutch Christian Corrie ten Boom wrote a book, called The Hiding Place, which recorded how she and her family hid Jews from the Nazis during World War II, ultimately being caught and sent to a prison camp, where both her father and sister died. There is an important distinction, however. Her family’s motivation was “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” It was not to avoid personal hardship or promote Christianity.
This investigation of Taqiyya carries an even more important point: The two scholars in the above story were traveling to the United Kingdom in the 1980s. Although there were tensions over Salman Rushdie at the time, the U.K. was not in a state of war with any Islamic nation. Muslims had no reason to fear for their lives in the U.K. How could the scholars lie to the immigration officer so easily that the Sunni cleric did not even recognize that he had done so? The obvious answer is that their disingenuousness was habitual. Why? Because the House of Islam considers itself to be in a state of perpetual war against the Infidel nations of the world (though cease-fires are permitted), and Muslims do not feel obligated to deal honestly with those who live in rebellion to Allah and his Law. As Muhammad declared repeatedly in the Hadith: [13]
- Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268:…Allah’s Apostle called,
“War is deceit.”
The “House of Peace” and the “House of War”
As was noted in the beginning of this book, Islam teaches Muslims to divide the world into two realms: the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam), which can be translated more fully as the “House of Peace,” and the House of War (Dar al-harb). Within the House of Islam, people of other faiths may be tolerated, but only on terms specified by the Koran. Any nation that is not Islamic automatically belongs in the House of War, and is subject to a perpetual state of jihad. [14]
Within its realm, Islam’s tolerance of other religions has limits. Muhammad’s reputed dying words to the future Caliph Umar were “Two religions shall not remain together in the peninsula of the Arabs.” [15] In other words, the Arabian Peninsula was to be made exclusively Muslim. In 640, Umar drove all Christians, Jews, and Heathens from the land and, to this day, none are allowed to live there. Infidels are not even allowed to visit the holy city of Mecca.
Muhammad’s dying wish was what prompted Osama bin Laden to declare Holy War against the United States. It did not matter that the U.S. helped him and the other Mujahadeen fight against the Soviet domination of Afghanistan. It did not matter that the purpose of the Prince Sultan Air Base, which the U.S. built in Saudi Arabia, was to help the Saudis and other Islamic nations drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991. To Osama bin Laden, the mere existence of this air base was a violation of Muhammad’s dying wish, because Infidels were living on the Arabian Peninsula. To him, this was an unforgivable sin that had to be avenged. [16]
The reason bin Laden is so popular throughout the Muslim world is because he dares to act on the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith. He stands for Islam, punishes the Infidels, and refuses to play meekly according to the West’s rulebook. Muslims cheer him for having the bravery to lash back at the West, which disregards Islam so profoundly that it does not even recognize its transgressions. Bin Laden has the courage that many Muslims wish they had.
The Saudi government had kept the U.S. military base a secret from its populace, and it did so for good reason: the Saudi royal family knew that they were violating Muhammad’s wish. [17] However, as soon as the secret came out, citizens became so outraged that the Air Base had to decamp to avoid causing an unintended Saudi “regime change.”
Beyond the Arabian Peninsula, the House of Islam can claim to tolerate non-Muslims. A Muslim’s definition of “toleration,” however, is quite different from what Westerners assume. Westerners tend to define “religious toleration” as acceptance of and respect for other religions. [18] Muslims, on the other hand, use a different definition, one akin to “putting up with something one despises.” [19] The true spirit of Islamic tolerance reveals itself in an anecdote told by an Islamic cleric in Germany, Bassam Tibi, in the Hamburg weekly, Die Zeit: [20]
- The bishop of Hildesheim in Germany paid an imam a courtesy visit in his mosque.
The imam handed the Catholic prelate a Koran, which he joyfully accepted. But when the bishop tried to present the imam with a Bible, the Muslim cleric just stared at him in horror and refused to even touch Christianity’s holy book.
- “The bishop was irritated because he perceived this behavior as a gross discourtesy,” wrote Tibi, “but
the imam had only acted according to his faith. For if an imam gives a bishop a Koran, he considers this a Da’Wa, or call to Islam.”
- This, explained Tibi,…corresponds to a verse in the Koran: “And say …
to those who are unlearned: ‘Do ye submit yourselves?’” (Surah 3:20).
