Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Islam Taught Incorrectly

I can hardly claim to be surprised by this- Tony Blair thinks that Islam is a progressive religion which is "way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance." Surely he and the establishment he represents are going to be stunned when they learn that "students at some British universities are being exposed to radical teaching that explicitly condones terrorism".

Higher Education Minister Bill Rammell ordered an urgent review of university Islamic courses after claiming there was evidence that "narrow and unhelpful" interpretations of Islam were available to "many" young people.
He admitted there was worry at the highest levels of Government about the effect such teaching could have in the wake of last year's suicide bombings in London.

Perhaps British Muslims didn't realise that they were only supposed to teach government approved Islam, interpretations which would have be be very wide and helpful to get around verse in the Koran like this-

9:5
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.

This is, incidentally, one of the verses which Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar used to explain his SUV attack at the University of North Carolina. Perhaps he didn't have a helpful enough teacher to explain Islam to him? Perhaps Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Al-Baghdadi also needs one of these helpful British teachers to explain Islam to him. He appears to have gotten the Religion of Peace all mixed up too-

But as for defensive Jihad - it is not conditional upon turning to a Sunni or Shiite jurisprudent, to a source of authority, any Islamic school of thought, or Islamic party, because this type of Jihad is an individual duty. Everyone must fight - children, women, the elderly, the youth in order to liberate man, to liberate mankind, in order to liberate Palestine in its entirety, in order to liberate Iraq from the American-Zionist-British presence.

Rammell goes on to complain

"There are weaknesses in the way young Muslims are educated about what their faith really requires. There is a concern that the teachings which the great majority of Muslims would want to stress about living in peace, protecting the vulnerable, avoiding harm to others, are sometimes sidelined."

You know, I may have missed them amongst all the verses explaining that a great doom will befall the unbelievers, but I can't actually seem to find any reference in the Koran to living in peace or avoiding harm to others. Yeah, ti does say that one should pay the poor due, and that's great, but perhaps Mr. Rammell can explain where exactly in the Koran he finds these messages. And maybe while he's at it, he can explain to us how these passages should be taught by helpful teachers-

2:191
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
4:76 Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak.
4:89
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
4:91
Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.
5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

Not much living in peace or avoiding harm to others- perhaps I'm just taking too narrow an interpretation?

"There is reason to think that in some cases students are being exposed, more than any of us would like, to
wrong-headed influences, under the name of religion. In particular, exposed to teachings that either explicitly condone terrorism, or foster a climate of opinion which is at least sympathetic to terrorists' motivation."

Really? You mean that there might be something in the teachings of Islam which might condone terrorism? Like this you mean?

9:123
O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you,, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
9:111 Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah ? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.
9:41
Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.
9:29
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
9:5 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.
8:39 And
fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
4:101 And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth
the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
4:74 Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.
3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.
2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

Cross posted at Cryptic Subterranean.

9 comments:

Epaminondas said...

PUTZ!

Political debasement for the polls.

Anonymous said...

Well if I was Tony, married to that mad old troll, I'd probably be looking wistfully at Islam's 'progressive attitudes' towards women...

Anonymous said...

This is an incredibly bad use of the verses. Out of context and wrong. Some of them don't even make your point. Let me give you an example. before i say anything though, I should tell you that im doing an analysis of the chapter two verses on my own blog in the near future, as well as the chapter 9 verses. anyway:

3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.

'terror' is a reference to metaphysical fear. it is akin to sadness, melancholy, loss. not terrorism. "Habitation is a Fire" is a reference to hell. In other words, this verse has nothing to do with political violence. God is simply saying HE is going to punish people by putting them in hell.

"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;"

we went over this on my blog too. this is the verse addressing criminal behavior within an islamic state. under islamic law, this verse is what justifies the view that anarchists like bin laden should be killed, because they spread "disorder" in the world. the authority rests with the state to carry it out.

anyway, that's all for now, as i said, i will talk in more detail about the other verses on my blog at some point, plus it'll give me a chance to look at the arabic more closesly b/c some of these words are just wrong.

again, you are doing a very insidious thing: making it appear that Muslims are inherently violent b/c they read the quran instead of recognizing that the verses of violence are related to many other verses and that they are related to real life events taking place in the time of muhammad. not cool.

The Anti-Jihadist said...

Whoa, I thought Eteraz said "I divorce you" three times like a good Muslim and was "...no longer an infidel", in his words. So, why has Eteraz come back here to make comments?

Having said that, he's free to come here and comment away to his heart's content. Unlike every Muslim majority state in the world, IBLOGA actually has freedom of speech.

And yeah, the traditional way the Quran is read and understood by millions is rather violent, Mr. Eteraz. I'd call that very inherent violence. Try criticizing Mohammed or Islam in any Muslim country, publically, and such violent tendencies will soon become abundantly clear.

