International Judge the Koran Day Update

Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 4p.m., the trial will start, lasting for four hours.  I doubt that is sufficient time, but it is not up to me.  Since Chowderhead backed out, Sheikh Imam Mohamed El Hassan has been recruited to defend the Koran.

    The prosecution team is loaded with apostates. Ahmed Abaza, the prosecutor, is a convert to Christianity. Mr. Ahmed Paul is an expert witness, another apostate.  Sheikh Abdulla Al Sabah, another expert witness, also knows Islam from the inside, being an apostate.

    According to the press release, the poll is running 69% in favor of immolation.  That should make for some fun, because Dr. Jones previously promised that he would not burn the Koran.  How will he resolve that conflict?  Is he secretly hoping for an acquittal? 

    One of the charges could be difficult to prove: the Koran is accused of inciting murder, rape and terrorist activities. The Koran commands Muslims to engage in perpetual warfare but I am not convinced that meets the legal definition of murder.  It does sanction sexual exploitation of slaves and commands terrorism.  If you doubt this, visit http://www.quranbrowser.com/ and search for right hands possess; you will find plenty of evidence of rape.  A search for strike terror will bring up direct evidence of the last charge. 

    The event appears to be drawing little attention from the print media, with only two articles showing up this week in a Google search, but it fares far better in the blogs. I know that there is some government interest because my blog posts about it have been read by the local police and the Department of Homeland Security.  Even a local television station read my most recent previous update post.  There is also some international interest: the OIC Islamophobia Report for February mentioned International Judge the Koran day.

    For those of us who can not travel to Gainsville, Florida for the event, it will be broadcast live on the internet at www.truthsat.tv. 

Sphere: Related Content

International Judge the Koran Day

Today's email brought a press release from Stand Up America, announcing an upcoming event: International Judge the Koran Day.  The new Facebook group has grown from 60 to 72 supporters in the last few hours. 

    It appears that the planned event is inchohate at present. Rev. Terry Jones posted this video in which he asks for our advice about what to do with the Koran.

    Exactly what he will do March 20, 2011 from 6 to 8 pm is unknown, but I am sure that, whatever it is, it will arouse the ire of Muslims and draw protest from politicians and pundits.

    I suggest that Rev. Jones open the Koran and read the parts which curse and declare war against Jews & Christians. The parts that mandate genocide should be read along with them. 

    Furthermore, those Korans collected for the  canceled bonfire  should be distributed to churches, read from the pulpet and preserved in the church's library so that the congregation can read it.

    A moot trial of Moe could well be scheduled for his birthday which falls about February 4, 2012.  That  timing would allow plenty of time for planning and preparation. 

    Islam considers the Arabic Koran to be authentic, translations are deprecated. Translations lack the Arabic poetry; the magic is in the sound, which is why Muslim students learn it in Arabic even if they do not understand that language.

    Muslims will contend that translations do not accurately convey the meaning of the Koran. That claim fades when applied to tafsir & hadith. The hadith tell us what Moe did, which is the best possible indication of what the Koran meant to him. Informed readers can visit the Quranic Arabic Corpus to see what the Arabic words mean.  We can also visit sites such as Islam Awakened to read and compare multiple parallel translations.

    Islamic law is based primarily on the Koran & hadith. It shows us what the jihad verses mean with great clarity.
. 
    When Caliph Umar conquered the Levant, he made the indigenous people sign a treaty of protection, now known as the Pact of Umar. One of its provisions was "We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.".   This little gem comes from an early attempt to codify Islamic law.

Malik's Muwatta Book 21, Number 21.2.7:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade travelling with a Qur'an in the land of the enemy. Malik commented, "That is out of fear that the enemy will get hold of it."

    Why would Moe fear the enemy gaining possession of  Allah's book?  Why would Umar forbid teaching it to dhimmi's children?  Could it be that it contains incriminating evidence?  