To get a deeper understanding of where the imam’s behavior came from, consider Surah 109 (The Unbelievers) and the commentary written on it by a prominent leader of Islamic thought named Sayad Abul Ala Maududi. As Maududi explains, this surah, which is often presented as proof of Islam’s tolerance of other religions, is actually just the opposite:
[109.001] PICKTHAL:
- Say:
O disbelievers!
[109.002] I worship not that which ye worship;
[109.003] Nor worship ye that which I worship.
[109.004]
- And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
[109.005]
- Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
[109.006] Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
Maududi’s commentary explains that this surah declares definitively that there is no room for compromise with regard to religion: [21]
There was a time in Makkah when…the Quraish chiefs had not yet lost hope that they would reach some sort of a compromise with [Muhammad]. Therefore, from time to time they would visit him with different proposals of compromise so that…the dispute between them [would be] brought to an end…
…
…there was need that they [the Quraish chiefs] should be given a definite, decisive reply so that their hope that he [Muhammad] would come to terms with them on the principle of “give and take” was frustrated for ever.
…
…the Surah…was not revealed to preach religious tolerance as some people of today seem to think, but it was revealed in order to exonerate the Muslims from the disbelievers’ religion, their rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them and to tell them that Islam and kufr (unbelief) had nothing in common and there was no possibility of their being combined and mixed into one entity….Allah gave the Muslims the eternal teaching that they should exonerate themselves by word and deed from the creed of kufr wherever and in whatever form it be, and should declare without any reservation that they cannot make any compromise with the disbelievers in the matter of Faith. That is why… the Muslims still recite it centuries after they have passed away, for expression of disgust with and dissociation from kufr and its rites is a perpetual demand of Faith.
As for the esteem in which the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) held this Surah, it can be judged from the following…hadith[s]:
…
…Naufal bin Muawiyah al-Ashjai said to the Holy Prophet …: “Teach me something which I may recite at the time I go to bed.” The Holy Prophet replied: “Recite Qul ya-ayyuhal kafirun to the end and then sleep, for this is immunity from polytheism.” [Numerous similar hadiths are cited at this point, which repeat and drive home Muhammad’s admonition to recite this surah every night].
We can now see that the imam’s refusal even to touch the Bible offered by the bishop, after the bishop had accepted the Koran from the imam, parallels Muhammad’s rejection of the offer made by the Quraish chiefs. Are there different paths to the same God? Islam emphatically says NO, and prescribes rituals that embed contempt for al other religions deeply into Muslim minds.
Obviously, ecumenical respect is a one-way street when it comes to Islam. From an Islamic perspective, the goal of tolerance is to provide Infidels with a non-violent opportunity to convert. “Religious toleration” is just one of several important phrases that Muslims and Westerners use in similar ways but with completely different intents.
Islamic “toleration” only grants that other religions may exist, in a constrained way, for the time being. However, Muslims believe that even this form of tolerance will disappear during the end times, as numerous hadiths relate, such as:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: [22]…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 Muslim, Chapter 8: THROWING OF NON-BELIEVERS IN HELL-FIRE FOR BELIEVERS AS DIVINE GRACE AND MERCY
Book 37, Number 6665:…Allah’s Messenger…said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.
Book 37, Number 6666:…Allah’s Apostle…said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire…[23]
Between now and that “glorious” Last Day, the Koran requires all Infidels in the House of Islam to openly acknowledge Islam’s superiority and pay the Jizya. [24] Jizya is a special tribute, or tax, paid to support Islam’s military forces. Islamic authorities explain that this tax is justified as compensation for Infidel exemption from the military. While portrayed as an advantageous way to “opt out” of military service, the fact is that Infidels are excluded rather than exempted from military service. The reason for this exclusion becomes obvious when one notes that the Jizya is often used to pay the costs of keeping non-Muslims in their place and waging war against non-Muslim lands.
What follows are examples of Koranic verses that define the proper relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims:
[3.28] YUSUF ALI: Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah…
[4.144] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?
[5.51] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
[9.73] PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end.
[28.86] YUSUF ALI: And thou hadst not expected that the Book would be sent to thee except as a mercy from thy Lord: Therefore lend not thy support in any way to those who reject (Allah’s Message).
