CLICK THE IMAGE TO SEE IT LARGER AND CLEARER
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Proof that Prophet Mohammad had sexual intercourse w/ his 9 yrs old wife Aisha
An artist’s illustration of how lustful and debaucherous the prophet of allah was. Engaging a kid for wedlock when she was six and consummating the marriage when she was nine!
This portrait of his is by Abdullah Aziz (Praise be to him) of
http://www.islamcomicbook.com/
Monday, June 27, 2011
Does the Bible really inspire violence like the Qu'ran?
In an article entitled, “Throwing Stones at the Quran from a Glass House”, The American Muslim claims that the verses of violence and war in the Bible can be misread in “exactly the same way as some verses in the Qur’an” (emphasis ours). In other words, the on-line magazine alleges that, like the Quran, there are Biblical verses with open-ended commands to violence that are not bound by historical context within the passage itself.
Our first clue that this probably isn’t true is the scarcity of Christian terrorist groups. Not too many people are losing their heads to fanatics screaming praises to Jesus (or Moses, Buddha or the many Hindu gods either) as they are to shouts of “Allah Akbar!” That there are so many Islamic terrorist groups composed of fundamentalists (or purists) of the Muslim faith is enough to impress any reasonable person that there is something far more dangerous about Islam.
Nevertheless, to support their claim, The American Muslim quotes sixteen of the worst passages that the Bible has to offer in the way of violence. Others are alluded to as well, but delving into these particular verses should be a large enough sample to expose whatever sophistry might be at play.
Their first try is a passage from Deuteronomy that might appear to command present-day believers to take a city by force and slaughter the inhabitants on order from God:
“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:10-17 - As quoted by The American Muslim
Except for the part about sparing women and children, this sounds similar to a verse from the Qur’an:
And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation. (Quran 17:16)
But, in fact, the Biblical passage is not an open-ended command, but instead, a story of history bound within the text. Having trouble seeing this? That’s because the author of The American Muslim piece cleverly left out this part of the passage:
“Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you”
Yes, it turns out that this was a specific command, given at a specific time to the tribe of Israel concerning a discrete target. This is why Christians and Jews do not treat these verses as present-day imperatives.
Strategic omission is just one way that Muslim apologists manipulate Biblical passages. (In this case, The American Muslim editors did not even include an ellipsis in place of the omission, since it may have raised the suspicions of the reader).
The next passage that The American Muslim claims promotes violence is from the apostle Paul, who writes:
“Hymenaeus and Alexander I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.” (1Timothy 1:20)
The violence in the passage is not exactly evident from this reading. In the context of the previous verse, these two men “suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith,” but there is nothing to indicate that they were physically harmed as a result. It was the practice of the early Church to excommunicate apostates, and there is every reason to believe that this was the “fate” of these two individuals. They were expelled from the Church by Paul. The Christian Church does not advocate killing apostates.
Contrast this with the words of Muhammad:
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Bukhari 84:57)
Not much ambiguity there. Abu Bakr, the first caliph and several other Muslims testified that Muhammad had indeed put Muslim apostates to death. For this reason, the practice is coded in Islamic law.
The next passage that is supposed to inspire Christians to violence is the recounting of David’s victory against the Philistines:
“This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, Then David ran and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him, and cut off his head with it.... And David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent. And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.” (1 Samuel 17:46 - As Quoted by The American Muslim)
This is actually parts of verse 46 through 54. We won’t waste much time here, because it is apparent that this is a recounting of an historical event. The omitted passages from within the text make it even more obvious.
Compare this to the word of Allah in the Quran:
“I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” (Quran 8:12)
There is no historical context to mitigate this Qur’anic exhortation either in the verse or in those that surround it. (The American Muslim actually makes a monumental effort to bring historical context to the verse from sources external to the Qur’an in this article, which contains several inaccuracies regarding the timing of the “revelation” of the verse, the justification for attacking caravans, and the fate of hostages taken in battle, some of whom were actually put to death).