Sphere: Related Content

Koran Toilet Paper

Muslim Facebook Boycott Protests 'koran toilet paper' was uttered and published 10/19/'09 in response to a threatened Muslim boycott of Facebook. The Muslims were demanding the deletion of a Facebook group "Koran Toilet Paper Roll".   Posted at Freedom Ain't Free, it has received  532 page views, 9 of them on September 8.  

    I do not know how many page views it has received  on my VOX blog, but recently it has been the most popular post.   That post comes up #9 in the Google SERP.   That post drew 17 of 70 page views to 10 p.m. today.

    Just in case readers are looking for the literal product, I did a search for novelty tp.

• Just Toilet Paper does not offer Koran tp. They do offer  custom printing.

That search was a bust.  A German man tried to market Qur'an tp four years ago and got arrested, which may have put a damper on the market.

    KTPR was taken down by Facebook, briefly restored, and disappeared.  It has been replaced by two smaller groups  which are less active as well as less popular.

• We who use The Qur'an as toiletpaper
• I bet this 'Toilet Paper' can Get more fans than 'Quran'.

    The group demanding KTPR's deletion is still going, but not extremely active.

• Facebook must delete the group "koran toilet paper roll"

    It is fun to joke about using the Qur'an for peri-anal  hygiene but, the practice can have consequences.  Some inks can be irritating and  coated paper can cause paper cuts, which can become infected, resulting in painful boils.  I suggest using the  less expensive paper back editions that ain't printed on  thin coated paper.

    With the preliminaries out of the way, its time to get down to the serious stuff.   The issue is not covered in the Qur'an, so we turn to the hadith.  The fun starts in Sahih Bukhari 1.4.157  with a narration in which the Profit asks his companion to bring him three stones,  but not bone or dung.
   

    Sunan Abu Dawud 1.7   makes the prohibition explicit.

Book 1, Number 0007:
Narrated Salman al-Farsi:

It was said to Salman: Your Prophet teaches you everything, even about excrement. He replied: Yes. He has forbidden us to face the qiblah at the time of easing or urinating, and cleansing with right hand, and cleansing with less than three stones, or cleansing with dung or bone.

Why should Muslims be prohibited from wiping their butts with dried camel dung or old bones?  Why would anyone consider using a piece of crap for that purpose?  But that's beside the point.  Moe has an answer for you.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 1, Number 0039:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud:

A deputation of the jinn came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: O Muhammad, forbid your community to cleans themselves with a bone or dung or charcoal, for in them Allah has provided sustenance for us. So the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) forbade them to do so.    

    You thought jinn were mythical, didn't you?  But Moe met with a delegation of jinn who told him that Allah provided bones and dried dung for them to eat. If they eat dried dung, whats the problem?   They could just wait for the crap on the soiled items to dry.

    The Prophet said to use three clean stones.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 1, Number 0041:
Narrated Khuzaymah ibn Thabit:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was asked about cleansing (after relieving oneself). He said: (One should cleanse oneself) with three stones which should be free from dung.

    But there's more; stones ain't enough, you  should use water, too.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 1, Number 0044:
Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The following verse was revealed in connection with the people of Quba': "In it are men who love to be purified" (ix.108). He (AbuHurayrah) said: They used to cleanse themselves with water after easing. So the verse was revealed in connection with them.

    Ain't those great suggestions?  But they are more than suggestions, they are law.  Book e of Reliance of the Traveller  contains the rules of ritual purity.   This is not suitable for children or overly sensitive adults.

 e9.0: Going to Lavatory  [Emphasis added to interesting parts.]

e9.1: Recommended Measures

It is recommended when one intends to use the lavatory:

-1- to put something on one's feet, unless there is an excuse (O:such as not having shoes);

-2- to cover the head (O:even if only with a handkerchief or other);

-3- to set aside anything on which there is the mention of Allah Most High. His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), or any revered name (O:like those of prophets or angels).  If one enters with a ring (O:on which something worthy of respect is written), one closes one's hand around it;

