StatCounter

Showing posts with label Koran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Koran. Show all posts

Thursday, 2 October 2014

Why do so many Islamists choose beheading as their favoured way of killing?

In the last few years it seems as though few news reports from Syria, Iraq or other places where Islamic terrorists are wreaking havoc (or indeed on attacks on British soldiers on the streets of London or incidents of 'workplace violence' in America) are complete without mentioning that the victims were beheaded.

Why do so many Islamist terrorists choose beheading as their favoured method of killing?

Let's see...
1. Koran 5:33 'The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.'

2. Koran 8:12 'I (Allah) will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.'

3. Koran 47:4 'Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives...'

Oh I see.

Friday, 26 September 2014

Is 'Islamic State' Islamic?



Robert Spencer and Michael Coren discuss whether 'Islamic State' is Islamic.

Do you believe an expert on the Koran such as Robert Spencer or Barack Hussein Obama, David Cameron or the BBC?


Here's some more facts comapring 'Islamic State' with the Koran:



So is 'Islamic State' Islamic?

A few days ago, I blogged along similar lines, here's part of that  post:

The ever watchable Andrew Klavan, determines if President Obama and others are correct when they declare that the terror group ISIS/ISISL/Islamic State is not, in fact, Islamic.




So is 'Islamic State' Islamic?

Friday, 20 December 2013

'The Qur’an is “Hate Speech” and Should be Banned' - So says Alex Jones' Infowars' and not me.

I'm not advocating banning the Koran but I'm interested as to how leftists would justify their inconsistencies.
'If we are to accept in the aftermath of the 'Duck Dynasty' controversy that criticism of homosexual activity represents "hate speech," then the Qur'an, which advocates stoning gay people to death, should also be denounced as hate speech and banned.

According to Democratic Party political pollster Bernard Whitman, who appeared on Fox News yesterday, along with a plethora of other leftists, Phil Robertson's comments are hateful and said they shouldn't be allowed to be aired in public.Yet the Qur'an, which clearly states that homosexuality is punishable by violent torture and death, is not subjected to anywhere near the same level of vitriol as that leveled against Phil Robertson by leftists. Why is that?

Let's contrast what Robertson said in comparison to what the Qur'an says about homosexuals;
Robertson: "It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical…Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

Qur'an (7:80-84) - "…For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds…. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone). Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!"The Qur'an's use of the term "shower of brimstone" is interpreted by Muslim scholars to mean stoning somebody to death. The story is also repeated in suras 27 and 29.

As we illustrated earlier, not only the Qur'an but also the Christian Bible should be banned under this framework because both can be considered hate speech as they incite violence against homosexuals.
Despite the Qur'an's advocacy of stoning homosexuals to death, in addition to its recommendation that husbands beat their wives, it is virtually unheard of for prominent leftists to be critical of Islam, and yet the venom spewed in the direction of Robertson for asserting that homosexuality is a sin has been unrelenting.Indeed, when Bernard Whitman complained that TV networks were allowing religion to be "used as a weapon to spew hate," he wasn't referring to the religion of Islam, despite the fact that it advocates far more brutal treatment of gays than anything Robertson stated.'


Wednesday, 18 December 2013

What the Koran says - something for @sambarnet to read and listen to

Earlier this year Robert Spencer was on the BBC Asian Network and at one point the host (Nihal) asked him to quote verses from the Koran or the Hadiths that he finds reprehensible. Robert Spencer quickly responded with several verses from the Koran and one from the Hadith. Note that the Imam (Dudwallah ?) to provide the proper ‘context’ for these verses, since he objected to them being out of context. Note that he was unable to do so and when put on the spot he claimed that this is Robert Spencer’s field, not his. I did enjoy Nihal responding incredulously "But you're an imam!" Also a joy to listen to are Cameron's questions and Robert Spencer's answers near the end of the piece.



I have posted a version of this video before, actually that was a longer piece of video and is well worth a watch too, but thought it worth a repeat.

Here's that longer version of the tape, it is almost 45 minutes long...


