The Religion Of Pieces
Dead body parts, that is. And it isn't really a religion but a violent totalitarian system dressed up as a religion. From Islam Watch, Sujit Das posts:
Today who can deny the fact that Islam is different from all other religions, because of the threat of violence to its critics? All other religions can be criticized and even ridiculed without fear of violence. Only with Islam is there a credible threat of violence to its critics. Muslims can criticize Christianity and Hinduism without any fear of violence, but Christians and Hindus cannot criticize Islam without an ever-present fear of Islamic violence. It needs far more bravery to be on that side. A simple, calm, rational debate between all religions is not possible, because the fear of Islamic violence is always in the background. If Islam is, as Muslims claim, a mature, modern, tolerant religion, then why there is a need to the threat of violence? Muslims don't understand the self-contradiction.
The Quran is filled with commands to murder non-Muslims:
A large portion of the Qur'an is full of Jihadi verses and hate speeches against the infidels. As example, here I quote the most "beautiful and peaceful" verse of the Qur'an, known as the verse of sword."Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Q: 9.5)
Here's more about the Quran -- a debunking of the notion that the violent passages, demanding that Muslims convert or kill the infidel, are taken "out of context" (as if they can be read in a historical context, like passages in The Bible):
When Jihadi verses are pointed out, Muslims say, "You have quoted out of context". This "out of context" argument, to borrow words from Warraq, is the "old standby of crooked, lying politicians" (Warraq, 2003, p. 400). This could mean two things: (a) the historical context to which the various verses refer; and (b) the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from.The Historical Context is out of question. Qur'an is supposed to be the eternal word of God, true and valid for all places and time. If Allah is eternal, then Allah can neither have a past nor a history. Therefore, Muslims actually blaspheme against their God, when they talk about historical context. Secondly, as Spencer observed (2003, p. 127), reading the Qur'an is often like walking in on a conversation between two people with whom one is only slightly acquainted. Frequently, they make reference to people and events without bothering to explain what is going on. Even the famous Muslim scholar and one of the most influential thinkers, Sayyid Qutb, admits that most of the Surahs were not revealed as wholes, but rather bit by bit at diverse occasions, of which there is no historical record agreed upon by scholars. Hence, the only option available to us is that of assumption and preponderaton in this matter (cited Boullata, 2002, p. 363). In other words, the context is often not supplied. Therefore, if the context is not given in the Qur'an, how a verse can be quoted out of context?
The remaining is the textual context. No doubt, there are some peaceful verses in the Qur'an, which were revealed early in Muhammad Prophetic mission in Mecca. Muslims want to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion by quoting those verses. But all the peaceful verses were abrogated by the violent verses of the ninth Surah, because the ninth Surah was revealed toward the end of Muhammad's life. In fact, most Muslim authorities agree that the ninth Surah was the very last section of the Qur'an revealed to him. Many Muslim theologians assert that the verse of sword (Q: 9.5) abrogates as many as 124 more peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur'an (Spencer, 2007, p. 78; McAuliffe, 2006, p. 218).
As Raymond Ibrahim puts it briefly, when violence in The Bible and the Quran are compared:
The fundamental error is that Judeo-Christian history--which is violent--is being conflated with Islamic theology--which commands violence. Of course, the three major monotheistic religions have all had their share of violence and intolerance towards the "other." Whether this violence is ordained by God or whether warlike men merely wished it thus is the key question.Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. God clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God's will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that--history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law. In short, biblical accounts of violence are descriptive, not prescriptive.
This is where Islamic violence is unique.
...In fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur'anic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam's learned officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus--binding on the entire Muslim community--that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely held by Muslim scholars that since the sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of Islam's relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some 200 of the Qur'an's earlier and more tolerant verses, such as "no compulsion is there in religion."
...When the Qur'an's violent verses are juxtaposed with their Old Testament counterparts, they are especially distinct for using language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay nonbelievers today no less than yesterday. God commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites--all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At no time did God give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their Jewish descendants, to fight and kill gentiles. On the other hand, though Islam's original enemies were, like Judaism's, historical (e.g., Christian Byzantines and Zoroastrian Persians), the Qur'an rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book--"until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled"[13] and to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them."[14]
The two Arabic conjunctions "until" (hata) and "wherever" (haythu) demonstrate the perpetual and ubiquitous nature of these commandments: There are still "people of the book" who have yet to be "utterly humbled" (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and "idolaters" to be slain "wherever" one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa). In fact, the salient feature of almost all of the violent commandments in Islamic scriptures is their open-ended and generic nature: "Fight them [non-Muslims] until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely.
"Part of our identity is to kill women, to beat women... and this exists in all Arab societies..."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 17, 2012 11:18 PM
The other portion of that is how many stores bow down to not offend Muslims.
I just noticed over the past few weeks that none of the Wal-Marts I go to have signs saying "beer" on the beer aisles. And many C-stores just have "Cold drinks" having changed from "Soda" in one section and "Beer" in the other.
I can't think of any other reason to do it. It's been a slow change, but I know it has happened.