The next five passages quoted by The American Muslim, in trying to make the case that the Bible can be used to command violence, all suffer from the same problems as above:
“Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and take off his head.”... And there is also with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse on the day when I went to Mahanaim; but when he came down to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put you to death with the sword.’ Now therefore hold him not guiltless, for you are a wise man; you will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol.” (2 Samuel 16:9, 1 Kings 2:8)
“ When they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him. They took his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night, and brought the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron. And they said to the king, “Here is the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy, who sought your life; the LORD has avenged my lord the king this day on Saul and on his offspring.” (2 Samuel 4:7)
"That is not true. But a man of the hill country of Ephraim, called Sheba the son of Bichri, has lifted up his hand against King David; give up him alone, and I will withdraw from the city.” And the woman said to Joab, “Behold, his head shall be thrown to you over the wall.” Then the woman went to all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and threw it out to Joab." (2 Samuel 20:21)
"at Jezreel by this time tommorrow...And when the letter came to them, they took the king’s sons, and slew them, seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent them to him at Jezreel. When the messenger came and told him, “They have brought the heads of the king’s sons,” he said, “Lay them in two heaps at the entrance of the gate until the morning.”. (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 6) “God has now fulfilled the prophecy of the prophet Elijah. So Jehu put to death all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, as well as all of his close friends and priests, until he had left not one single survivor.” (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 10) “He put to death all of Ahab’s house, who were left there and so blotted it out, in fulfillment of the word which YAHWEH had spoken to Elijah." (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 7)
"When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them." (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)
No doubt these were bad days to be particular individuals by the name of Shimei, Ishbosheth, Sheba or Ahab, but they obviously aren’t around anymore to complain. Same with the tribes mentioned in the passage from Deuteronomy. This is history, of course, not some open-ended instruction like:
“Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are ruthless to the Unbelievers, but merciful to each other.” (Quran 48:29)
At this point, The American Muslim pulls two verses out of the New Testament Gospels. The first is quoted as if they are the words of Jesus:
"I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."(Luke 19:26-27)
But, in fact, this is the tail end of a parable being told by Jesus. The words actually belong to one of the characters in his story.
Again, contrast this with the actual words of Muhammad:
[Allah's Apostle said] "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." (Bukhari 52:256)
We don’t have to play the same games here that The American Muslim does to try and convince Christians that they should kill based on the words of a parable. Not only are these Muhammad’s own words, but there are many Muslims at this very moment who are trying to kill Jews in Israel. Their religious leaders quote this passage to inspire them.
Moving along to the second New Testament verse that supposedly advocates violence:
"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35)
Though not quoted in the article, the passage actually goes on to say, “Your enemies will be the members of your own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. “
Obviously, Jesus is speaking of the coming hardships that will be suffered by Christians (ironically, the worst abusers eventually turned out to be Muslims). The “sword” is a metaphor for the persecution against believers, not an admonition for them to take up arms. In fact, elsewhere Jesus prevented one of his disciples from fighting on his behalf and rebuked him for doing so. In confirmation of this, none of his immediate followers formed an armed militia of any sort. There were no armies claiming to be “Christian” for many centuries.
By contrast, Muhammad was a military leader who killed people in battle, executed captives and enslaved women and children. When he said that “Jihad in the way of Allah elevates the position of a man in paradise” (Sahih Muslim 20:4645), his followers knew what he meant. They engaged in warfare following his death, which continues to this day.
The American Muslim then moves back to the Old Testament:
“I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.” (Exodus 23:27)
Is this an open-ended imperative for present-day Christians and Jews? Hardly. Here’s the next verse:
“I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way”
Again, not a good time to be a Hivate, Hittite, or a Canaanite… but who is these days?
By contrast, the Qur’an speaks ill of Christians, Jews, “unbelievers” and “pagans,” and commands its readers to “slay the infidel wherever ye find him.” The historical context of the verse is apparently not all that conspicuous, judging by the fact that so many Muslims are trying so hard to kill these people in the name of Allah.
The American Muslim tries again:
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. At God’s instructions, the Israelites “utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones” leaving “none to remain.” And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. (Deuteronomy 2:33-36)
At this point, you can probably guess that there is something being left out. If you look at the original passage, you’ll find that it refers to the Battle of Jahaz and even says “at that time” (emphasizing that this is history - not edict).
Next is this passage from Joshua:
Joshua said to the people of Israel, “The Lord has given you the city of the all silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the Lord: They shall come into the treasury of the Lord. The people utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. (Joshua 6:21-23 as Quoted by the American Muslim)
The manipulation of the original passage is so extensive that the verse is barely recognizable. The author employs both omission and juxtaposition to try and emphasize that the city in question was destroyed. In fact, the original does say that not everyone within the city was killed. Even so, this is still a violent passage… but it is not open-ended instruction.