Sunday, 6 October 2013

Islamic Tolerance: Myth and Reality - The Commentator

'Warraq himself argues, against the politically-correct view, that Muslim hatred of Jews goes back to the origins of Islam. The persecution of Jews, and also Christians, stems from the precepts and principles in Islamic texts: the Koran, the Sira (the biographies of Muhammad), the Hadith, the Tradition (records of the deeds and sayings of Muhammad), and classical Koranic commentaries.
Equally significant is Warraq's answer to the fashionable argument that the West in the past and Israel in the present are responsible for the troubles of the Muslim world. He refers to the events of the Crusades in 1095, dealt with inThe Talisman and in three other of Scott's novels, to provide a corrective interpretation.

Undoubtedly, the Crusaders of the 11th century were cruel, rapacious, and fanatical, and exhibited irrational religious bigotry. Not all of them were chivalrous, contrary to romantic literature. But Warraq's argument is that Islamic intolerance was and is much greater than Christian intolerance, now a thing of the past and no longer a threat to civilization.'

More here http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4231/islamic_tolerance_myth_and_reality

Friday, 26 July 2013

The EDL's leader Tommy Robinson speaking at a rally in Birmingham recently





Tommy Robinson speaks pretty well and is clearly far more intelligent than the BBC portray him. His picking up of Nick Clegg's misinformation is well presented.

Whatever your preconceptions of Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League, listen to this speech.

Tommy Robinson says that he spent his time in prison learning about the Koran: he explains abrogation, something that the BBC seem incapable of discussing because it destroys their argument that Islam is a religion of peace. The passages about the Koran instructing Muslims not to take Christians and Jews and their friends is something else that the BBC ignores as it runs counter their narrative.

The problem that I have with the EDL is that some people at this and other EDL demonstration do not seem quite as intelligent or in control as Tommy Robinson and that worries me.

Monday, 22 July 2013

“We Muslims Can Marry Girls Of Any Age”

According to The Nigeria Today 'A prominent Niger Delta Muslim, Alhaji Mujahid Abubakar Dokubo-Asari, has lashed out at critics of the moves by Nigeria’s Senate to approve under-age marriage.'

There's more:
'Expressing his opinion on the issue this morning, Dokubo, who converted to Islam as an adult, insisted that it is the right of Muslims to marry or give out their daughters at any age they wish, adding that this is not the business of non-Muslims.

Said the Niger Delta Peoples Volunteer Force (NDPVF) leader through Facebook:
“People should learn to respect other people’s sensibilities…We Muslims have the right to marry when we want or give out our daughters at any age we want. It is not your business and the law must respect our right to do so. Anything short of that is an infringement on our rights. We did not ask you to marry ladies of that age or give your daughters out in marriage at that age. Plzzzzzzzz respect our sensibilities.”

The Nigerian Senate has come under fire from outraged Nigerians and the international community after being convinced by Senator Ahmad Yarima to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing marriage to girls under 18. The former Zamfara State governor who once came under fire for marrying a girl believed to be aged 13 had argued that Islam recognises under-age marriage.'
Now why would this Muslim leader be slo certain that 'it is the right of Muslims to marry or give out their daughters at any age they wish'?

'Islamic tradition records that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage: “The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old a

Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today. And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam… [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage. '

Thanks to Jihad Watch for that spot.

Friday, 26 April 2013

What is Taqiyya? Lynne Jones (@lynnejones_exMP) please take note.

Question: Are Muslims permitted to lie?
 

Summary Answer
:
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences."
There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman.  These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them. 
 

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves." 
Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..."  The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.  They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"  The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"
Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."  The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit.  If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
 

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'"  The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
 
Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."  Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
 
Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."
 
Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."
 
Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence.  The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad.  This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.
 
From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) -  "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.  When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...
 
"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.
 


Additional Notes:
 
Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them.  The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission.  An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief." 

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover.  The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed. 

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace.  This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war).  Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace.  Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe.  The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this.  When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise.  However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance.  (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions.  Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims.  From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic.  Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad.  This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met."  Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization."  In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas.  At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty.  In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest.  When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well).  Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
 

Thursday, 24 January 2013

I don't agree with the Jewish Journal

This Jewish Journal article I find to be plain wrong in several areas. Here's two:
1. The article uses Koranic verses that preach peace and love to counter those that preach war. The trouble is nowhere in the article does the Jewish Journal mention the Koranic principle of abrogation, the rule that later verses supersede earlier ones. The earlier verses were generally peaceful, the later ones generally warlike.

