Settling the “infidels” question in Islam
Dec 4th, 2009 | By Maher Y. Abu-Munshar | Category: Islam, Religion
KUALA LUMPUR: Despite the substantial number of scholarly works and news stories to the contrary, many people still have the unfortunate misconception that Muslims cannot tolerate, coexist, or cooperate with followers of other religions. This is partly because Muslim extremists themselves often (mis)use Qur’anic verses to justify acts of violence against non-Muslims.
Simply put, these interpretations are wrong. In fact, many verses in the Qur’an call for friendship, fair treatment and cooperation with non-Muslims but are ignored by those wishing to create division in order to fan the flames, so to speak.
Examples of the misused Qur’anic verses include, for example: “Let not the Believers take for allies or helpers Unbelievers rather than Believers” (3:28) and “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your allies. They are but allies to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for alliance] is of them” (5:51).
These verses should be seen as providing the necessary support for the survival and cohesion of an early vulnerable community of Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad and his followers who arrived as refugees in Medina, in a potentially hostile environment.
In other words, the Qur’an was advising a particular community of Muslims in 7th century Arabia to be wary of entering blindly into political alliances. And indeed they were betrayed at that time by some of their Jewish allies. In fact, these verses were revealed in particular because some Muslims, for personal gain, were keen to establish or keep alliances with non-Muslims at the expense of their co-religionists and the newly formed state. These verses therefore were instructing these early Muslims to be self-reliant and to not depend upon others’ protection in order to establish a strong, lasting community.
Like the verses cited above, others are also quoted out of context, easily misleading the uninformed reader. One such verse, “And slay them wherever ye find them…” (2:191), is quoted extensively by many extremist Muslims and non-Muslims alike to showcase Islam’s supposed hatred of non-Muslims.
However, this verse too is taken out of context, because the ones just before and after it maintain that Muslims should never be aggressors and should only protect themselves against persecution. The context then becomes clear: this verse was revealed for a specific incident relating to the pagan Arabs who continuously breached the peace and reneged on truces at that particular time. In other words, this instruction is only applicable to this specific incident.
The Egyptian Muslim jurist Yusuf al-Qaradawi points out that these verses are not unconditional and certainly cannot be applied to every single Jew, Christian or non-Muslim. Taking them out of a specific context that relates to some event in earlier Muslim history, they contradict other instructions in the Qur’an that call for kindness to those who wish Muslims no harm.
Both Muslims and non-Muslims must learn to differentiate verses in the Qur’an that are specific to a particular context from those that are universal by also reading those verses that frame the contentious ones.
It is also important to remember that a prevailing message of respect for freedom of religion abounds in the Qur’an: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256); “Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans, whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right, surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve” (2:62); among others.
But the ideal relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is best captured by two Qur’anic verses in particular (60:8-9). These verses, which advise Muslims to treat those of other faiths justly, employ a word which comes from the root word birr, which refers to a deep-rooted type of kindness and justice. The Qur’an counsels that birr be the basis of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, the same instruction it gives for dealing with one’s parents.
Today, when violent extremists quote these verses out of context to justify terrorism, it is essential to look at the Qur’an closely. All Muslims need to combine recitation of the holy text with full understanding of its injunctions. As the majority of Muslims do not speak Arabic, the language of the Qur’an, it is essential that they refer to trusted sources of interpretation and translation and not follow an unsupported, misguided reading of this text. This will surely pave the way toward eliminating misunderstanding and the misuse of the Qur’an for violent ends and instead promote the universal vision of Qur’an: genuine tolerance and peaceful coexistence between all of humanity.
###
* Dr. Maher Y. Abu-Munshar is Visiting Senior Lecturer to the Department of History and Islamic Civilization at the University of Malaya, Malaysia and the author of Islamic Jerusalem and its Christians: A History of Tolerance and Tensions (I B Tauris 2007). This article is part of a series on the myth that Islam is inherently violent written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 1 December 2009, www.commongroundnews.org
BM
Keep advertising off Bikya Masr - donate $1 to allow this to be possible
Quote: “Today, when violent extremists quote these verses out of context to justify terrorism,”
It is impossible to put Koranic verses in context as they have been jumbled up chronologically.
There is no temporal context and for every “peaceful” verse there are three or four violent ones that have abrogated the peaceful ones.
That the Koran is still used as a jihadist manual for violence and terrorism after 1,300 years shows just how evil that book is.
Jihadist violence is a problem for Muslims to solve. Until they do expect more minarets to be banned and Islamophobia to grow.
As they say in the Philippines (which is suffering from a brutal Islamic Jihad), this article is ‘bola bola’. This is just pro-Islamist taqiyya propaganda.
