The Verse Of The Sword
And who it got this time (more on that below). But, first, here it is, the verse from the Quran commanding Muslims to murder anyone who doesn't believe in Allah:
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the jizya (poor-tax), then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. - Qu'ran, 9:5
Here's a bit on it from muhammadsquran:
From the above, we can draw a number of important conclusions:
* Allah commands Muslim to slay "idolators" wherever they can be found on the earth
* Muslims are not to wait for them, they are to actively seek them out
* Muslims should lie in wait, ambushing them, and gathering intelligence
* Idolators are to be fought continuously until they "embrace Islam"
* This Ayah forever abrogates previous peace treaties, and no idolator has a promise of safety from Muslims since this was revealed
* The reason the Muslims are to fight, is so that idolators will have no choice but to die or "embrace Islam" (i.e. become Muslims).I wonder which of the so-called "moderate Muslims" believes himself/herself to have a superior understanding of the Qur'an to that of Ibn Kathir (one of the most prolific Qur'anic commentators of all time)? Perhaps this great scholar of Islam just missed the mark and got this one wrong.
...Those Muslims who interpret this verse to be a command to fight TODAY are able to draw from a broad base of Islamic jurist-prudence. It is the liberal Muslim, most often influenced by Western cultural values, that has a lack of historical support within Islamic theology. Also of note, is that Surah 9 (At-Taubah) was one of the last Surahs added to the Qur'an. Muslim scholars have ruled that this one single verse abrogated as many as 128 other verses within the Qur'an. Muslim's final "marching orders" found throughout Surah 9 are slanted to violence and warfare. It should come as no surprise that we see people all over the world acting on the commands of the Qur'an and violently fighting against non-Muslims.
And now, look at this sweet-faced man profiled on CNN -- after being gunned down in cold blood by the Muslim murderer at Ft. Hood.
Robert Spencer writes on Jihadwatch:
Fort Hood jihadist's coworkers saw warning signs, but said nothing for fear of seeming bigotedSo this is what it has come to -- this is the fruit of the long-term efforts by groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and others, to stigmatize and demonize everyone who speaks honestly about the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism. People are afraid to speak up about what they see, when they know it is wrong.
And all it cost this week was 13 dead and 38 wounded.
And what if it had been a fundamentalist Christian who was the murderer. (Of course, modern Christian preachers do not command their followers to go kill the infidel like far too many Muslim imams do.)
From Instapundit, a quote from The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg:
I am not arguing, of course, that American Muslims, as a whole, are violently unhappy with America (I've argued the opposite, in fact). But I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims. Here's a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.
As Obama prepares to step up troop levels in Afghanistan, here's a brilliant point from Kaus (second item): "[T]his violent incident might make explaining it easier, no?"
Bet it'll never happen.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 9, 2009 1:30 AM
Amother victory for political correctness.
David M. at November 9, 2009 4:27 AM
We are SO screwed.
Flynne at November 9, 2009 5:34 AM
OK. Assuming I grant you that 1) there is no such thing as moderate Islam, and 2) all Muslims are commanded to kill non-Muslims, what should we do about it?
Whatever at November 9, 2009 7:22 AM
I've been saying for over a decade that there are only three possible options, Whatever:
Reformation.
Isolation.
Annihilation.
There is no possibility for peaceful coexistence because the very nature of Islam forbids it. One could no more make peace with the Visigoths or the Vikings than they can with the Islamists.
brian at November 9, 2009 7:46 AM
There is no possibility for peaceful coexistence because the very nature of Islam forbids it
Doesn't that eliminate the possibility of reformation, too?
Whatever at November 9, 2009 8:13 AM
Keep in mind that there was peace (for the most part) between the West & Islam for centuries after the Siege of Vienna, when the Ottoman army was crushed & driven out of the heart of Europe. Troublemakers like the Barbary pirates were quickly put out of action. In fact, after September 11, 1683 (when the siege was broken by the Polish cavalry), Muslims did not dare to launch an assault against any major Western city again until September 11, 2001. After the Ottoman army crawled back to Turkey in utter defeat, the Muslim world reverted to it's natural state of hopeless poverty & backwardness. Jihadis were simply unable to mount a successful attack, no matter how urgently their Korans & mullahs commanded them to. It was only after Western engineers discovered oil in the Persian Gulf, and Khomeini held the American embassy hostage for over a year & got away with it, that Muslims once again started thinking they could challenge the West and win.
There would be lessons to draw from this bit of history, if the West wasn't too infected with terminal political correctness to learn them.
Martin at November 9, 2009 9:16 AM
...speaking of political correctness, try not to gag at all the politicians falling all over themselves as they deny Islam as the root cause. "It's the man, not the religion" they protest.
Even while the events draw praise from the "true" practitioners...
the other Beth at November 9, 2009 9:26 AM
What should we do Whatever? Deport every Muslim unwilling to swear fealty the the US governemnt over their religion. Ban the immigration of any muslim who wont do the same.
In the event that any muslim who swears loyalty to the US over their mythology breaks that promise and honor kill one of their children, declare their citizenship revoked under fraudulent gains, execute them, wrap them in a pig skin and drop them from a plane so they land in the courtyard around the Kaaba
If the recently deceased and defile remaining familly members at that time choose to remain muslims deport them.