2. The article includes this claim:
'Killing children, killing innocent people or killing women is not acceptable. A Muslim can protect himself only in legitimate self-defense. Otherwise, killing the innocent is a sin.'
The trouble is that Islamists see only the Muslim as innocent, thus non-Muslims can be killed.

The Jewish Journal article troubles me deeply.

Wednesday, 21 March 2012

The aftermath of the Toulouse murders

I wondered how long it would take before I heard that there were fears of an anti-Muslim backlash following the discovery that the murderer of the four Jews and three soldiers in Toulouse was yet another Islamist Jihadi. I didn't have to wait long, an expert in Paris has just been quoted expressing these fears on BBC 5Live and I have read similar sentiments on the internet this morning. The fear of an anti-Muslim backlash is often quoted but rarely experienced.

I have also heard the usual bewilderment as to how a young French-born man, albeit of North African Islamic descent, could become so indoctrinated against Jews and Western soldiers. The blame is being put on this man travelling to Pakistan and Afghanistan but I would suggest that it is more likely that he made trips because he had already been 'radicalised'. Why would a non-radicalised man travel to Afghanistan?

So how could a young Muslim man become radicalised in southern France. Well he could worship at a mosque where the Quran and Hadith are used to show how Jews are apes and swine and how the hour of resurrection will not come 'until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call: 'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'

Maybe he listened to Islamist groups such as Hamas that teach all the above as well as opening declaring that all Jews should be killed with comments such as this:
'"Regarding the Jews, our business with them is only through bombs and guns... the prophet [Muhammad] promised that we will fight you, with Allah's help, until the tree and stone say: "Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

Maybe he listened to the sort of leftists who refuse to criticise such comments or pretend that  those who make the comments don’t really mean it or are quoted out of context or even justify the hate-speech as just being the words of the oppressed who can’t be held to the same standards of their oppressors.

Maybe he listened to those even more extreme elements of the left who spread extreme anti-Israeli propaganda and whose views are happily given publicity and legitimacy by the likes of the BBC, The Guardian and The Independent. The sort of people who spread lies about Israeli actions such as over al-Dura, the Badawi lie etc. if you don't know what I am talking about here then you clearly rely too much on the BBC, Guardian & Independent and indeed The Telegraph, Times, Mail and most British news media.


Listen out over the coming days for other excuses to be made for Mohammed Merah's murderous exploits; poverty will be surely be cited any day now.

Friday, 23 December 2011

Teaching the next generation to hate Jews

YNet and Fox News report that the Saudi Arabian education system is still teaching children to hate Jews.
'Despite promises to clean up violent and xenophobic content from textbooks, recent editions in Saudi Arabia

continue teach school children barbaric practices, Fox News reported.

The news network, which was able to obtain translated copies of the recently-printed books from the Institute for Gulf Affairs in Washington, DC, said that the books teaches ninth graders that the annihilation of Jews is imperative.

"The hour (of judgment) will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them," one part reads. "There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

The reviewed editions were printed for the 2010-2011 academic year.  Another book teaches 10th graders how to cut off the hands and feet of a thief.

"This is where terrorism starts, in the education system." Ali Al-Ahmed, director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, said, noting that the books were financed by the Saudi government.

In addition to coaching kids to kill Jews and amputate body parts, the text books depict women as weak and irresponsible. Moreover, al-Ahmed said the textbooks call for homosexuals to be put to death "because they pose a danger at society, as the Saudi school books teach.” '
In 2006 when such textbooks were reported upon in the West, the Saudi Ambassador to the US, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said that King Abdullah is determined to eradicate the hateful ideology in his country.
"In recent years, the kingdom has reviewed all of its education practices and materials and has removed any element that is inconsistent with the needs of a modern education," al-Faisal said. "Not only have we eliminated what is objectionable from old textbooks that were in our system, we have also implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan"
 The problem is that whilst we in the West might see these comments as disgusting, to the Saudi authorities they are simply the words of the Koran and so immutable law and  absolutely to be taught.