Everyone knows that the Koran is only a part of the foundation of Islam. There is also the Ahadith, the Sunnah, the Sira, and Sharia law, which all give us instructions about how ‘the Infidel question’.
But the best way to ‘settle the Infidel question’ is to examine how Muhammed, the ‘holy prophet’ of Islam, lived and how he treated ‘infidels’.
He killed them.
He raped them.
He stole their property.
He decapitated them.
He brutalized them.
He forced them to convert to Islam under penalty of death.
The ‘infidels’ he let live were subjugated, forced to become unequal second class citizens, “Dhimmis”.
“Interpret” this:
Koran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” (this doesn’t seem very friendly or tolerant to ‘infidels’, right?)
Koran (9:29) – “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.”
Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle Muhammed said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah”
Ibn Ishaq (814) – “Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head”
What is a ‘Dhimmi’?
What is ‘Jizya’?
Who do they apply to?
Al-Maghili, a fifteenth century Muslim theologian, explains:
“On the day of payment {of the jizya} they {the dhimmi} shall be assembled in a public place like the suq {place of commerce}. They should be standing there waiting in the lowest and dirtiest place. The acting officials representing the Law shall be placed above them and shall adopt a threatening attitude so that it seems to them, as well as to others, that our object is to degrade them by pretending to take their possessions. They will realize that we are doing them a favor in accepting from them the jizya and letting them go free. ”
And here’s Al-Damanhuri, a seventeenth century head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most prestigious center for learning in the Muslim world:
… just as the dhimmis are prohibited from building churches, other things also are prohibited to them. They must not assist an unbeliever against a Muslim … raise the cross in an Islamic assemblage … display banners on their own holidays; bear arms … or keep them in their homes. Should they do anything of the sort, they must be punished, and the arms seized. … The Companions [of the Prophet] agreed upon these points in order to demonstrate the abasement of the infidel and to protect the weak believer’s faith. For if he sees them humbled, he will not be inclined toward their belief, which is not true if he sees them in power, pride, or luxury garb, as all this urges him to esteem them and incline toward them, in view of his own distress and poverty. Yet esteem for the unbeliever is unbelief.
It seems “The Infidel Question” has long since been answered. And the answer is ugly.
~The Infidel Alliance
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Joseph Mayton and M Chaaban, Bikya Masr. Bikya Masr said: Settling the “infidels†question in Islam: KUALA LUMPUR: Despite the substantial number of scholarl.. http://bit.ly/7ZPRZh [...]
We’re back to obscenities and mud-slinging designed to kill any constructive discussion. Once again this is totally unacceptable and will not induce any response on my part and on the part of other participants who are here for a meaningful discussion and not for a name-calling competition.
~*~*~
It never ceases to amaze me how freely the words “Al Taqeyya†and “Kitman†are used these days in different forums in order to parade “knowledgeâ€. Al Taqeyya (originating in the Shi’ite Islam) is nothing else but a tactic used to hide the true belief in case the revelation thereof would have put ones life in danger; it was used in the early days of the emergence of the Shi’ite. Very much the same as the early Christians used to do. Today it is used as an ominous word to scare off people implying that this is an “Islamic†tactic in order to deceive the rest of the world.
Al Taqeyya is used by the hate-mongers and inciters to proof to the unassuming that all Muslims are nothing but liars, requested and sanctioned by the Qu’ran. It goes without saying that some Qu’ran texts are handy to be quoted (out of context but that doesn’t matter).
What does one call what the “Judeo-Christians†are doing since centuries up until now as I’m writing these lines to further their hegemonial goals? An almost classical example being the persuasion of the Arabs to help the then British Empire to fight the Ottomans in return for self-determination and statehoods for the Arabs – full knowing that this will not be given to them as arrangements had been already made to declare Palestine a homeland for the Jews. This is just but one example although a striking and irrefutable one.
As we learn from the dictionary “kitman†(Arabic كتمان “secrecy, concealment”) is if one pays lip service to authorities. It is often a political (at times also religious) camouflage for the purpose of survival if open opposition could result in danger for ones life.
Now – what my posting # 12 should have to do with any of the above is beyond me … but the stringing together of some Arabic words sounds always good.
This squirming and twisting is quite pathetic to say the least.
If one follows this link
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?No2Jihad&51
Moderate Muslim Majority Rejects Terrorism!
Petition to the Islamic Ummah
one will find a classical example how the “true believer alliance” always sabotages any attempt of normal Muslims to be heard and to maybe make a difference as how Islam and its followers are viewed.
Very much the same as they try to kill any meaningful discussion and/or exchange of opinions and understandings.