The city in question was Jericho, and the verses tell of the battle between the ancient Israelites and the inhabitants therein - and the subsequent massacre. It is obviously a historical passage, and it no more inspires violence than reading an account of the Japanese slaughter of the people of Nanjing in 1937.
The American Muslim then pulls a verse from the Old Testament that it says can be interpreted to mean that apostates should be stoned:
"And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, ...and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die." (Deuteronomy 17:3-5, as quoted by the American Muslim)
What does the ellipsis leave out, you may be wondering? Well, it turns out that this was yet another specific command handed down to a specific people at a specific time:
“If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death” (Actual text)
No Christian in their right mind would kill someone for worshipping a different god based on this passage. While it's true that Christian apostates have been killed in sporadic and rare historical incidents, it was not the example of Jesus, nor is it a part of Christian teaching.
As we have already pointed out, however, Islam’s most reliable Hadith mandates the execution of apostates from Islam. It is firmly established in Islamic law, since it is the example set forth by Muhammad himself.
The American Muslim then submits a rare New Testament verse as proof that Christians can interpret the Bible as a command to murder in the way that Jihadis wage holy war:
"Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:20-32, as quoted by the American Muslim)
It is unclear why the author cites verses 20-32 but quotes only the last verse. The full text of the passage actually contains a rebuke against killing and it assigns judgment to God alone. The next verses in sequence confirm this:
“You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?” (Romans 2:1)
God is the judge, and not man, according to the context of this passage. How anyone is supposed to interpret this to mean exactly the opposite - that they should kill another human being - is a leap of logic that escapes this writer (and generations of Christians as well, apparently).
Muhammad’s own words, however, contain no such cryptic message:
“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” (Quran 2:216)
Now, at last, The American Muslim pulls out the grand finale – the famous passage from Numbers that is quoted so enthusiastically by the detractors of Western religion:
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:17-18)
From the way this is quoted, it sounds as if God is telling today's Bible-thumpers to kill every man within reach and enslave their women and children. What a horrible world this would be if Christians took this fragment literally and killed the nearest person.
So why aren’t the Jews and Christians of today doing this?
Well, it's most likely because there aren't any Midianites around, since that was the unfortunate tribe on which this vengeance is specifically commanded - as it is obvious from the surrounding verses. Again, this is a historical narration that clearly refers to an obscure tribe, unlike many of the open-ended passages of violence against unbelievers, “idolaters,” polytheists, Jews and Christians found in the Qur’an.
Contemporary Islamic apologists, such as the author of this American Muslim piece, apparently borrowed this research from secular critics of Christianity, who use passages such as these to make dark insinuations about the character of the god of the Bible and thus bolster their rejection of all religion.
This certainly makes for some strange bedfellows, given that most atheists would concur that the god of Muhammad is far more violent than the god of the New Testament. (Those who may not agree are free to travel to a Muslim country and see how publicly denying Allah there compares to Christian "intolerance" at home, but they may want to make out a will beforehand).
We’ll leave it to the theologians to respond, since the character of God and the nature of progressive revelation falls outside the scope of this discussion. Our only interest here is in the argument that Muslims are trying to make by citing such passages.
Since Muslims do not argue the point that Muhammad commanded the slaughter and enslavement of others at various times in his last ten years (a practice that his followers have faithfully applied to this very day), their logic here is quite tenuous. At best, these apologists appear to be trying to bring other religions down to the level of Islam, particularly Christianity.
What makes this noteworthy is that Christians and others do not act as if they need to bring Islam down to their religion of choice. The reason is that no other religion regularly kills members of every other faith explicitly in the name its god. And, on the rare occasions when this does happen, the response is anger and denouncement rather than the general indifference that Muslims have for Islamic terror (aside from the 15% or so who openly endorse it).
Islamic terrorists wage holy war on a daily basis because it is the literal command of the Qur’an. Western Muslim apologists (concerned solely with the image of Islam) window-dress these violent passages through a complex series of appeals to a patchwork of external Muslim sources. Then, after delicately arranging the products of this Herculean charade in such a way as to convince the rest of us that these Qur’anic verses of violence are not what they appear, the apologist steps back, wipes the sweat from his brow and says, “See how clear it is? No Muslim could possibly interpret this command to kill as a command to kill.”
Well, why are these verses in the Qur’an at all, then? If they are supposed to be history, then why do they appear as imperative? Why isn’t the context right there in the text as it is in the Old Testament?