If you think 'well what does that matter, it's only children in Saudi Arabia, how could that affect me'; remember which country most of the 9/11 terrorists were from - Saudi Arabia. And if you think that these beliefs were only being taught in Saudi Arabia or in other Islamic theocracies, think again. In 2007 I blogged about the principal of the King Fahd Academy in Acton, an Islamic school in West London, who admitted that the school uses textbooks which describe Jews as "apes" and Christians as "pigs" and has refused to withdraw them. Dr Sumaya Alyusuf was interviewed on Newsnight back in February when she said that the quotations about apes and pigs had been taken out of context. Out of context, the easy excuse of the guilty

Thursday, 14 April 2011

Now there will be trouble, or not

Last night in a BBC drama a Koran was shown being ripped into pieces and then thrown on a fire to burn, followed by other books. Various radical Islamists have cried Islamophobia and declared this an attack on their religion. A march on the BBC TV Centre is planned for later today and calls have been made for the sacking of the Controller of BBC Drama and the Chairman of the BBC Trust. The BBC are readying an apology and a programme about the sanctity of religious texts.

Well that is what would likely have happened had it been a Koran that was shown being ripped apart and then burnt but in fact last night it was a 'Holy Bible' that was so treated near the end of episode 2 of The Crimson Petal and the White. You can watch for yourself on iPlayer from 54:33. So there have been no complaints from the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Catholic church, no calls for resignations at the BBC, barely a word of protest.

We know that the BBC accords the Koran protection from attack or satire that it does not accord to the Bible; the question is why?


Thursday, 7 April 2011

"Senator Lindsey Graham - you jackass"


Ann Barnhardt rebuts Lindsey Graham's remarks on 4/3/2011 regarding the First Amendment and she does not hold back.

I have seen this video on a few sites and think it is worth repeating.

There is a second video that you can find in many places on the internet that I feel uncomfortable repeating as whilst the Koranic Surahs quoted seem to be quoted correctly, I don't feel that all of the language used whilst she burns pages of the Koran are necessarily in good taste or indeed always accurate.

You may agree or disagree but don't try and find the video unless you are ready to be shocked. I must admit that when Ann Barnhardt gave out her address and her challenge I was left open-mouthed. Was Ann Barnhardt brave, foolhardly or stupid, you decide?

Wednesday, 9 March 2011

Islamic 'spam'?

Today I received three comments to my piece entitled 'religious tolerance in Pakistan and elsewhere on the Islamic world'. Blogger classified them as 'spam' but I published them anyway. They are clearly boilerplate comments designed to explain how tolerant and recognising of freedom of beliefs Islam is. I have repeated the messages I received below so you can judge for yourselves, but here are my thoughts... I am not an Islamic scholar and my knowledge of the Koran is not great however I believe that the Koran contains many contradictory statements which are resolved by reference to the historically latest being the correct statement. This system of supercession is complicated by the Koran not being ordered chronologically but in order of length of surah (from longest to shortest). It seems that the chronologically earlier surah written/revealed in Mecca are generally more peaceable than the later Medina surah.

Before I publish the comments I thought that some examples of surah from the Koran that illustrate the intolerance for other beliefs might be in order:
'[4:160] Due to their transgressions, we prohibited for the Jews good foods that used to be lawful for them; also for consistently repelling from the path of GOD.
[4:161] And for practicing usury, which was forbidden, and for consuming the people's money illicitly. We have prepared for the disbelievers among them painful retribution.


[9:30] The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated. 

[9:73] O you prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern in dealing with them. Their destiny is Hell; what a miserable abode!
[9:74] They swear by GOD that they never said it, although they have uttered the word of disbelief; they have disbelieved after becoming submitters. In fact, they gave up what they never had. They have rebelled even though GOD and His messenger have showered them with His grace and provisions. If they repent, it would be best for them. But if they turn away, GOD will commit them to painful retribution in this life and in the Hereafter. They will find no one on earth to be their lord and master.
[9:75] Some of them even pledged: "If GOD showered us with His grace, we would be charitable, and would lead a righteous life."
[9:76] But when He did shower them with His provisions, they became stingy, and turned away in aversion.
[9:77] Consequently, He plagued them with hypocrisy in their hearts, till the day they meet Him. This is because they broke their promises to GOD, and because of their lying.
[9:78] Do they not realize that GOD knows their secrets, and their conspiracies, and that GOD is the Knower of all secrets?
[9:79] Those who criticize the generous believers for giving too much, and ridicule the poor believers for giving too little, GOD despises them. They have incurred a painful retribution.