But then – if they wouldn’t do exactly this they wouldn’t do their job and might be cancelled from the payroll. It’s a tough life …
To Stephen – yr comment #1
If I may correct – it is a minor but important detail: the sura have been arranged not the verses within the sura. Therefore, they are very much in context and it is a favorite pass-time of the hate-mongers and inciters to take them out of context and misuse them for their evil intentions.
Though the very same people vehemently insist that the Bible and Torah verses have to be read, understood and – very important – interpreted only in context of the whole message it goes without saying that this logic and fairness naturally does NOT apply to the Qu’ran.
As for Jihad and when it is permissible and/or obligatory to wage it I take the liberty to recommend you have a look at the website of Muslimbridges (http://www.muslimbridges.org/content/view/372/) “Jihad – A Legitimate Struggle for Human Rights”. It starts as follows”
“A Misunderstanding or An Abuse
Jihad is an Islamic Arabic term which is misunderstood by many people. Sometimes, this misunderstanding increases through deliberate abuses by Muslims and non- Muslims alike. While some Muslim rulers use the term to justify their personal ambitions or to turn the minds and hearts of their oppressed people to another target, others try to twist the word in order to give the impression that Islam and Muslims are, in principle, inclined to confrontation and aggression, and thus they are never expected to be a constructive element for world peace.”
It states one of the core problems already in the very first sentence: “…through DELIBERATE [emphasis added]abuses by Muslims and non- Muslims alike”. That’s what we see in almost every forum and discussion concerning Islam – see also the forum of BM.
~*~*~
More exerpts from the article which I think are relevant and which I quote as maybe not everybody is inclined to follow the link referenced above and read through the whole essay:
“What is “Jihad”… and Why ?
The translation of jihad as “holy war’ is misleading and deceptive. It gives the impression that jihad aims to declare war against non-Muslims all over the world, in order to impose Islam as a faith or as a political system by force. Such understanding, or misunderstanding, ignores the Arabic language, the Islamic sources and the historical practice of Muslims.
Jihad means striving hard, and Islam declares only a legitimate struggle to defend human rights, including the freedom of people and the freedom of faith:
“Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully and offensively waged; and verily. God is most powerful for their aid; those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying: ‘Our Lord is God’..” (2:39-40)
“And how could you refuse to fight in the cause of God and the utterly oppressed men and women and children who are crying: ‘O our Lord! Lead us forth [to freedom, even] out of this land in which the people [in power] are oppressors’…” (4:75)
It is obvious that the Quran considers “peace” to be the general rule in the relations of Muslims with others, and requires for a legitimate “struggle” a divine “permission” which is given only to those whose human rights and freedom of faith have been violated. Islam declares a legitimate struggle against oppression and in defense of the freedom of people and faith:
“Hence, fight against them [the aggressors] until oppression is stopped, and faith in God is allowed free [for everyone] between oneself and God].” (2:193)
Human rights cannot be split, and a legitimate Islamic authority cannot claim to fight against external aggression and defend “the land” or “the people” while it is practicing horrible aggression within its own borders and against its own people for any religious, ethnic, or political differences:
“…for oppression is even worse than killing.” ( 2:19)
‘… since oppression is more awesome than killing.” (2:217)”
Human Dignity for All
The Quran states that the dignity of the Children of Adam has been conferred by God on them all, whatever their ethnicities and beliefs may be. … The Quran ordains that these rights should be secured for all the people in all dimensions by the legitimate Islamic authorities “which have been entrusted with their power by you [the people]“(2:59)
Religious Freedom
According to the Quran, Islam can never be imposed on individuals or peoples against their will:
“Let there be no coercion in matters of faith.” (2:256)
“If it bad been your Lord’s will, they would all have believed (in God’s message), all those who are on earth. Will you then compel people against their will, to believe?” (10:99)
“… Shall we compel you to accept it when you are averse to it?” (11:28)
Prophet Muhammad’s task as indicated in the Quran was to let others know the message: to explain and to exhort, not to impose and force:
“And so [0 Prophet,] exhort them; your task is only to exhort: you cannot compel them [to believe]” (88:21-22)
“and you can by no means force them to believe; just remind, through this Quran, all such as may fear My warning” (50:45)
“But would you, perhaps, torment yourself to death with grief over them if they are not willing to believe in this message? Behold, we have willed that all beauty on earth be a means by which we put people to test, (showing) which of them are best in conduct” (18: 6-7; see also 26:3)
According to Islamic theology, no embracement of faith can be accepted by God unless it is meant intentionally through a free will, since this is the basis for judgment on the Day of Judgment.