After all, this is supposed to be Allah’s perfect book. How is it that it is so vulnerable to the worst sort of "misinterpretation"?
Lacking a decent answer to these questions, Muslims attack the Bible instead.
Is Hitler a Christian or a Nazi?
A Nazi concentration camp entry form. A category for Christian clergy (Geistliche) is included alongside other "undesirables, including Jews.
"What about Hitler, wasn't he a Christian?"
This question is asked of us in various ways, sometimes by Westerners who tend to view all religion monolithically and negatively, other times by anti-Christian bigots, and most frequently by Muslims who think they've discovered an advantageous way of trivializing the violence produced by Islamic radicals. The fatigued logic of each is that Christianity must be responsible for the crimes of Hitler, since Germany is a demographically Christian country.
This thin reasoning seems to take root only in the mind of shallow thinkers, or those whose anti-Christian bias overshadows critical objectivity, since it is both logically inconsistent and historically inaccurate.
It's true that Germany is a Christian country, in the same way that every nation on the planet is identified with some form of religion, irrespective of whether a majority of those living within its borders actually strive to live a life that is congruent with the teachings of the faith. This hardly bestows religious sanction on the actions of every citizen or elected official.
Indeed, the leadership and direction of a country is very often at odds with its nominal religion. When the Syrian dictator, Hafez al-Assad, slaughtered thousands of religious fundamentalists in 1982, he did it for the very secular purpose of retaining power. Saddam Hussein has engaged in brutal acts of torture against political dissidents - and their families. Like all Arab leaders at one time or another, both men hid behind the cloak of Islam when it suited their conveniences. (A 2003 interview with Saddam, in which the barbaric Hussein invoked the "will of Allah" several times in disingenuous fashion, was particularly repugnant to this writer).
So, the fact that Hitler occasionally referenced Christianity is not necessarily a sign of personal religious fervor (nor is it an indication of religious sanction). There is no compelling reason to believe it to be anything more than the same cynical ploy used by most leaders to appeal to the deepest passions of their people at critical moments regardless of the inconsistency that their national goals may have with religious teachings.
For honest inquirers then, the fundamental question becomes: What motivated Hitler, and were his actions justified by Christian teachings?
These questions are rarely explored by those who make allegations of a "Christian Holocaust" in hit-and-run fashion. Part of this is because people simply prefer to believe what they prefer to believe. There is no point in discovering whether a belief is right or wrong as long as it serves a personal interest or provides comfort (ironically, the very charge made by critics of religion). But another reason is the seductive appeal that useful clichés (no matter how hollow) often have against intellectual inquiry, which requires greater effort to pursue.
As an example of the perils of this sort of mental laziness, TROP often notes that the same people who write to us alleging that the Nazis were a 'Christian' army in World War II are also prone to accuse the Americans of being a 'Christian' army in Iraq. Perhaps they are dimly aware that the Americans destroyed the Nazi war machine in 1945 (and liberated the concentration camps), but their bulb never seems to burns bright enough to illuminate the contradiction.
"What about Hitler, wasn't he a Christian?"
This question is asked of us in various ways, sometimes by Westerners who tend to view all religion monolithically and negatively, other times by anti-Christian bigots, and most frequently by Muslims who think they've discovered an advantageous way of trivializing the violence produced by Islamic radicals. The fatigued logic of each is that Christianity must be responsible for the crimes of Hitler, since Germany is a demographically Christian country.
This thin reasoning seems to take root only in the mind of shallow thinkers, or those whose anti-Christian bias overshadows critical objectivity, since it is both logically inconsistent and historically inaccurate.
It's true that Germany is a Christian country, in the same way that every nation on the planet is identified with some form of religion, irrespective of whether a majority of those living within its borders actually strive to live a life that is congruent with the teachings of the faith. This hardly bestows religious sanction on the actions of every citizen or elected official.
Indeed, the leadership and direction of a country is very often at odds with its nominal religion. When the Syrian dictator, Hafez al-Assad, slaughtered thousands of religious fundamentalists in 1982, he did it for the very secular purpose of retaining power. Saddam Hussein has engaged in brutal acts of torture against political dissidents - and their families. Like all Arab leaders at one time or another, both men hid behind the cloak of Islam when it suited their conveniences. (A 2003 interview with Saddam, in which the barbaric Hussein invoked the "will of Allah" several times in disingenuous fashion, was particularly repugnant to this writer).