[9:101] Among the Arabs around you, there are hypocrites. Also, among the city dwellers, there are those who are accustomed to hypocrisy. You do not know them, but we know them. We will double the retribution for them, then they end up committed to a terrible retribution. 

[5:51] O you who believe, do not take certain Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors.  

[5:57] O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence GOD, if you are really believers.  

[5:64] The Jews even said, "GOD's hand is tied down!" It is their hands that are tied down. They are condemned for uttering such a blasphemy. Instead, His hands are wide open, spending as He wills. For certain, your Lord's revelations to you will cause many of them to plunge deeper into transgression and disbelief. Consequently, we have committed them to animosity and hatred among themselves until the Day of Resurrection. Whenever they ignite the flames of war, GOD puts them out. They roam the earth wickedly, and GOD dislikes the evildoers.  

[5:78] Condemned are those who disbelieved among the Children of Israel, by the tongue of David and Jesus, the son of Mary. This is because they disobeyed and transgressed.  

[5:82] (first part) You will find that the worst enemies of the believers are the Jews and the idol worshipers.  '
With the above in mind here are the three comments from 'Anonymous' that I received this morning:
'Tolerance is an inherent part of Islam; as Muslims we are instructed to be tolerant of the faith, beliefs, backgrounds, intellect and race of others around us.

Allah has sent us clear instructions to live peacefully amongst our fellow human beings. There are numerous ayahs imploring us to be tolerant. Our prophet taught us ultimate patience and tolerance by not punishing those who hurt him and his followers in every possible way, following Allah’s word and the Sunnah, it is imperative that we start accepting the differences and let go of our arrogance. Islam teaches us submission and humility, we must be humble and thank Allah for his blessings and accept the fact that Allah has not given us the right to judge others, but that we are here to lead by example.

Verse (2.256 Al-Baqarah) of the Quranheareth and knoweth all things.

It is our job to spread our message with patience and with humility. Our behavior must be beyond reproach so that we may lead by example.