[60.13] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Be not friendly with a folk with whom Allah is wroth, (a folk) who have despaired of the Hereafter as the disbelievers despair of those who are in the graves.
A review of the Koran’s commands for Muslims not to be friends with Jews and Christians leads one to wonder why. Could it be that, by getting to know and understand their Jewish and Christian friends, Muslims might come to doubt the Koran’s slanders against them? Or possibly even feel empathy for them as human beings?
Despite these slanders against Jews and Christians, Muslims see themselves as persecuted, as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran testifies: [25]
In an era when it is unacceptable to discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs and it is considered a grave social misstep to ridicule the faith of fellow-citizens…it is still “open season” on Islam and Muslims. Today religious discrimination against Muslims is rampant, and coarse attacks upon the faith of millions of Americans…[are] all too common.
If one were to compare the number of Muslims who have died in the United States because of anti-Muslim hatred to the number of non-Muslims who have died in the United States because of Muslim hatred, one would find few if any Muslim deaths, but thousands of non-Muslims deaths. This is not simply a matter of the September 11 attacks. Numerous terrorist cells have been thwarted, but others have succeeded, including some individual acts of sheer hatred. These incidents appear to be increasing in frequency. They include:
The ’93 attack on the Twin Towers, which killed six and injured a thousand.
The 2001 sniper attacks of Muslim converts John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, which killed ten.
The 2006 attack by Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who ran down nine University of North Carolina students in an SUV. [26]
The 2006 attack by Naveed Afzal Haq, whose father helped found an Islamic Center in Seattle, and who broke into a Seattle Jewish charity center, shooting six women, one fatally. [27]
The 2006 attack by Omeed A. Popal, a young man “from a ‘decent, pious and respectful’ family, devout members of the Abu Bakr Siddiq Mosque in Hayward [California]”, [28] who drove his SUV through the streets of San Francisco, deliberately running down fourteen randomly selected people, killing one.
Islamic apologists for the Koran’s antagonistic verses offer explanations that, on reflection, give more distress than comfort. For example, The Koran for Dummies says: [29]
Passage 5:51-52 forbids Muslims from taking Jews and Christians as “friends”
- because the two look only to protect one another rather than the Muslims. The verse goes on to say that Muslims who ally with them have a (spiritual) disease in their hearts whereby they can’t trust in God.
“Friend” is an incorrect translation of the Arabic word Awliya’, which is closer in meaning to “allies” or “protectors.”
- …
- However…the Koran explains that
forbidding alliance with People of the Book does not apply to all Jews and Christians. Rather, it refers
- , first,
to those who make fun of Islam and Muslim practices (5:57-58). And
- , secondly, it applies to
those non-Muslims who commit aggression against the Muslim community
- , oppose the practice of faith, and drive Muslims out of their homes (60:9).
If the People of the Book, or any other non-Muslims, do not persecute Muslims, then the Koran permits alliance and friendship
- and enjoins mutual kindness and justice between communities (60:7-8)
While these words may sound reasonable at first, a real life scenario shows that they are actually designed to tilt the global playing field in favor of Islamic conquest. Consider, hypothetically, a case where a group of Muslim terrorists bomb a subway in what they consider to be a Christian nation, and the bomb kills dozens of people. The authorities of the “Christian” government try to track down the surviving perpetrators but discover that no one in the Islamic community is willing to provide useful information. These Muslims all claim to know nothing, and they are shocked (!) to hear that those who committed the crime could do such a thing. In the absence of cooperation from the community where the perpetrators came from, the “Christian” authorities begin to tighten security measures in the community, doing things like arresting Islamic clerics known to preach hatred against the Infidel government. In response, the Muslim community cries out against this perceived persecution. According the maxims of The Koran for Dummies, these Muslims have done the right thing in protecting their Muslim brothers rather than acting as allies or protectors of the Christians. Moreover, they would be right to claim that they are being persecuted. Such persecution is grounds for Jihad. As The Koran for Dummies explains: [30]
- The Koran allows Muslims to fight in armed struggle against “those who wage war against you…” (2:190)…Muslims are allowed to kill their aggressors and drive them out of their land in order to protect the Islamic state (2:191).
- Islam is not a pacifist religion. Rather,
the Koran believes in self-defense in the form of war
- , if necessary, and with appropriate force.