So, the fact that Hitler occasionally referenced Christianity is not necessarily a sign of personal religious fervor (nor is it an indication of religious sanction). There is no compelling reason to believe it to be anything more than the same cynical ploy used by most leaders to appeal to the deepest passions of their people at critical moments regardless of the inconsistency that their national goals may have with religious teachings.
For honest inquirers then, the fundamental question becomes: What motivated Hitler, and were his actions justified by Christian teachings?
These questions are rarely explored by those who make allegations of a "Christian Holocaust" in hit-and-run fashion. Part of this is because people simply prefer to believe what they prefer to believe. There is no point in discovering whether a belief is right or wrong as long as it serves a personal interest or provides comfort (ironically, the very charge made by critics of religion). But another reason is the seductive appeal that useful clichés (no matter how hollow) often have against intellectual inquiry, which requires greater effort to pursue.
As an example of the perils of this sort of mental laziness, TROP often notes that the same people who write to us alleging that the Nazis were a 'Christian' army in World War II are also prone to accuse the Americans of being a 'Christian' army in Iraq. Perhaps they are dimly aware that the Americans destroyed the Nazi war machine in 1945 (and liberated the concentration camps), but their bulb never seems to burns bright enough to illuminate the contradiction.
Muslims who write often forget that Hitler was well received in the Islamic world, where his legacy of killing Jews for the sake of killing Jews is still alive and well. And, although Mein Kamph certainly provides the philosophical underpinnings of the slaughter that followed, it doesn't actually order the killing of Jews in the way that the Qur'an bluntly commands the physical slaying of non-Muslims.
Fortunately, for those who wish to dig beneath the surface, it doesn't take much to discover that, rather than being motivated by Christianity, Hitler was very much a Nazi. His entire philosophy was built around German nationalism and Aryan supremacy, which were the fundamental planks of his National Socialist Party. In his own words: "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both."
Indeed, the Christian faith is based on the New Testament, which can easily be used to justify pacifism, but not mass murder. There are no open-ended passages commanding the murder of those who reject the founder or directing a worldly conquest by the sword as there are in the Qur'an. Instead, believers are told to "turn the other cheek," "bless them that curse you," and warned that "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."
World War II was hardly a scheme to spread Christianity (or Lutheranism, since Hitler invaded other "Christian countries" for the most part). The war was the result of a quest for political and economic power by the Germans and the Japanese - the same motives that drive most wars. Even the Nazi act of killing Jews was purely racial, as Hitler made very clear in Mein Kampf by insisting that Jews were a race and not a religion.
Those who followed Christian teachings in Nazi Germany wound up in concentrations camps. In fact, during WWII, the largest community of Christian clerics in Europe was to be found in these death camps - surpassing even the Vatican in strength of numbers. The Nazis listed 'Geistliche' (pastors, priests and clergymen) alongside 'Juden' and 'Homosexueller' on concentration camp entry forms to define prisoner type.
Although the Protestant and Catholic traditions in Germany limited the Fuehrer's public comments about religion (and also made necessary the elaborate measures taken to keep the existence of gas chambers concealed from the German public) he was quite candid in his personal observations. "It is through the peasantry that we will really be able to destroy Christianity, because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood."
It's easy to isolate a few statements of political convenience made by Hitler, particularly if one has an ulterior agenda, but a man is revealed by what he does and Hitler's deeds prove that he was very much a pagan whose vision of the future did not include a role for token Christianity.
When the Nazis stormed Poland in 1939, the Christian clergy were hunted almost as relentlessly as were the Jews. By 1940 only 3% remained in their parishes. Thousands were slaughtered, along with fellow church workers and nuns. Those who remained were strictly forbidden to evangelize, own property, or preach uncensored from the New Testament. In other words, they lived very much like dhimmis do under Islam.
Fortunately, for those who wish to dig beneath the surface, it doesn't take much to discover that, rather than being motivated by Christianity, Hitler was very much a Nazi. His entire philosophy was built around German nationalism and Aryan supremacy, which were the fundamental planks of his National Socialist Party. In his own words: "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both."
Indeed, the Christian faith is based on the New Testament, which can easily be used to justify pacifism, but not mass murder. There are no open-ended passages commanding the murder of those who reject the founder or directing a worldly conquest by the sword as there are in the Qur'an. Instead, believers are told to "turn the other cheek," "bless them that curse you," and warned that "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."