Human Diversity
Human diversity is God’s will, and the believers in Him have to learn how to live in a pluralistic society and world:
“And had your Lord so willed, He could surely have made all mankind one single community, but [He willed it otherwise, and so] they continue to have differences – all of them, save those upon whom your Lord has bestowed His grace [by: following His guidance about co-habituating with their differences and handling them peacefully]. And to this end [of testing people how to tackle their differences] He created them all.” (11:118-119)
…
On the other hand, a “kafir” is not merely — as it is usually translated — an “unbeliever,” or as some Western scholars put it: an “infidel.” According to the Arabic linguistics and the Quranic use, a kafir is one who denies the clear facts about God’s creation and favors and rejects His message while such a person realizes within oneself the truth that he/she is opposing in words: “and thus they deny (yakfuroon) ungratefully God’s favors”’(16:72, also ‘kafarat’ in 112), “and he (Solomon) said: this is some of my Lord’s bounty, to test me as to whether I am grateful or ungrateful (akfur)! However, who is grateful (to God) is but grateful for one’s own good; and one who is ungrateful (kafara), (should know that,) verily, my lord is free from needs and the Most Generous in giving” (27:40), “and should you try to count God’s favors, you could never number them; behold, the human being is so unfair, so ungrateful (kuffar: extremely kafir)” (4:43), “And they rejected them (God’s messages and signs) wrongfully and haughtily, even though they themselves felt certain about it (27:14), behold it is not you whom they give, the lie, but God’s messages and (sings) do these wrongdoers reject.” (6:33)
Muslims have to coexist and co-habitat with such rejecters of God’s favors and messages in this world fairly and peacefully, as long as they do not turn their hostility from feelings and acceptable arguments into aggression, leaving the judgment in the whole matter to the Lord who knows all what is apparent and concealed by everyone and judges each with fall justice.
Against the Combatants Only
Even among the aggressors themselves, Muslims are taught to do their best to direct their struggle against the combatants only.
Jihad, as a legitimate struggle against aggression, is restricted to resisting those who practice the aggression, and cannot result in an extensive indiscriminate bloodshed.
The Quran stresses: “And fight in God’s cause against those who initially wage war against you, but do not commit aggression for, verily. God does not love aggressors,” “Thus if anyone commits aggression against you, attacked him just as he attacked you-but remain conscious of God, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him.” (2:190,194)
The Muslim army was instructed by the Prophet and early Caliphs to avoid causing any harm to those who do not fight, such as monks, women, children and peaceful peasants.
Muslims should allow the defeated enemy to end the hostilities and make a non-tactical withdrawal safely, since their goal is to eliminate the threat of the hostile forces to them, not to wipe out the whole forces physically.
The wounded should not face any more pressure or harm, and Muslims should leave them in the care of their own forces, or provide them with medical care if they keep them as prisoners of war. The human needs of those ought to be fulfilled (76:8), and they must feel secure physically and morally until they are set free and returned safe to their homes when the war comes to an end (47:4).
One who seeks shelter with Muslims has to be protected. A clarification of the message of Islam and the reason of hostility is offered to such a person without any pressure, that such a shelter-seeker may enjoy security in Muslim lands or return home safe, even if there is still a possibility that he/she may turn against the Muslims. The Quran clearly states:
“And if any of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God seeks your protection, grant him/her protection, so that he/she might (be able to) know about the message of God, and thereupon convey him/her to wherever one can feel secure.” (9:6)
~*~*~
Towards the end it concludes:
“With genuine Islamic principles and positive historical precedents, how may one think that a legitimate struggle against aggression, which is called jihad in Islamic terminology, with all its restrictions and specifications in Islamic legal sources, and its main practice in history, can mean a devastating cyclone which threatens the whole world? ”
“There may be always in the world abusers of any faith or ideology or law, and those who have Muslim names are no exception, but the facts about Islam in its divine sources and main practices should always be recognized in their authenticity and purity, just as the claims to Christianity: from medieval Crusaders, modern Nazis and supporters of Apartheid or others who kill children and innocent civilians, could by no means represent the teachings of the Bible.”
Dear Eleonora,
The only squirming and twisting is coming here is from you. You simply cannot acknowledge the facts or face the truth in spite of it being there in black and white right before your eyes.
Mudslinging? Eleaonora….if comments are backed by facts, it is “FACT-SLINGING”, not mudslinging!
Obscenities? The only obsceneties objective, rational people will see are the obscene actions of Muhammed and the Isamic authorities I referenced.
Again, your fear to confront the truth is an obvious reflecton of your fear to expose your religion and your “Prophet”. It is sad. But I’ll ask again:
What is:
- A Dhimmi?
- Jizya?
- Who do these terms apply to??
- Did Muhammed not do those things?
- Why did the head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo say those things?
WHY WON’T YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS??
You are afraid of the truth, that’s why. And you deny the truth.
You complain of “hegemonial goals”, but what could be more overtly militantly hegemonic than:
Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”
Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.
I guess I’m just ignorantly misinterpreting these passages, right?