1. Verse (42:48 Ash-Shura) of the Quran. ‘If then they run away, We have not sent thee as a guard over them. Thy duty is but to convey (the Message). And truly, when We give man a taste of a Mercy from Ourselves, he doth exult thereat, but when some ill happens to him, on account of the deeds which his hands have sent forth, truly then is man ungrateful!’
2. Verse (16:125 An-Nahl) of the Quran. ‘Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance’.
3. Verse (16:82 An-Nahl) of the Quran. ‘But if they turn away, thy duty is only to preach the clear Message’.
Delete
Anonymous
Islam recognizes the freedom of beliefs and freedom of religion. Believers find cure and solace in patience. In the Quran, Allah has mentioned patience about 70 times, more than any other virtue. Be tolerant of other beliefs, be patient and treat others with respect, no affliction is worse than hardness of the heart. Being tolerant of others and being kind to others is not a weakness but strength of our belief and our religion. Our prophet’s strength of character, his patience, his kindness towards all fellow human beings, his steadfastness and his unrelenting belief in the Truth pulled all who knew him towards him. Even the ones who did not convert trusted him. The Prophet followed Allah’s words and spread his message without punishing the ones who did not accept the message. All humanity belongs to Allah, the sun shines and the rain comes down on the believers and the unbelievers. Allah has given all the same gifts and blessings in this world. He gives each of us the time to come back to him. but has not given us the right to punish anyone for his or her specific beliefs. Punishing the unbelievers or the believers who have opinions that are different from you is against our moral duty. Allah is providing for them and we would be committing a crime against Him if we were intolerant. Tolerance is our religious duty. We must accept that even within the Muslim community, we have various beliefs and we do not have a right to force others to follow our opinions. 4. Verses (22.67-69 – Al-Hajj) To every People have We appointed rites and ceremonies which they must follow: let them not then dispute with thee on the matter, but do thou invite (them) to thy Lord: for thou art assuredly on the Right Way’. If they do wrangle with thee, say, "Allah knows best what it is ye are doing". "Allah will judge between you on the Day of Judgment concerning the matters in which ye differ". 5. Verses (24.54 – An-Nur) Say: "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message). 6. Verse (86.17 – At-Tariq) Therefore grant a delay to the unbelievers; Give respite to them gently. Delete
Anonymous
When Allah has granted the time and blessings in this world to all, we have absolutely no right to punish our fellow human beings. Allah says ‘Be’ and it is, and it is just as easy for him to take away the blessings and life of his creations. We are going against his will when we take it upon ourselves to make everyone follow our opinions and beliefs. Allah loves humility and does not appreciate arrogance, our Daawa is important but our work is only to spread the message. We must teach our children, the Muslim humility, tolerance and kindness towards all. Muslims and Non Muslims should have the freedom to follow their own beliefs without demeaning the other faiths. It is our responsibility to follow Allah’s words and protect each other’s faith and their places of worship from being attacked by any group. Say ‘No’ to injustice and violence against any group, it is our duty, that each individual must take ownership and responsibility to protect each other from any hostile group. We must stand up for justice and peace, Now! We must not allow internal or external groups to incite us against each other. We must teach our children the importance of respecting each other and accepting the differences. Show the Islamic strength of tolerance so that we may prosper in this world and the hereafter. Verse (5:8) of the Quran. O you who believe, be upright for Allah and (be) bearers of witness with justice. Verse (5:8) of the Quran. O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do. Verse (60:8) of the Quran. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just Bibliography: Translation of the Holy Quran – Abdullah Yusuf Ali Tolerance in Islam – Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall
In case you are not sure whether my quotations or Anonymous's should be believed, here are a few more extracts from the Koran, first about Jews, second about Christians and third about homosexuals that might make you lean towards my thoughts:
'Ignominy shall be their portion [the Jews'] wheresoever they are found... They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them... because they disbelieve the revelations of Allah and slew the Prophets wrongfully... because they were rebellious and used to transgress. [Surah 111, v. 112] And thou wilt find them [the Jews] the greediest of mankind....[Surah 11, v. 96] Evil is that for which they sell their souls... For disbelievers is a terrible doom.[Surah II, v. 90] Taste ye [Jews] the punishment of burning.[Surah III, v. 18 1] Proclaim a woeful punishment to those that hoard up gold and silver.... Their treasures shall be heated in the dres of Hell, and their foreheads, sides and backs branded with them. . . . 'Taste then the punishment which is your due. [Surah IX, v. 35] "They [the Jews] are the heirs of Hell.... They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is clear from what they say ... When evil befalls you they rejoice." Ibid. [Surah 111, v. 117-120] Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment.[Surah IV, v. 56] Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews.... And of their taking usury ... and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretenses. We have prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom.[Surah IV, v. 160, 161] Allah hath cursed them [the Jews] for their disbelief.[Surah IV, v. 46] They [the Jews] will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is clear from what they say, but more violent is the hatred which their breasts conceal.[Surah III, v. 117-120] In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.[Surah IV, v. 101] And thou seest [Jews and Christians] vying one with another in sin and transgression and their devouring of illicit gain. Verily evil is what they do. Why do not the rabbis and the priests forbid their evilspeaking and their devouring of illicit gain? .... evil is their handiwork.[Surah V, v. 62, 63] O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. [Surah V, v. 51] The most vehement of mankind in hostility [are] the Jews and the idolators.[Surah V, v. 82] Fight against such of those [Jews and Christians] ... until they pay for the tribute readily, being brought low.[Surah IX, v. 29] Allah fighteth against them [the Jews]. How perverse they are![Surah IX, v. 30] Believers, many are the rabbis and the monks who defraud men of their possessions... Proclaim a woeful punishment to those that hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah's cause.... their treasures shall be heated in the fire of Hell.... [Surah IX, v. 26-34] They [the Jews] spread evil in the land .... [Surah V, v. 62-66] [The Jews] knowingly perverted [the word of Allah], know of nothing except lies ... commit evil and become engrossed in sin. [Surah II, v. 71-85]' The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are! —Qur’an 9:30 "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)! They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!" He said: "I do detest your doings:" "O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!" So We delivered him and his family,- all Except an old woman who lingered behind. But the rest We destroyed utterly. We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)! Verily in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe. And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 26:165-175)'

So Anonymous what say you?

Tuesday, 8 February 2011

What did David Cameron say about multiculuralism, extremism and terrorism?

Much has been written and said about David Cameron's weekend speech, much of it nonsense borne of bias against anything a Conservative says about anything in this area of public life; including the disgraceful comments by labour's Sadiq Khan. By way of contrast, Harry's Place has a very good article that you should read.