World War II was hardly a scheme to spread Christianity (or Lutheranism, since Hitler invaded other "Christian countries" for the most part). The war was the result of a quest for political and economic power by the Germans and the Japanese - the same motives that drive most wars. Even the Nazi act of killing Jews was purely racial, as Hitler made very clear in Mein Kampf by insisting that Jews were a race and not a religion.
Those who followed Christian teachings in Nazi Germany wound up in concentrations camps. In fact, during WWII, the largest community of Christian clerics in Europe was to be found in these death camps - surpassing even the Vatican in strength of numbers. The Nazis listed 'Geistliche' (pastors, priests and clergymen) alongside 'Juden' and 'Homosexueller' on concentration camp entry forms to define prisoner type.
Although the Protestant and Catholic traditions in Germany limited the Fuehrer's public comments about religion (and also made necessary the elaborate measures taken to keep the existence of gas chambers concealed from the German public) he was quite candid in his personal observations. "It is through the peasantry that we will really be able to destroy Christianity, because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood."
It's easy to isolate a few statements of political convenience made by Hitler, particularly if one has an ulterior agenda, but a man is revealed by what he does and Hitler's deeds prove that he was very much a pagan whose vision of the future did not include a role for token Christianity.
When the Nazis stormed Poland in 1939, the Christian clergy were hunted almost as relentlessly as were the Jews. By 1940 only 3% remained in their parishes. Thousands were slaughtered, along with fellow church workers and nuns. Those who remained were strictly forbidden to evangelize, own property, or preach uncensored from the New Testament. In other words, they lived very much like dhimmis do under Islam.
To his closest advisors, Hitler reviled Christianity, calling in an "invention of the Jew," a product of "sick brains" and "gutless." He also referred to it as "the worst of the regressions that mankind can every have undergone." (see Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace?)
The contempt that Nazis had for Christians was not softened by the fact that nearly all of those Europeans involved in sheltering Jews were strong believers who acted according to Christian teachings. Jesus was a very gentle man who never hurt anyone and strongly disapproved of violence.
By contrast, Muhammad was a military leader who conducted raids on caravans, supervised mass slaughter - of Jews - and even advised his fighting men on how to rape women captured in battle. For this reason, perhaps, Hitler openly admired Islam, even saying that that it would have been a more appropriate choice for Nazism, given its propensity for violence: "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity."
Given that Christianity neither motivated Hitler nor justified his actions, and that Christians and Jews were amply represented among his victims (particularly those who lived consistently with the teachings of their faith), it is certainly puzzling that anyone should want to suppose otherwise. After all, what's really gained by believing a lie? When does false comfort become more appealing than existential truth?
Regrettably, these are fat and lazy times (intellectually speaking). Although the information age offers an unprecedented opportunity to balance worldview with fact, many choose instead to apply a paradigm that filters out unpleasant truth, allowing the subject to wallow in opinions and aphorisms that are tailored to preconceptions.
Is a U.S. Post Office shooting a 'Christian crime' because the killer was born a Presbyterian? If a mentally deranged individual shoots up a mosque in Yemen before turning the gun on himself, or if a member of the Kurdistan Workers Party plants a bomb, is this really motivated by Islam? Who would make the irrational assumption that any crime committed by a nominal member of a faith must be attributed to that religion?
Given that Christianity neither motivated Hitler nor justified his actions, and that Christians and Jews were amply represented among his victims (particularly those who lived consistently with the teachings of their faith), it is certainly puzzling that anyone should want to suppose otherwise. After all, what's really gained by believing a lie? When does false comfort become more appealing than existential truth?
Regrettably, these are fat and lazy times (intellectually speaking). Although the information age offers an unprecedented opportunity to balance worldview with fact, many choose instead to apply a paradigm that filters out unpleasant truth, allowing the subject to wallow in opinions and aphorisms that are tailored to preconceptions.
Is a U.S. Post Office shooting a 'Christian crime' because the killer was born a Presbyterian? If a mentally deranged individual shoots up a mosque in Yemen before turning the gun on himself, or if a member of the Kurdistan Workers Party plants a bomb, is this really motivated by Islam? Who would make the irrational assumption that any crime committed by a nominal member of a faith must be attributed to that religion?
Ironically, those who try to hold Christianity responsible for Hitler rely on the same bigoted logic that fuels anti-Semitism - the idea that an entire religion or race is to blame for the actions of a nominal member of the identity group.