Once this battle begins, the Muslims are told to “fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God [Allah] alone”
- (2:193).
Unfortunately for us “Infidels,” the Koran does not grant us the same right of self-defense.
This hypothetical story brings up an important point: why is it that, time and again, when Muslim terrorists strike Western targets, very little information comes from the Muslim community? There is more at work than simply the command not to ally with Jews and Christians; Muslims also have a very strong concept of family loyalty. As described in The Koran for Dummies: [31]
- The Koran considers it one of the worst possible sins to cut sacred kinship bonds. Lineage preserves the identity of individuals within society; lineage also emboldens the family structure that is so essential to the development of a society based on Koranic ethics.
In other words, the Koran strongly discourages the betrayal of a family or tribal member to outsiders, especially Jews and Christians. Later in The Koran for Dummies, the author tries to weaken this conclusion by saying:
- Muslims are called to treat
each other
- with kindness and respect, but at the same time, this mercy should not violate the principles of justice. For example, a Muslim can’t hide a murderer, whether family or friend, in his or her home to protect them from the justice of law.”
[32]
What he neglects to mention is that this injunction applies only when the “principles of justice” are Islamic principles of justice, because the “justice of law” is actually the justice of Islamic law. Governments that do not respect Shari’ah are considered inherently unjust, and the respect for law cited does not apply to them. Instead of respect, they are to be given Taqiyya and jihad.
Therefore, the Koran’s command for Muslims not to protect Christians and Jews combines with its sanctification of kinship bonds to protect terrorists from being exposed. With the aid of this cover, they are able to, in the words of prominent British cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, “bleed the enemy” in their pursuit of establishing an Islamic state. [33]
Even more disturbing is the fact that this mechanism has been used by Hezbollah, a Lebanese-Shiite terrorist organization, in an attempt to prod the entire Islamic world into a war with Israel.
Lebanon was originally founded as a primarily Christian and Sunni nation. After the Islamic Revolution of Iran, however, Ayatollah Khomeini’s new government decided to create a new terrorist organization, Hezbollah, whose stated objective was the destruction of Israel. With the aid of Iranian and Syrian largesse, a second objective soon revealed itself: Shiite expansionism. During the turmoil of Lebanon’s Civil War in the 1980s, and in the years that followed, the Shiite population grew rapidly in Lebanon, making both Sunnis and Christians nervous. However, by leading the charge against Israel, Hezbollah made it impossible for the Sunnis to confront the Shiites, and the Christians were powerless to exert their wishes without Sunni consent. In a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, Sunnis could not possibly ally with Israel, no matter what Hezbollah did, because the Koran itself makes such an act unthinkable. Therefore, Hezbollah, a Shiite terrorist organization, with only a minority representation in Lebanon’s legitimate government, effectively took control Lebanon’s foreign policy.
When Hezbollah attacked Israel, Lebanon was unable or unwilling to exert its sovereignty over Hezbollah’s Lebanese territory. When Lebanon gave Hezbollah free reign, it forced Israel to take unilateral actions of its own. When Israel attacked Hezbollah inside Lebanon, Hezbolla’s forces dressed in civilian clothes, concealed their weapons in civilian areas, and launched their attack from those areas. It then successfully portrayed Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah as attacks on Lebanese civilians. Once the attacks became viewed as attacks on Lebanon, Hezbollah’s support expanded from its original sponsors to Muslims around the world. This kind of scenario has played itself out several times in the past few decades, each time threatening to bring about a global conflict between those who oppose Israel’s existence and those who support it.
Getting back to The Koran for Dummies’ claim that Muslims are justified in attacking Jews and Christians “who make fun of Islam and Muslim practices,” its one-sidedness becomes clear when one considers that the Koran and the Hadith do far more than ridicule Jews and Christians. These scriptures actually teach Muslims to believe that Jews and Christians who do not convert to Islam are evil and accursed. For example:
[2.145]
- PICKTHAL: And even if thou broughtest unto those who have received the Scripture all kinds of portents, they would not follow thy qiblah…And if thou shouldst follow their desires after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, then surely wert thou of the evil-doers.
[2.146]
- Those unto whom We gave the Scripture recognize (this revelation) as they recognize their sons. But lo! A party of them knowingly conceals the truth.