Possibly the key line in David Cameron's speech was this one "Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people"

What is noticeable is that David Cameron did not simply say, as so many before him have, that Islam is a 'religion of peace'. He said that over a billion people peacefully observe Islam. This does not preclude the fact that there are many, many Muslims who do not peacefully follow Islam and that they can get authority for their actions from the Koran and other writings.

Tuesday, 5 October 2010

Burning 'Holy Books'

Last month I blogged about the different ways that burning a Koran is treated when compared with burning Bibles. Here's a reminder of part of that piece: 'I was intrigued to read on the BBC that:

'Six Tyneside men have been arrested after filming themselves apparently burning copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.'

I didn't know that burning a Koran was a crime in the UK, but the article continues:

'They were arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred and released on bail pending further inquiries... In a joint statement, Northumbria Police and Gateshead Council said: "The kind of behaviour displayed in this video is not representative of our community as a whole.

"Our community is one of mutual respect and we continue to work together with community leaders, residents and people of all faiths and beliefs to maintain good community relations."'

Does that mean that the Police will arrest any Muslims found to have burnt a Bible? How about Muslims who have carried placards calling for the slaying of those who insult Islam or to "Butcher those who mock Islam" or who threaten "Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way"...

How about those Muslims who call for the "Pope to go to hell"?

Are those slogans indicative of mutual respect and designed to maintain good community relations? I don't recall the Muslims who carry such placards and/or chant their support for the killing of all Israelis being arrested, why not?


Meanwhile in Iran I read that:

'The Farsi Christian News Network (www.fcnn.com) is reporting that Iranian Government Security Forces have burned hundreds of Bibles.

A spokesperson for FCNN told the ASSIST News Service (ANS), "This action [of burning the Bibles], which has been confirmed by informed sources, was aired on a site belonging to the Pasdaran paramilitary organization, is nothing less than shameful and the persons responsible must be identified and exposed to the whole world."

The report said that on Saturday, May 29, 2010, Ati News, a site belonging to Morteza Talaee, the previous head of the security forces and the current member of the Tehran's city council, "in its usual anti-Christian propaganda" reported that their social-life reporter had disclosed that shipments of so called, "Perverted Torah and Gospels" had entered Iran through its Western borders.

Two days later, on Monday, May 31, 2010, the same report was reiterated by the official anti-crime website of the Pasdaran Army called "Gerdaub" which said that a large shipment of Jewish and Christian Scriptures had entered Iran through the Western Azerbaijan province and, according to security officials of that province, the "occupier forces" that operate in the Western regions of Iraq were responsible for such activities.

FCCN stated that Gerdaub, the official website of the Pasdaran Army [also known as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRCG] continued its report by quoting the security official who had stated: "Some of these books are distributed locally, but most of the books are smuggled and distributed all over the country. In just the last few months, hundreds of such 'perverted Bibles' have been seized and burned in the border town of Sardasht."...'


Once again an Islamic country displays complete intolerance of another religion but not a word of protest is heard from the UNHRC or the western media. Yet it is Israel that is regularly described as 'an apartheid state', despite it having freedom of religion for all.

Why does the West make every effort to accommodate the demands and sensitivities of Islam when so much of the Islamic world makes no such effort in return? Why should the West protest the feelings of Muslims in the West when so much of the Islamic world clearly cares so little about the feelings of their Christian, Hindi, Buddhist or Jewish minorities?

I was reminded of this piece by the BBC 'helpfully' explaining who Geert Wilders is with the line that he compared the Koran to Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'.

Have you ever heard the BBC report the burning of Bibles in Iran and the banning of any religious books other than those of Islam from Saudi Arabia?

Thursday, 23 September 2010

Different ways to treat the burning of 'holy books'

I was intrigued to read on the BBC that:
'Six Tyneside men have been arrested after filming themselves apparently burning copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.'
I didn't know that burning a Koran was a crime in the UK, but the article continues:
'They were arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred and released on bail pending further inquiries... In a joint statement, Northumbria Police and Gateshead Council said: "The kind of behaviour displayed in this video is not representative of our community as a whole.