I wish guys like Eteraz (assuming he's genuine) lots of luck. He's gonna need every shred of it.

Anonymous said...

Ok Jay Mac,

I will do all of those things, however, I need to ask you something first.

Rather than taking your word for what an Al-Qaeda follower relies on, can you instead point me to statement/utterances by Al-Qaeda members themselves citing Quranic verses? If you want me to imagine a discussion with Al-Qaeda members I'd like to know exactly what they'd say, and not what you think they'd say. It may be possible that you and he would cite the same verses, but I would like some proof of that first.

Raza Taheri is not Al-Qaeda. Looking forward to it.

As for your question: "Also, please do provide evidence for your assertion that the only way in which any action can be taken by a Muslim against an unbeliever- or anyone else for that matter- rests with the state and not with the individual."

I have answered this twice previously. Quranic verses are revealed in certain contexts and everyone is aware reading those verses what thoes contexts are. The corruption/crucifixion verse, not only is clearly talking a bout those who spread disorder, but is talking about it in the context of an Islamic State. So if I were talking to a terrorist, this is precisely what I would tell him, and then I would ask him to show me which Islamic State he is the representative of. Thing is, Jay Mac, I don't know what you've done in your life, but in mine, I have traveled and lived in the Muslim world, and inserted myself in all sorts of lunatic areas to learn what's going on and had real conversations. I am not an arm-chair anti-jihadist.

Yasmin said...

@ Eteraz…

I don’t think there’s doubt that there are Muslims who believe decisions on war should be made by only by an ‘authorised’ Imam…someone whom the Ummah see as credible. These moderate Muslims wash their hands of any association with Bin Laden sympathisers. However, what you must realise is that there is no Khalifa, and there hasn’t been one for a long time. Consequently, it is left to each individual to choose for themselves who to follow as leader. The ‘common’ Muslims are distrustful of mainstream Imams, backed by their governments, rightfully, as these Imams aid in the oppression of their people.

This lack of single authority on Islam has lead to formation of numerous radical groups who’s aim is to establish Islamic rule in their country…the Egyptian Brotherhood and Hamas are examples. AlQaeda, has taken this a step further by calling for the establishment of Islamic rule not only across the Islamic lands, but also the world.

I have said, time and time again, that Bin Laden (regardless of what moderates might claim) is following the example of Mohammed in this regard. You mentioned the significance of the context of revelation to the meaning of Quranic verses…you’re right. There is a clear distinction between the tones of the Meccan and Madina revelations. In Mecca Mohammed was weak, with few members consisting mostly of ignoble members of Quraish. Quranic revelation of this period are quite peaceful and encourage patience and turning the other cheek. When he moved to Madina, however, and gained many converts with military capabilities, the tone changed to a more aggressive one, ordering his followers to battle and aggression against non-believers. Bin Laden simply chose to follow Mohammed’s Madina teachings. Make no mistake, when these so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims gain a position of strength, they too will quickly adopt the Madina teachings.

As for your question: “can you instead point me to statement/utterances by Al-Qaeda members themselves citing Quranic verses?”
The examples are too many! I am an Arabic speaker and have memorised a great deal of the Quran…but don’t take my word for it, check out the links below where transcripts of his speech are translated into English:

1.http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/international/binladen.shtml- video transcript

2.http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html
- bin Laden's 'letter to America'

A. Eteraz said...

yasmin,

very good analysis, but while bin laden does use the medinan verses, there is one very important difference: bin laden is not the head of a state chosen through 'mutual consultation' (shu'ara bil amruhum). medina was. therefore, bin laden is not a legitimate leader and since he has no state, he cannot enforce the medinan laws.

i agree with you, there will be states who will be democratically elected and use the medinan verses. but being states, it will be totally normal for the rest of the world to attack them, sanction them, or deal with them. if such a repressive state does come into existence, that'll be another battle. however, bin laden is not that battle. it's a different tyep. in my opinion, terrorists should be killed as soon as possible. talking to them is not the answer.

Jay.Mac said...

Eteraz, you say that you've answerred me twice already- in fact all you've done is to assert that a state is a requirement for these actions. You telling me that isn't an answer- you could be telling me anything you want, whether true or false. Can you please provide references?

The corruption/crucifiction verse may have been revealed at a time when Mohammed was in a position of power but I have yet to read any reference which clearly states that only the head of a state may enfore such rules. Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda- does this rule specifically mention that the state must hold land or is it something more nebulous? Perhaps if Al Qaeda take some ground in Pakistan they can proclaim that this is their state- does that then lend credibility to what they do?

At the time of Mohammed, the nation state as we know it didn't exist.

I'm not just talking about Al Qaeda here- but about Islamic terrorists in general. Now that Hamas have been elected to power in the PA, do you now believe that they are justified in waging jihad? Are they able to fight unbelievers where they find them?

Lexcen said...

Can't get enough of it. Good work.