Concerning the “Palestine a homeland for the Jews” argument, perhaps this situation would have never existed had Muhammed not slaughtered the Jews and exterminated them from the Arabian peninsula where they lived for centuries before he was born. YOU KNOW THIS IS A FACT! It is recorded in the Islamic texts.
You state: “The Muslim army was instructed by the Prophet and early Caliphs to avoid causing any harm to those who do not fight, such as monks, women, children and peaceful peasants.” If this is true, why did Muhammed say:
Bukhari (52:256) – The Prophet… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).”
or
Muslim (19:4321-4323) In which Muhammed again says, concerning the killing of children and innocents ” “They are of them”
“Genuine Islamic principles” were established by the very first Islamist, Muhammed. We should look to him – his words, deeds and mandates, for proper interpretation of Islam. Right?
~The Infidel Alliance
Eleonora asks “What is “Jihadâ€â€¦ and Why ?, and then answers:
“The translation of jihad as “holy war’ is misleading and deceptive. It gives the impression that jihad aims to declare war against non-Muslims all over the world, in order to impose Islam as a faith or as a political system by force. Such understanding, or misunderstanding, ignores the Arabic language, the Islamic sources and the historical practice of Muslims.”
This is such a blatant and ridiculous falsehood it must be addressed.
Jihad, like most words, has many meanings. But ‘holy war’ IS one of them and is perhapst the most accurate. Jihad doesn’t ‘aim to declare war against non-Muslims all over the world” – Muhammed did that. Jihad is simply the mechanism to implement Muhammeds mandate.
And if we examine “the historical practices of Muslims” with how they interpret and implement jihad, we should ask the Hindus & Sikhs of India, the Catholics of the Philippines, the Buddhists of Thailand, the Zoroastrians and Baha’i of Persia, the Christians of Egypt, Nigeria, Spain, and of course the Jews of the Arabian peninsula what their experience is with “the historical practices of Muslims” and jihad.
Eleonora, as much as you wish to deny it, Islam is brutally violent and intolerant at its core. When Muhammed left Mecca for Medina, the whole message changed and the pattern was cast. YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE. Thus, the global violence perpetrated daily around the globe, in the name of Islam, is simply Islam.
~ The Infidel Alliance
“The Infidel Alliance” asks:
“I guess I’m just ignorantly misinterpreting these passages, right?
No, he is not ignorantly misinterpreting – he is KNOWINGLY MISREPRESENTING them.
He loves to indulge in events that may have taken place some 1400 years ago, isolating them from the circumstances and context and tries to convince the readers (with an ever handy Hadith or two and out of context verses from the Qur’an) that this is how it still is today totally ignoring the fact that the world has since moved on. The latest example being his obsession with Dhimmi’s and Jizya.
(As a side note: The word “dhimmitude” was coined by Ms. Bat Ye’or, a nice Jewish rightist lady who lives today in my native Switzerland and who writes and lectures since 1971 exclusively and only about “Dhimmisâ€.)
Thankfully nobody here is interested in comparative notes with respect to the long history of the various religions, their cruelties, injustices and holocausts which were inflicted upon mankind in their names as these are things of the past. Or so we’re let to believe.
Yet, if we have a look at the recent and todays history we find it documented that the USofA (a state which declares to be following Christian values and principles) bases its actions firmly on the Biblical teachings. Every meeting with President Bu$h started with Bible readings (documented by e.g. GA Ashcroft himself who had that duty in his time). Every action taken was and is sanctioned “since time immemorial†with “God bless America†= may God bless the actions of Americans. And their “alliance†follows marching in step.
God bless America while killing hundreds of thousands of fleeing soldiers on the “Highway of Deathâ€. Maybe – after all one can argue it was a war.
God bless America while hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq get raped, tortured, maimed and/or killed by their soldies. In Afghanistan. In Palestine (let’s not forget that the USA provides Israel with the weapons and means to do this including sanctioning their actions).
God bless America while the genocide in Rwanda was raving because the USofA refused to accept the term “genocide†so no timely intervention could take place. And on and on goes the list …
God bless America while Millions of innocent civilians get killed around the Globe in their (Christian) name, principles and values? Yes, God bless America – but which “God†are they talking about? The corporate-military (pseudo-Christian) God?! Or the real Christian God? If the latter is the case – do we have to assume that all Americans (except but a few) agree with these actions and are, therefore, equally bloodthirsty, immoral and fanatic extremists?
Regarding the “slaughtering of the Jews†in Arabia: I love his obfuscation (one more time) of issues serving his agenda! I would recommend that one reads the context and the reasons why the Jews and Muslims went at each other at that time. It is so easy to check the truth.