- …
[2.159]
- Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed…are accursed of Allah…
This point naturally raises a question: If the Koran is correct about Jews and Christians, then what should be the relationship between the “House of Peace” and the “House of War,” which Jews and Christians allegedly rule? On this subject, the Koran offers its believers plenty of guidance, a small sample of which is shown below:
[8.12] YUSUF ALI: …I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”
[8.13] This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger:
[8.39] PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.
[8.65] PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight… if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.
[8.67] PICKTHAL: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter…
[9.29] YUSUF ALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah…(even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
[9.38] YUSUF ALI: O ye who believe! What is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? …
[9.39] Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place…
[9.111] PICKTHAL: Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain…
[9.123] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
Interestingly, despite the fact that Islam prohibits non-Muslims from living on the Arabian Peninsula, or even visiting Mecca, it does not allow non-Muslim nations to make similar prohibitions against Muslims. To see a Muslim testify to this unlevel playing field, consider this defense of Jihad offered by The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam:
According to Islamic Law, an armed struggle can be initiated only for the following reasons:
To defend your community or nation from aggressors.
To liberate people living under oppressive regimes.
To remove any government that will not allow the free practice of Islam within its borders.
In other words, if Infidels were to treat Muslims the way Muslims treat Infidels on the Arabian Peninsula, it would be grounds for war.
Despite claims to the contrary, the second item in the above list also reveals that peace is not possible in an Infidel nation with a sizable Muslim population, because Muslims feel oppressed when forced to live by democratically legislated secular laws instead of Allah-decreed Islamic Law. Therefore it does not matter whether non-Muslim nations exclude Muslims or allow them to immigrate; either action will lead to Holy War. In the long run, the only way for an Infidel nation to avoid Jihad is to submit to Islam.
A second reason why there cannot be peace between the House of Islam and the House of War is provided by The Koran for Dummies in the quote below. Ironically, this rationale for war arises as the author tries to de-fang one of the Koran’s most infamous verses: [34]
Ayah[35] 9:29 says that Muslims should fight those who deny God [Allah] and the Last Day, and deny the laws of moral law, and refuse to acknowledge the Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the exemption tax (Jizya) willingly after being subdued or humbled in war.
Some people mistakenly take this Ayah to mean that Muslims should fight Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands unless they pay the Jizya tax. In truth, the Hadith clearly outlines the true purpose of the tax: to exempt non-Muslim men from service in the Muslim army. (Non-Muslims shouldn’t be required to participate in armed struggle for a faith they don’t believe in.) The money of this tax then goes into supporting the Islamic state’s army, which guarantees protection of all non-Muslim communities living under the Islamic state…
This passage appears in the context of a Surah that discusses the hostilities of war during the time of revelation – a time when Jews and Christians aided the Pagans against the Muslim community. However, Ayah 9:29 in no way diminishes other passages found throughout the Koran that call for peaceful coexistence between faiths, such as 60:8.
Leaving aside the question of how an Infidel must feel about being forced to pay for an army that wars against Infidel nations, consider the final paragraph: the “peaceful coexistence” referred to applies only to Infidels living humbly and subdued, paying the Jizya to an Islamic state. Moreover, it clarifies that any time a non-Muslim nation defends another non-Muslim nation from Islamic aggression, it falls into the same category as the Jews and Christians who aided the Pagans. This is so because these nations are “against the Muslim community.” It does not matter whether the nation being defended is Israel, East Timor, or the people of southern Sudan.
Essentially, the only way a non-Muslim nation can avoid having jihad declared against it is to either aid the Muslims in their wars or stay completely out of them, regardless of what those Muslim nations are doing. Any interference on behalf of Islam’s victims is likely to trigger the jihad tripwire.
Adding to this threat is the realization that the Muslims who are commanded to carry out jihad are not simply the citizens of Muslim nations, but all members of the Nation of Islam, even those who live in Infidel lands. In other words, devout Muslims living in the United States would feel justified by their faith if they decided to attack the U.S. because of its support for Israel, or even Southern Sudan or East Timor.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5:
[1] See Bible, Matthew 5:41
[2] See Bible, Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29
[3] Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 829, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 79, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 41, Number 41.1.1.
[4] The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 19, section entitled There Will Be an Accounting, page 192.
[5] This Koranic quote comes via the translation authored by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar, one of the authors of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, who chose to reference his own translation.