In this case the teachings of Christianity directly contradict the the crimes of the Nazis. Jesus loved Jews and surrounded himself with them. Unlike Muhammad, he never advocated violence.
Hitler was not a religious man. The nominal religion of the vast majority of people that he killed was Christian. There is no evidence that he had any interest in imitating Christ or spreading religion, and there is every reason to believe exactly the opposite.
By contrast, Islamic terrorists quote from the Qur'an and praise Allah as they videotape themselves beheading an "infidel." Serving Islam is clearly their prime motivator. This simply wasn't the case when Germany invaded Poland (or even when Iraq invaded Kuwait).
Don't be fooled by the sleight-of-hand, or seduced by the moral superiority held out as a reward. The historical record is clear, and the logic is sound. Christianity neither motivated nor sanctioned Adolph Hitler and his demented pagan dreams.
Additional Note:
Over the years, many Christian leaders have offered apologies to the Jewish people for the Holocaust. This is not necessarily a case of misplaced responsibility on their part. Hitler may not have been a product of Christianity, but the Christians of that time obviously did not do everything that they should have to stop him. Even if they didn't know of the gas chambers, there should have been far stronger opposition to his explicit anti-Semitism.
Second Note:
Since posting this article, several people have reminded us that Hitler was known to have bemoaned the fact that Germany was a Christian rather than Muslim nation, since it made it made his genocidal campaign against Jews that much harder.
Third Note:
Interestingly, the Qur'an of Medina (that part of it which was composed in Muhammad's later years) devotes more text toward hatred of the Jews than does Mein Kampf (10.6% to 6.8% according to CSPI).
TROP is not a religious site, but we enjoy dispelling the myths that often come our way.
Additional Readings:
 |
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Ten Good Reasons to Pass the RH bill now
A mother who is breast feeding her child
FROM: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/02/05/ten-good-reasons-to-pass-the-rh-bill-now/
Just a few years ago, say “RH” in ordinary talks and you’ll get blank looks. Now, most Filipinos know that RH is reproductive health. It has entered presidential debates, topped the news, been surveyed to death. Moreover, majority have plainly said their piece: “We support RH.” Why? Loads of reasons—from the practical “We need help” to the proud “It’s my choice!” But 10 good ones should be enough to convince rational people and thoughtful policy-makers. So here are our top picks.
1 RH will: Protect the health & lives of mothers
The WHO (World Health Organization) estimates that complications arise in 15% of pregnancies, bad enough to hospitalize or kill women. From the 2 million plus live births alone, some 300,000 maternal complications occur yearly. This is 7 times the DOH’s annual count for TB, 19 times for heart diseases and 20 times for malaria in women. As a result, more than 11 women die needlessly each day.Enough skilled birth attendants and prompt referral to hospitals with emergency obstetric care are proven curative solutions to maternal complications. For women who wish to stop childbearing, family planning (FP) is the best preventive measure. All these are part of RH.
2 Save babies
Proper birth spacing reduces infant deaths. The WHO says at least 2 years should pass between a birth and the next pregnancy. In our country, the infant mortality rate of those with less than 2 years birth interval is twice those with 3. The more effective and user-friendly the FP method, the greater the chances of the next child to survive.3 Respond to the majority who want smaller families
Times have changed and people want smaller families. When surveyed about their ideal number of children, women in their 40s want slightly more than 3, while those in their teens and early 20s want just slightly more than 2.Moreover, couples end up with families larger than what they planned. On average, Filipino women want close to 2 children but end up with 3. This gap is unequal, but shows up in all social classes and regions. RH education and services will help couples fulfill their hopes for their families.
4 Promote equity for poor families
RH indicators show severe inequities between the rich and poor. For example, 94% of women in the richest quintile have a skilled attendant at birth, while only 26% of the poorest can do so. The richest have 3 times higher tubal ligation rates. This partly explains why the wealthy hardly exceed their planned number of children, while the poorest get an extra 2. Infant deaths among the poorest are almost 3 times that of the richest, which in a way explains why the poor plan for more children. An RH law will help in attaining equity in health through stronger public health services.5 Prevent induced abortions
Unintended pregnancies precede almost all induced abortions. Of all unintended pregnancies, 68% occur in women without any FP method, and 24% happen to those using traditional FP like withdrawal or calendar-abstinence.If all those who want to space or stop childbearing would use modern FP, abortions would fall by some 500,000. In our country where abortion is strictly criminalized, and where 90,000 women are hospitalized yearly for complications, it would be reckless and heartless not to ensure prevention through FP.