BTW – does anyone know that the treaty Prophet Mohamed entered into with the Jews in 622 C.E. in Medina (see Prophet Muhammad’s Treaty With The Jews 622 C.E.) was the first written constitution of a State ever promulgated by a sovereign in human history? If he were alive I’m almost certain that he would help Israel to write their constitution which they promised in the Declaration of Independence for not later than the 1st of October 1948 … and which is still outstanding!
But I’m glad that Prophet Mohamed was not alive when the good Christians went at the Jews – before Mohamed lived and up until today; some 2’000 years altogether. The “infidel alliance’s†explanation as of why Palestine had to be declared a homeland for the Jews though is unique and unbeatable. The logical question follows:
“Why did the Jews not claim the Arabic peninsula as a homeland?†Or is this still to come?
The “Dhimmi†question
History shows that there are always a number of “silent†readers in such forums. Therefore, and as I don’t expect that everybody knows nor that everybody has the time to look-up this “cruel†habits of Islam – here are two links which attempt to explain the two exotic issues.
Dhimmi (The neutrality of this article is disputed): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#cite_ref-5
Even Bernard Lewis, who has a name for “eating Muslims before breakfast†had the following to say:
“While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis states that in most respects their position “was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe.”[18] For example, dhimmis rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and with certain exceptions they were free in their choice of residence and profession.[19] Yet there were constraints; the Muslims reserved the right to control the military and agriculture, leaving trade and business to the dhimmis.â€
Although the neutrality of this article is disputed it is quite informativ nonetheless. I recommend to read it open-minded. Also the writings of Ye’or are interesting bearing in mind from which background she is writing.
An interesting fact in this vicious attempt to hold Islam sole responsible for all the evil in the world is that Christian Europeans *) (or were this just misguided people and were not really Christians?) were practicing “Dhimmi status†up until a short while ago and in Israel we find it firmly implemented against non-Jews. E.g. in Switzerland the Jews were only allowed to have residence in two designated villages up until some 100 years ago. Thankfully this too is a thing from the past.
*) I would like to explicitly exclude from this “Dhimmiâ€-comparison Germany under Nazi rule. What happened there to the Jews, Roma, Sinti, mentally handicapped, socialists, communists, etc. is unique.
The “Jizya†question
As for Jizya the Encyclopedia Britannica has the following entry:
“Islamic law made a distinction between two categories of non-Muslim subjects—pagans and dhimmis (“protected peoples,†or “peoples of the bookâ€; i.e., those peoples who based their religious beliefs on sacred texts, such as Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians). The Muslim rulers tolerated the dhimmis and allowed them to practice their religion. In return for protection and as a mark of their submission, the dhimmis were required to pay a special poll tax known as the jizya. The rate of taxation and methods of collection varied greatly from province to province and were greatly influenced by local pre-Islamic customs. In theory the tax money was to be used for charitable purposes and the payment of salaries and pensions. In practice, however, the revenues derived from the jizya were deposited in the private treasuries of the rulers. The Ottomans usually used the proceeds of the jizya to pay their military expenses.
A convert to Islam was, in theory, no longer required to pay the jizya. The Umayyad caliphs (661–750), however, faced with increasing financial difficulties, demanded the jizya from recent converts to Islam as well as from the dhimmis. This discrimination against converts was a cause of the AbÅ« Muslim rebellion (747) in KhorÄsÄn and helped to precipitate the downfall of the Umayyads.â€
The Jizya was mandated by the Qur’an, Surah 9, verse 29:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that 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 Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.â€
What our “Alliance†here in the forum conveniently forgets to mention is the fact, that this practice has long since been abolished as has the Dhimmi practice in its original form. Which does not mean to say that there are everywhere still minority groups which are discriminated against including in Islamic countries.
As for the tyrannic rulers held in place in many corners of this earth by the “Western Alliance” … I guess in such countries all citizens are “Dhimmis”.
As Henry Kissinger said: “We don’t care if he is a son of a bitch – as long he is OUR son of a bitch”.
Kissinger being Jewish – do we have to extrapolate from this statement that all Jews have such immoral values? Or being the Secretary of State of America at the time to we have to conclude that all Americans are so immoral? One can only say: thank God he is not Muslim.
My answer to the Jihad question, which I copied and referenced from Muslimbridges, seems to have upset some folks here
.
BTW – for non-Arabic speaking readers: Jihad is nothing else but the Arabic word for “struggle”, “effort”. The Arabic word for war is “harb”.
Having read such nonsense like “But ‘holy war’ IS one of them and is perhapst the most accurate.” I feel it worth to elaborate a bit further and in my own words:
In Islam Jihad ranks very high among the deeds God asks every Muslim to fulfill. Therefore, Jihad is in the Muslim faith considered “holy†and hence the expression “holy Jihadâ€. The WRONG naming widely spread in non-Muslim countries being equal to “going to war†did NOT happen by accident. It is the work of crafty architects who aim to scare the West of Islam and Muslims. Jihad is a word of a much wider meaning than being instilled in the minds of those who don’t know by such “good doing alliances”.