Trade embargo every country that is run by islam and sink their ships once they leave their teritorial waters and shoot down their planes when they leave their airspace
lujlp at November 9, 2009 10:04 AM
I have a neighbor family who are obviously Muslim. It is a father, a son, and a mother. The Mom wears the full pup-tent the few times that I've seen her. I've only seen her once or twice, on her front porch under the direct supervision of her husband at all times. At other times, I'm assuming that she (along with the small kid who is maybe 2?) lives in the apartment and never leaves.
I've wondered at times what can be done to help her and women like her. For every Muslim woman who walks around in jeans with a scarf over her head jumping into her SUV to drive to the store, how many women are prisoners in their own home in the 'home of the free and the brave'?
Any organization that would treat half of their population so unfairly needs to be stopped, even if only on those grounds alone.
-Julie
JulieW at November 9, 2009 11:04 AM
JulieW,
Maybe she is fine with that kind of a relationship? If she is in the USA and she no longer wants to stay in a relationship like that she can get away fairly easily along with her child.
John Tagliaferro at November 9, 2009 11:26 AM
John T: I would venture to say it's probably not as easy as you might think. The moral restraints that bind people are stronger, in many cases, than physical ones. Turning one's back on your entire identity, culture, religion, and family would take some doing, I'd think. Not as simple as "I'm going to wash that man right out of my hair" mentality practiced so freely among others in this country.
the other Beth at November 9, 2009 11:53 AM
I wish someone would explain, simply, how and why, over the last two centuries, Christians managed to condemn (for the most part, it's not complete by any means) the Exodus verse "though shalt not suffer a witch to live" as well as plenty of other Biblical commands to violence in the name of God (another would probably be the one where Jesus tells his disciples to sell their coats and buy swords) while so many Muslims have not stopped taking similar commands in the Koran. (Other than the state of Israel as an explanation - atheist Sam Harris certainly doesn't think that suffices.)
lenona at November 9, 2009 12:30 PM
John T: JulieW,
Maybe she is fine with that kind of a relationship? If she is in the USA and she no longer wants to stay in a relationship like that she can get away fairly easily along with her child.
Maybe it's not really a woman under there. If your other half is in a pup tent all the time, there's no telling what you have under there.
Someone posted on a message board that I frequent a list of humorous aphorisms called, "...you might be a Taliban."
For instance..."If you have a crush on your neighbor's goat, you might be a Taliban."
I added my own original one to the list: "If you think adulterers and gays should be publicly stoned, but see nothing wrong with sodomizing little boys, you might be a Taliban."
By the way, "Taliban" actually refers to the movement, but I wonder what the word is for the adherents. "Talibaners"? "Talibanites"? "Scum"? Oops. Let that slip out. My bad.
Patrick at November 9, 2009 1:09 PM
....and then there are days when I agree with a Patrick post.....
Feebie at November 9, 2009 2:05 PM
If I can take a stab at answering your question, lenona, the difference is that Christians are supposed to follow the example of Christ, while Muslims are supposed to follow the example of Mohammed. Christ could kick ass when needed (witness the moneychangers in the temple), but when he spoke to his disciples about swords, he was speaking metaphorically. In real life, he never robbed, raped, or murdered anyone. He never commanded his disciples to rob, rape or murder anyone. He never promised them they would go to heaven as a reward for slaughtering non-Christians. He didn't sacrifice anyone for his religion but himself.
Mo, on the other hand, robbed, raped, and murdered people by the thousands. He commanded his followers to do likewise, and promised that Allah would reward them with paradise for it. That's the crucial distinction: actions speak louder than words. Muslims are not supposed to just pray 5 times a day & read the Koran. They're supposed to follow the example of their prophet's actions in everything they do. And their prophet was a murdering, raping pedophile.
Martin at November 9, 2009 3:54 PM
Lujlp: Not a big fan of the first amendment, then, I guess?
Whatever at November 10, 2009 12:00 PM
Whatever writes: "Lujlp: Not a big fan of the first amendment, then, I guess?"
Well, it's trite but still true: the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It's not clear to me whether existing laws, if properly and evenly enforced, would be sufficient to take care of the problem. Case law is pretty clear that the First Amendment doesn't protect speech that advocates violent overthrow. But in practice, this only seems to be enforced zealously against far-right Christian-based groups. If Hasan had posted similar threats on, say, Stormfront (with appropriate swapping of the adjectives), he would have been shipped off to Leavenworth long ago.
In the extreme case, the scenario would go like this: "Muslims in the U.S., reform your religion and do it right now. Otherwise, we will exclude you, by Constitutional amendment if necessary." That, of course, would get ugly, for a number of reasons. Personally, I'm pessimistic that the problem will be solved peacefully; as you speculated in an earlier post on this thread, Islam appears to lack the philosophical underpinning for supporting a reformation.
Cousin Dave at November 10, 2009 12:51 PM
Elite opinion makers? Is he kidding? Bush's administration was absolutely notorious for its rabidly pro-Christian policies and promotions.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 10, 2009 4:15 PM
Leave a comment