6 Support and deploy more public midwives, nurses and doctors
RH health services are needed wherever people are establishing their families. For example, a report by the MDG Task Force points out the need for 1 fulltime midwife to attend to every 100 to 200 annual live births. Other health staff are needed for the millions who need prenatal and postpartum care, infant care and family planning. Investing in these core public health staff will serve the basic needs of many communities.7 Guarantee funding for & equal access to health facilities
RH will need and therefore support many levels of health facilities. These range from health stations that can do basic prenatal, infant and FP care; health centers for safe birthing, more difficult FP services like IUD insertions, and management of sexually transmitted infections; and hospitals for emergency obstetric and newborn care and surgical contraception. Strong RH facilities can be the backbone of a strong and fairly distributed public health facility system.8 Give accurate & positive sexuality education to young people
Currently, most young people enter relationships and even married life without the benefit of systematic inputs by any of our social institutions. We insist on young voters’ education for events that occur once every few years, but do nothing guiding the young in new relationships they face daily. The RH bill mandates the education and health departments to fill this serious gap.9 Reduce cancer deaths
Delaying sex, avoiding multiple partners or using condoms prevent HPV infections that cause cervical cancers. Self breast exams and Pap smears can detect early signs of cancers which can be cured if treated early. All these are part of RH education and care. Contraceptives do not heighten cancer risks; combined pills actually reduce the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers.10 Save money that can be used for even more social spending
Ensuring modern FP for all who need it would increase spending from P1.9 B to P4.0 B, but the medical costs for unintended pregnancies would fall from P3.5 B to P0.6 B, resulting in a net savings of P0.8 B. There is evidence that families with fewer children do spend more for health and education.You may want to copy this (or expand the list) and send to family, friends and acquaintances until it reaches our legislators. We need the support of everyone we can reach and convince.
Islam: Verses of Violence Part 2
Additional Notes:
Other than the fact that Muslims haven't killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is in dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the constant threat of terror if Muslim demands are not met.
The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam's most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier "Meccan" verses that are obviously abrogated by later ones. This is why Muslim apologists speak of the "risks" of trying to interpret the Quran without their "assistance" - even while claiming that it is a perfect book.
Far from being mere history or theological construct, the violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in actual massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni's bloody conquest, including the massacre of those who defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today's Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.
So ingrained is violence in the religion that Islam has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.
Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking what was once the property of others for his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and killed those whom he could take prisoner. He inspired his followers to battle even when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle.
It is important to emphasize that Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and it was the companions of Muhammad who made the most dramatic military gains in the decades following his death. The principle set in motion early on was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves. Although modern Muslim apologists often claim that Islam only attacked in self-defense, this is not only an oxymoron, but it is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Muslim historians and others going back to the time of Muhammad.
Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely wiped out only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army, sent to take revenge for Muhammad's deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists call same day "marriage").
Muhammad's failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or 'Apostasy wars'). Then within the closer community, early Meccan converts battled later ones. Hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad's own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter - a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats to this day.
The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, women's rights, sexuality, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be absolutely devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.
This is what makes the verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in the Quran, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them - outside of opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.
In fact, many Muslims are simply unaware of the Quran's near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. This is because their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for Muslims to come to believe that their religion must be like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance - because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to learn that the evidence of the Quran and the bloody history of Islam are very much in contradiction to this.
Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the "culture", claiming that the father was merely following "the religion" and saying that the couple had to "discipline their daughter or lose respect." (source).
For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking on the altar of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.
There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.
Islam: Verses of Violence Part 1
Question:
Summary Answer:
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most of the verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. This proclivity toward violence - and Muhammad's own martial legacy - has left a trail of blood and tears across world history.
The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to this verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Quran (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." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" From the historical context we know that the "persecution" spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah." According to Ibn Ishaq (324), Muhammad justified the violence further by explaining that "Allah must have no rivals."
Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."
Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.
Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Quran (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." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story, which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source, tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son.
Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.
Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similtudes. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners," Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is in order to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. "But if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."
Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you," This very important verse asserts that the Religion of Peace is not to grant peace to the broader society until Islamic rule has been established.
Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?
Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.
Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."
Quran (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."
Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"
Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'"
Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)