-4- to ready stones (N: or other suitable material (def:e9.5) ) (O:if one uses them) to clean oneself of filth (N:though water alone is sufficient);

-5- to say before entering:

"In the name of Allah. O Allah, I take refuge in You from demons, male and female,"

and after leaving,

"[O Lord,] Your forgiveness: Praise be to Allah who rid me of the hurt and gave me health";

-6- to enter with the left foot first and depart with the right foot first (and this, together with (3) and

-5- above, are not only for indoors, but recommended outdoors as well);

-7- not to raise one's garment until one squats down to the ground (O: to keep one's nakedness covered as much as possible) and to lower it before one stand up;

-8- to put most of one's weight on the left foot while squatting;

-9- not to spend a long time;

-10- not to speak; 

-11- when finished urinating, for men to squeeze the penis with the left hand from base to head (O: recommended because this is where the urethra is, and for women to squeeze their front between thumb and forefinger) (N: so urine does not exit later and nullify one's ablution) pulling lightly three times (O: this being recommended when one thinks the urine has stopped, though if one thinks it has not, this is obligatory);

-12- not to urinate while standing (O: which is offensive) unless there is an excuse (N: such as when standing is less likely to spatter urine on one's clothes than sitting, or when sitting is a hardship);

-13- not to clean oneself with water in the same place one relieved oneself, if it might spatter, though if in a lavatory one need not move to a different place;

-14- to distance oneself from others if outdoors and to screen oneself;

-15- not to urinate into holes, on hard places, where there is wind, in waterways, where people gather to talk, on paths, under fruit trees, near graves, in still water, or in less than 216 liters of running water;

-16- and not to relieve oneself with one's front or rear facing the sun, moon, or the Sacred Precinct in Jerusalem.

e9.2: Prohibitions

It is unlawful to urinate on anything edible, bones, anything deserving respect, a grave or in a mosque, even if into a receptacle.

e9.3

It is unlawful to urinate or defecate with one's front or rear towards the direction of prayer when outdoors and there is no barrier to screen one, though this is permissible when one is indoors within a meter and a half of a barrier at least 32 cm. high, or in a hole that deep. When one is not this close to such a barrier at least 32 cm. high, or in a hole that deep. When one is not this close to such a barrier, it is not permissible except in a lavatory, where, if the walls are farther from one than the maximal distance or are shorter than the minimal height, relieving oneself with front or rear towards the direction of prayer is permissible, though offensive.  

e9.4: The Obligation of Cleaning Oneself of Filth

It is obligatory to clean oneself of every impure substance coming from one's front or rear, though not from gas, dry worms or stones, or excrement without moisture.

e9.5: Use of dry substances or water

Stones suffice to clean oneself, though it is best to follow this by washing with water. Anything can take the place of stones that is a solid, pure, removes the filth, is not something that deserves respect or is worthy of veneration, nor something that is edible (O: these being five conditions for the validity of using stones (N: or something else) to clean oneself of filth without having to follow it by washing with water).

But it is obligatory to wash oneself with water if:

-1- one has washed away the filth with a liquid other than water, or with something impure;

-2- one has become soiled with filth from a separate source;

-3- one's waste has moved from where it exited (n: reaching another part of one's person) or has dried;

-4- or if feces spread beyond the inner buttocks (N: meaning that which is enfolded when standing), or urine moved beyond the head of the penis, though if they do not pass beyond them, stones suffice.

e9.5: How to clean oneself

It is obligatory (N: when cleaning oneself with a dry substance alone) to both remove the filth, and to wipe three times, even when once is enough to clean it, doing this either with three pieces (lit. "stones") or three sides of one piece. If three times does not remove it, it is obligatory to (N: repeat it enough to) clean it away (O: as that is the point of cleaning oneself. Nawawi says in al-Majmu' that cleaning oneself (N: with a dry substance) means to remove the filth so that nothing remains but a trace that could not be removed unless one were to use water) (N: and when this has been done, any remaining effects of filth that could have been done, any remaining effects of filth that could have only been removed with water are excusable).  An odd number of strokes is recommended. One should wipe from front to back on the right side with the first piece, similarly wipe the left with the second, and wipe both sides and the anus with the third. Each stroke must begin at a point on the skin that is free of impurity.