For instance:
- going to work to earn your family’s bread and butter;
- supporting and caring for your elderly parents (and this is specifically mentioned in many Hadith of the Prophet);
- seeking constructive knowledge;
- supporting the poor and needy;
- curbing the evil in ones self (Jihad el Nafs);
- stating the truth against the risk of all possible consequences, etc.
are all categorized under “Jihadâ€. So is picking up arms to defend what is yours such as your fatherland (or as it is called in Arabic “motherland†–Mekka is called the Mother of all Villages (Umm al Qora’a).
A Hadith that demonstrates the diversity of the word Jihad asks Muslims to do Jihad with their money, their lives, and their tongues. Money in this context can be spent to improve people’s lives, to help the needy, to build places of worship in order to teach the true and correct Islam, etc.
In another Hadith it is said, foremost among the types of Jihad is to state an honest word of justice to an unjust Sultan (ruler). Incidently, here besides shedding more light on what Jihad in Islam is, it can also be seen where Islam stands with respect to Democracy and the significance of opposition.
Dear Eleonora,
You rightfully remind us “The Arabic word for war is “harbâ€.” Yes…as in Dar al-Harb…the “land of war”.
What exactly is “Dar al-Harb”, Eleonora? Isn’t it the lands of the infidel, the lands of the mushrikun?
Isn’t “Dar al-Harb” the target of Muhammed when he said:
Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”
Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’”
Q1: Who were “the people” Muhammed was referring to in these Ahadith?
Q2: Where was he going to fight these people?
A: Infidels, the mushrikun (see below) in Dar al-Harb.
Koran (9:5) – “Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
As for “Jihad”, the holy mechanism to fight the Infidel/Mushrikun in Dar al-Harb:
Koran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”
Koran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way”
Muslim (20:4696) – “the Messenger of Allah (Muhammed) said: ‘One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.’”
Ibn Ishaq (327) – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’â€
Ibn Ishaq (992) – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah (Infidel/Mushrikun).”
Muslim (1:149) – “Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”
Are we feeling the peace, love and tolerance of Muhammed yet?
~The Infidel Alliance
To Whom It May Concern
While there is a logical and moral answer to the dumb and repetitive questions posed by a single-purpose one-track minded individual (or organization?) and despite the cheap attempts to agitate I do refuse to contribute to the contents of the garbage can. Let the “Alliance†et al take care of that, something they can do best.
Knowingly lying and deliberately putting in trash doesn’t in my opinion warrant an answer.
The pathological obsession with distorting every point and coma of the Qur’an seems to indicate some deeper rooted problem. But it can hardly be that the discussion forum of an online newspaper is the right path to solving his/her problem.
Dear Eleonora,
Where exactly am I ‘lying’???
And honestly, am I REALLY “distorting every point and coma of the Qur’an”? What about my references to to the Ahadith – am I ‘distorting’ them too?
Are the Islamic texts so mysterious and sublime that they can’t be understood by reading them? Do you have some kind of special power or gift that gives you the ability to properly understand the Koran? Please share your secret with us!
My comments are not ‘cheap attempts to agitate”, but rather tough questions using FACTS and supporting references from Islamic sources in an effort to get people to question, reflect, think and find the truth.
FACTS, Eleonora, facts.
~ The Infidel Alliance
And as for “WHOM IT MAY CONCERN”…….well……..it may concern:
the Catholics of the Philippines, the Buddhists of Thailand, the Hindus & Sikhs of India, the Baha’i and Zoroastrians of Iran, the Chaldean Christians of Iraq, the Coptic Christians of Egypt, the Jews of Israel & Yemen, the Christians of Nigeria….and on, and on, and on…..all targets of Muhammed’s Islamic Jihad and the saifulllah.
It may also ‘concern’ apostate Muslims, good peaceful Muslims and Muslimas, in Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia subjected to death fatwas, beatings, murders and denial of basic human rights and freedoms (driving cars?).
“To Whom It May Concern” Eleonora?? That’s who.
Best regards,
~ The Infidel Alliance
WHAT IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM AND TODAY’S PRACTICES?