"Our community is one of mutual respect and we continue to work together with community leaders, residents and people of all faiths and beliefs to maintain good community relations."'
Does that mean that the Police will arrest any Muslims found to have burnt a Bible? How about Muslims who have carried placards calling for the slaying of those who insult Islam or to "Butcher those who mock Islam" or who threaten "Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way"...

How about those Muslims who call for the "Pope to go to hell"?

Are those slogans indicative of mutual respect and designed to maintain good community relations? I don't recall the Muslims who carry such placards and/or chant their support for the killing of all Israelis being arrested, why not?


Meanwhile in Iran I read that:
'The Farsi Christian News Network (www.fcnn.com) is reporting that Iranian Government Security Forces have burned hundreds of Bibles.

A spokesperson for FCNN told the ASSIST News Service (ANS), "This action [of burning the Bibles], which has been confirmed by informed sources, was aired on a site belonging to the Pasdaran paramilitary organization, is nothing less than shameful and the persons responsible must be identified and exposed to the whole world."

The report said that on Saturday, May 29, 2010, Ati News, a site belonging to Morteza Talaee, the previous head of the security forces and the current member of the Tehran's city council, "in its usual anti-Christian propaganda" reported that their social-life reporter had disclosed that shipments of so called, "Perverted Torah and Gospels" had entered Iran through its Western borders.

Two days later, on Monday, May 31, 2010, the same report was reiterated by the official anti-crime website of the Pasdaran Army called "Gerdaub" which said that a large shipment of Jewish and Christian Scriptures had entered Iran through the Western Azerbaijan province and, according to security officials of that province, the "occupier forces" that operate in the Western regions of Iraq were responsible for such activities.

FCCN stated that Gerdaub, the official website of the Pasdaran Army [also known as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRCG] continued its report by quoting the security official who had stated: "Some of these books are distributed locally, but most of the books are smuggled and distributed all over the country. In just the last few months, hundreds of such 'perverted Bibles' have been seized and burned in the border town of Sardasht."...'

Once again an Islamic country displays complete intolerance of another religion but not a word of protest is heard from the UNHRC or the western media. Yet it is Israel that is regularly described as 'an apartheid state', despite it having freedom of religion for all.

Why does the West make every effort to accommodate the demands and sensitivities of Islam when so much of the Islamic world makes no such effort in return? Why should the West protest the feelings of Muslims in the West when so much of the Islamic world clearly cares so little about the feelings of their Christian, Hindi, Buddhist or Jewish minorities?

Wednesday, 22 September 2010

The BBC explaining miracles

The BBC happily explain how
'New computer simulations have shown how the parting of the Red Sea, as described in the Bible, could have been a phenomenon caused by strong winds.

The account in the Book of Exodus describes how the waters of the sea parted, allowing the Israelites to flee their Egyptian pursuers.

Simulations by US scientists show how the movement of wind could have opened up a land bridge at one location.

This would have enabled people to walk across exposed mud flats to safety.'

I am sure in the past I have read BBC articles eagerly explaining how some Christian miracle, I think they have done the resurrection but I am not 100%, could be explained by science. However I have no recollection of the BBC ever reporting on any scientific challenges to any tenents of Islam.

In fact of the three monotheitstic religions whilst the BBC is ready and indeed eager to challenge and find fault in Christianity & Judaism and its modern day practitioners, the BBC is somewhat less willing to pas any negative comments on the religion of islam.

Tuesday, 14 September 2010

Burning the Koran

I held back from commenting on the American pastor and his threats to burn the Koran as I knew what sort of comments I would get. However something came to mind today, so here goes....

On the one hand, it's a book and people regularly deface Bibles in the name of 'art' or 'protest' and nobody screams, burns flags or threatens death and destruction. On the other hand, why do it, what's the point? We know Islam is often an intolerant religion so why provoke Islamists?

Then I read this in Haaretz and I wondered where the protests in the west were... :
'The Hezbollah website, the Islamic Resistance Forum, described Gemayel as an Israeli spy and called for his "crucifixion on a pole in the Pride and Dignity Square in Beirut".'
Oh and some context if your knowledge of Lebanese politics is not all that it should be
'Sami Gemayel is the son of former Lebanese President Amin Gemayel. His older brother, Pierre, was a member of parliament and government minister before his assassination on November 21, 2006. Gemayel is also the nephew of assassinated former president-elect Bachir Gemayel.'