[6] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 8, section entitled Knowing God, page 118.
[7] The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 10, section entitled Are Muslims Idol-Breakers?, pages 116-117.
[8] Mentioned previously in this book as the Arabic term for Islam’s Declaration of Faith: “I declare there is no god but Allah, and I declare that Muhammad is His Messenger.”
[9] Ibid, page 117.
[10] Ibid, page 118-119.
[11] See http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/TAQIYYA.
[12] This dissertation is spread over three web pages (Part I, Part II, and Part III):
, Part I , Part II and Part III
[13] Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Numbers 267 & 269.
[14] The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, by Bernard Lewis, Schocken Books, New York, 1998, pages 121-122.
[15] As famous as this statement is, a search of the Hadith did not uncover it, but similar hadiths were found:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288:…The Prophet, on his death-bed, gave three orders, saying, “Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them.” I forgot the third (order) (Ya’qub bin Muhammad said, “I asked Al-Mughira bin ‘Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, ‘It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen.’” Ya’qub added, “And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.”)
Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4366:…the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sa[id]: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 531:…Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah’s Apostle had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle, and the Muslims. Allah’s Apostle intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits.
Allah’s Apostle told them, “We will let you stay on thus condition, as long as we wish.” So, they (i.e. Jews) kept on living there until ‘Umar forced them to go towards Taima’ and Ariha’.
Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4363:…the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood up and called out to them (saying):…You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I wish that I should expel you from this land. Those of you who have any property with them should sell it, otherwise they should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle (and they may have to go away leaving everything behind).
Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 19, Number 3001:…The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) had transaction with the Jews of Khaybar on condition that we should expel them when we wish. If anyone has property (with them), he should take it back, for I am going to expel the Jews. So he expelled them.
Additional hadiths similar to these can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392, and Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Number 3763.
[16] The Saudi’s have been skirting Muhammad’s dying wish by allowing non-Muslim foreigners onto Saudi soil, to provide technical and management assistance in their oil industry. This necessary evil has been something the nation has been coping with by restricting these Infidel foreigners to specific walled compounds on the edges of Saudi soil, only allowing them temporary residency, and launching a major effort to educate their own people in the skills needed, so that the foreigners can eventually be removed. The U.S. military presence has been viewed as a far grosser violation because it imports powerful weapons from an Infidel land, a land that supports Israel and, in theory, could use those weapons against Islam’s most holy sites.
[17] U.S. – Saudi Alliance appears strong, by Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, April 27, 2003.
[18] “A disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior;…Willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others.” From Webster’s On-Line Dictionary. Source: Wordnet 1.7.1, Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University.
[19] “The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration.” From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
[20] Scholar Warns West of Muslim Goals, By Uwe Siemon-Netto, United Press International (UPI), June 18, 2002.
[21] The Meaning of the Qur’an, by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Kazi Publications Inc, Revised edition, June, 1999, commentary on Surah 109.
[22] Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176, and Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Numbers 6981, 6982, 6983, 6984, and 6985
[23] This chapter from the hadiths of Sahih Muslim continues in a similar vein through Numbers 6667, 6668, and 6669.
[24] [9.29] YUSUF ALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
[25] The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 3, section entitled In This Chapter, page 25.
[26] UNC Attack Suspect Wanted to Punish Gov’t, by Steve Hartsoe, Associated Press, The Guardian (U.K.), March 7, 2006.
[27] Police: Seattle shooting suspect ambushed teen, Associated Press, MSNBC News, July 29, 2006.
[28] Driving rampage killed one, injured at least 13, by James Hohmann and Katherine Corcoran, Mercury News (San Jose, CA), August 30, 2006.
[29] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 10, section entitled Forbidding “friendship” with People of the Book, page 156.
[30] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 16, section entitled Jihad as armed struggle, page 253.
[31] Ibid, Chapter 14, section entitled Preserving lineage, page 205.
[32] Ibid, Chapter 16, section entitled Managing justice and mercy in society, page 235.
[33] Bleed the Enemy, by Emily Flynn Vencat, Newsweek Web Exclusive, January 12, 2006.
[34] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 18, section entitled Giving Aya 9:29 its proper context, page 278.
[35] Arabic term for a Koranic verse. Literally, it means “sign.”
Recent Comments