In comparing the teachings of Islam as derived from the Book of God to the practices taught and enforced by the popular Sunni and Shia faiths (1.2 Bn followers), we find that the list is quite extensive, with some of the highlights as follows:
In Islam, the requirement to be a Muslim is to simply accept and live according to the ‘Straight Path’ (6:151-153), Vs. the Sunni or Shia 5-pillars which come from unauthorized books…
In Islam, abolishing Slavery is taught to be an act of righteousness (90:12-13), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which encourages slavery under war…
In Islam, women are never forbidden from praying or fasting during Menstruation (2:222), nor is there a specific dress code (i.e. the Headscarf) imposed on them beyond modesty, Vs. the Sunni and Shia which teach the undermining of women and forcing them to cover their hair and avoid praying or fasting at certain times…
In Islam, a man or women may leave a Will, after settlement of debt (4:12), Vs. Sunnis who refuse to accept wills if there are any direct descendants…
In Islam, Monogamy is the basis for normal relationships, while polygamy is only allowed in cases involving marrying the mothers of orphans under the man’s guardianship (4:3), Vs. Sunnis where a man may be a polygamist simply if he can afford to, and Shia which allow sex for pleasure (Mut’a)…
In Islam, Divorce is enforceable only after a two-phase period, and it may be made nullified if the couple reconcile before the end of this period (65:1, 65:4), Vs. Sunni teachings that destroy families by allowing a divorce to occur on the spot with no waiting period and no nullification…
In Islam, Thieves do not have their hands cut-off, but are made to work until they return that which is stolen (12:76), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which brutally amputate the hands causing disability…
In Islam, no one is allowed to be killed or Stoned for adultery (24:2), Vs. Sunni and Shia laws of stoning married adulterers to death…
In Islam, absolute Freedom of Faith is allowed (2:256, 10:99; 18:29; 88:21-22), Vs. Sunni and Shia requiring apostates to be killed and rejecting the practice of other faiths…
In Islam, people are acknowledged as being diverse and each is to be respected for his/her level of spiritual growth. A Submitter ‘Muslim’ must work to attain the status of Faithful ‘Mumin’ (49:14), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings that all followers of their religion must think, act, and even look the same (cult syndrome)…
In Islam, War can only be declared in cases of self-defence – no offensives (2:190), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings allowing raids and attacks on any people who are considered non-Muslim by their standards…
In Islam, Pilgrimage is a centre for gathering of nations and for all to witness the benefits of being together (22:27-28), Vs. Sunni and Shia bringing in polytheistic rituals and superstition (touching of black stone, circling 7 times, etc..)…
In Islam, a Year is a luni-solar count made of 365-days (17:12, 9:36), with all the seasons fitting-in-place Vs. Sunnis teaching it to be a lunar one based on 354 days which creates confusion of seasons and time…
In Islam, males and females are not required to be Circumcised (32:7), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings requiring all males to be circumcised and females in some cases…
In Islam, music, statues, gold and silk are all Lawful(7:32-33, 16:116), Vs. Sunni beliefs forbidding silk & gold for men, and forbidding music & statues for all…
In Islam, rule of Government is under the constitution of the Qur’an through consultation and free-speech (5:48, 42:38). Vs. Sunni teachings which allow the rise of dictators or monarchs, and Shia teachings which uphold self-appointed religious leaders based on genealogy.
Anyone who believes in God and judgement day and does righteous is promised paradise.
“Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.†(Al-Baqarah: 62)
“Surely, those who believe, those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians – whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.†(Al-Ma’idah: 69)
Of course Sunnis and Shias have other thoughts.
Dear “quranist”,
Very interesting post! I think most people are aware of the divisions within Islam, many of which you make reference to.
We are also aware of the tolerant, peaceful, indeed liberal suras of the Meccan Koran.
But we are also aware of the intolerant, violent, indeed terrorist suras of the post-Medina Koran.
And we are also aware of Allah’s doctrine of Abrogation, in which the violent post-Medina suras replace the peaceful Meccan verses.
There is one constant in Islam however…..Sunni….Shia….Sufi….Salafist……Wahabbi…..Meccan period…..post-Medina period….the “rightly guided” caliphs….as proclaimed in the Shahada, Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah, and Allah proclaims that in Muhammed Muslims (indeed humanity) has ‘an excellent model of conduct’.
But as we all know, after Medina, Muhammed became a sadistic murdering warlord, a slaver, a decapitator, a torturer, a mutilator, a looting thief, a rapist and sex trafficker, a kidnapper, a genocidist and a self proclaimed terrorist.
Islam, and Muhammed, began peacefully, but devolved into violence and brutality.
Accepting the fact that ALL Muslims uphold Muhammed as the messenger of Allah, and regard his actions as representative of a higher universal human morality, what then is “The Straight Path”? Peace love and tolerance as in Mecca, or brutal intolerance and violence post -Medina?
This clearly represents a fork in the “straight path”, and must surely confuse every Muslim.
I would be grateful for your perspective on this apparent Islamo-theological non-sequitur.
Best regards,
~ The Infidel Alliance