It is offensive to use the right hand to the oneself of filth.

e9.6: Cleaning before or after ablution

It is best to clean oneself of filth before ablution, though if one waits until after it to clean, the ablution is nevertheless valid(N: provided that while cleaning, the inside surface of the hand (def: e7.4 does not touch the front or rear private parts).

If one waits until after one's dry ablution (tayammum, def:e12) to clean away filth, the dry ablution is not valid (A: because lack of filth is a condition for it).

    E9.1-3 instructs Muslims not to carry the Qur'an into the lavatory. E9.5 is explicit: you must not use any object that deserves respect or veneration.  Since they do not consider translations to be sacred,  for maximum  offense (if that is the intention) you should desecrate an Arabic Qur'an.  The problem with toilet paper is that it could  be made from recycled Qur'ans.

    The right hand prohibition has a cultural connection. Seventh century Arabs did not use eating utensils, they  grabbed food out of common pots with their right hands. Amputating the right hand of a thief forces him to use his left hand for everything, which could introduces feces into the common pot.   Perhaps that is why Risala (Maliki Fiqh) gives this instruction.

4.1e The place is rubbed with the hand while the water is being poured until it is cleaned of noxiousness. It is enough that he thinks it probable if he is able to do that. If he is not able to do it because his hand is cut off or short, he delegates someone who is able to touch that place, be it wife or slavegirl.

Sphere: Related Content

They're Trying to Shoot down the Dove

I received an email, reproduced below, from the Dove World Outreach Center, which originated the International Burn a Koran Day.  Pastor Jones reports that their bank  has called their mortgage and their insurance company has canceled their policy.

     While Pastor Jones did not state a cause for those actions, I  assume that the bank and insurer came under pressure from CAIR.  I hope that Landmark Legal or some other firm will take the case on and litigate pro bono  and seek  immediate discovery.  Nobody should be punished, by public or private agency, for telling the truth.

    I would prefer to see the Koran read not  burned.  It is only by reading Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence that we discover how evil  Islam is.  Burning the Koran is a symbolic act which draws attention to its contents.  I hope that the call to burn the Koran will encourage you to read it.

     What does the Koran contain that makes Christians hate it?  It defames Jesus Christ, denying his paternity, divinity, crucifixion & resurrection. It curses Christians and it declares perpetual war against them. 

    That does not  bother you because you are an atheist?   Does the subjugation of women as chattel property bother you? Does  divine approval of wife beating bother you?

    But you are a male, so that's no problem; how about the prohibition of drinking & gambling, does that bother you?  My principal objection to Islam is its inculcation of hatred and incitement of violence.  After the accursed abomination 9/11, that should be sufficient for any rational person.

    I am not in a financial position to aid the mission of Pastor Jones and his congregation.  If you are, I hope that you will consider that worthy cause.  All I can do is contribute a little publicity, and I am doing that right now.

International Burn a Koran Day 9/11/2010

DOVE WORLD OUTREACH CENTER needs your support!

City of Gainesville denies burn permit - BUT WE WILL STILL BURN KORANS   

RBC Bank calls in mortgage - BUT WE WILL STILL BURN KORANS 

Cottons All-Lines cancels insurance - BUT WE WILL STILL BURN KORANS  

We will proceed with the Koran Burning Event, Saturday 9/11, 6-9pm, as planned. 

RBC Bank called in our mortgage with a limited time to pay it off. Now Cottons All-lines Insurance has also cancelled our commercial insurance on our property putting our mortgage in immediate default. We need to raise the $140,000 to pay off the RBC loan immediately.

We need your help!  Please send as generous a donation as possible.