Jim P. at August 18, 2012 6:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/18/the_religion_of_6.html#comment-3309015">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Another from that same site, Crid (thanks for posting that link):
Amy Alkon at August 18, 2012 6:49 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/18/the_religion_of_6.html#comment-3309020">comment from Amy AlkonIn Islam, women are property of men and cannot make independent choices:
Amy Alkon at August 18, 2012 6:56 AM
I'm at the point where I despise the socio-economic system that is know as Islam. It is not worthy of respect or appeasement. Can't we just tell them to fuck off until they riot themselves out of existence or die of apoplexy??
Assholio at August 18, 2012 8:27 AM
Amy, your post and comments are another set of those things that the West (and especially, its "intellectuals") seem to ignore; But, God forbid, a Republican call women "honey" or "ma'am", NOW and their like all get into a tizzy about "women being second-class ciizens."
Academic leftists denounce Israel every chance they get; but, they seem to ignore the fact that Israel often gives sanctuary to these women running from "honor" killing, gays running from certain death, etc.
Women (along with Christians, gays, and others) are being murdered in the Islamic world and few in the West blink an eye. Now that is sad.
Charles at August 18, 2012 10:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/18/the_religion_of_6.html#comment-3309186">comment from CharlesUm, the East Coast is packed with people who preach "tolerance" of people who practice a religion that commands the killing of gays (many were brutally slaughtered in Muslim countries this spring...crushed with cement blocks, for example).
People who protested Chick-fil-a because the guy has ugly views about gay marriage (based in his evidence-free belief in god) should take a lookie at Islamic countries and wake up to the realities of Islam. I used to believe it was just another silly form of belief in The Imaginary Friend -- until I started reading the Quran and Hadith, and found out the truth.
People who point to the peaceful passages in the Quran do not understand abrogation -- the way later passages nullify those passages. In the beginning, Mohammed didn't have much power and was preaching more nicey-nicey stuff. Once he got power, he became the vile, thieving, mass-murderer he apparently always wanted to be. Also, because Muslims are to emulate the deeds of this man, you have these old men marrying and fucking little children. (Mohammed married Aisha at 6, and apparently waited until she was 9 to start penetrating her...although he apparently did nasty shit to this 6-year-old child before then.)
I am an atheist and I think religion fosters gullibility and much ill-will, but if you want to believe in a Big Imaginary Man In The Sky or that Sagitarius has relevance to your day, whatever. The moment your belief system starts calling for the slaughter of others, I have a problem with that.
Why do so few other people?
Amy Alkon at August 18, 2012 11:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/18/the_religion_of_6.html#comment-3309329">comment from CharlesSomebody just sent me this Internet forward: "* I was devastated to find out my wife was having an affair but, by turning to religion, I was soon able to come to terms with the whole thing. I converted to Islam, and we're stoning her in the morning!"
Amy Alkon at August 18, 2012 1:58 PM
Amy, your post and comments are another set of those things that the West (and especially, its "intellectuals") seem to ignore; But, God forbid, a Republican call women "honey" or "ma'am", NOW and their like all get into a tizzy about "women being second-class ciizens."
That's because they're fairly certain that said Republican, no matter how vile or vicious the behaviour they're accused of committing, will actually jump up with a sword and chop their heads off.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 18, 2012 2:10 PM
There was an article recently elsewhere by a student of Islam, and he gave some perspective to the Kuran's development. At first, Mohammed wanted to bring unite the Arabic Jews into his new religion, so he wrote the Kuran to attract them. Instead, they brushed him off. His gentle approach turned to bitterness and then hatred, as shown by the last parts of the book.
I need to locate that article again, but it made sense.
jefe at August 18, 2012 5:19 PM
"Can't we just tell them to fuck off until they riot themselves out of existence or die of apoplexy??"
If we can get Washington the hell out of the way and exploit the oil and gas resources that we now know we have, maybe we can. If we could gain energy independence, there will be no reason to continue to engage the Mideast, other than Israel.
Cousin Dave at August 18, 2012 6:01 PM
Somebody just sent me this Internet forward: "* I was devastated to find out my wife was having an affair but, by turning to religion, I was soon able to come to terms with the whole thing. I converted to Islam, and we're stoning her in the morning!"
nice. At least one thing where Islam is useful. A better option than getting a divorce and she getting the house and kids and his money and he freezing to death in winter under some bridge since he can't use his own money for himself in the american system.
Redrajesh at August 18, 2012 9:27 PM
Somebody just sent me this Internet forward: "* I was devastated to find out my wife was having an affair but, by turning to religion, I was soon able to come to terms with the whole thing. I converted to Islam, and we're stoning her in the morning!"
nice, at least something where Islam does something fair. Better than the other american 'civilzed' option of getting a divorce and losing the house and kids and money to her and he freezing to death in winter under some bridge because he cannot use the money he works to earn for himself.
Redrajesh at August 18, 2012 9:29 PM
Jefe, an article by Nonie Darwish that Amy blogged about recently covers that history well:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/09/the_psychology.html
Martin at August 18, 2012 10:45 PM
Thanks Martin, now help pull my foot out of my mouth before I get smacked with a flyswatter...
jefe at August 19, 2012 8:38 PM
Leave a comment