 

Make checks payable to Dove World Outreach Center, 5805 NW 37th Street, Gainesville, FL 32653

or use our Paypal donation link on the main page of our    http://www.doveworld.org/    website here..

 

Thank you for your prayers and support. 

Call or send us an email at info@doveworld.org with your thoughts and questions. Stay in touch!

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Terry Jones - Senior Pastor

Dove World Outreach Center

5805 NW 37th St

Gainesville, FL 32653 

http://www.doveworld.org/

http://islamisofthedevil.com

Sphere: Related Content

Geert Wilders Trial: Deceptive Commentary

One of my Google Alerts led me to a post at Islam In Europe which disclosed the existence of an open letter from a group of Islam experts to the court In Amsterdam which is persecuting Geert Wilders.

a letter to the court



De Volkskrant, the Dutch newspaper used by the prosecutors to document what Geert Wilders allegedly said in violation of Dutch hate speech law, published a letter from a group of six Islam experts. It appears that this is the first of four "fact sheets" they intend to issue on the subject.

Unfortunately, the experts have engaged in the Islamic art of al-taqeyya & kitman. This blog post exposes their lies.

Deen Research Center posted the original Dutch letter and an English translation on their blog . Their translation is easier to read than the Google translation.

• Dr. Fred Leemhuis, Arabist, professor emeritus University of Groningen, vertaler De Koran, Unieboek 2007 The Koran translator, Union Book 2007
• Published Dutch translation of the Qur'an in 1989. http://www.rug.nl/corporate/nieuws/opinie/2008/opinie20_08?lang=en
  
• Dr. Jan Michiel Otto, Recht en bestuur 3e wereld, Sharia, Directeur van Vollenhove Instituut, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit Leiden
• Dr. Gerard Wiegers, hoogleraar Religiestudies aan de Faculteit der -Professor Gerard Wiegers, Professor of Religious Studies at the Faculty of Geesteswetenschappen van de Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) Humanities of the University of Amsterdam (UvA)
• Dr. Pieter Sjoerd van Koningsveld, emeritus hoogleraar islamologie Univ.Leiden Pieter Sjoerd van Koningsveld, emeritus professor of Islamic studies Univ.Leiden
• Dr. Ruud Peters, Arabische Taal en Cultuur, Sharia expert, UVA -Professor Dr. Mr. Ruud Peters, Arabic Language and Culture, Sharia expert, UVA
• Dr. Marlies ter Borg, auteur Koran en Bijbel in Verhalen, Unieboek 2007, redacteur Marlies ter Borg, author Koran and Bible Stories, Book Union in 2007, editor

Islam is a violent religion.

Rebuttal:

Mr Wilders refers, in support of its truths, often to the Koran. Please bring our professional knowledge of the Koran, to review his statements and method of quoting. We rely on taking the authoritative view of Professor F. Leemhuis, (Union Book 2007, www.bijbelenkoran.nl).

• Wilders said: "Islam means submission and conversion of non-Muslims." "A religion that seeks to eliminate others." Dv 14
• But in the Qur'an: "No compulsion in religion." K. 2:256

The experts like Pickthall's translation, so I will quote it, with a link to a table of ten parallel translations.

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

To discover the circumstances behind the revelation of this ayeh, read Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: No Compulsion in Religion. Some of the Ansar had sworn to raise their children as Jews. When those Ansar converted, Muhammad did not force them to convert their children. Despite this specificity, Ibn Kathir says that the ayeh has general applicability. Another ayeh bears directly on this issue.

10:99. And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?
10:100. It is not for any soul to believe save by the permission of Allah. He hath set uncleanness upon those who have no sense.

Unfortunately for the experts, other ayat contradict those three cited above. At first glance, Surah Al-Imran 110 appears to be irrelevant. But there is a hadith which clearly explains the meaning of the clause I have highlighted.

3:110. Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

The wording varies slightly because Khan prefers his own translation of the Koran. It is obvious that bringing disbelievers to Islam in chains is not congruent with "no compulsion". It is also obvious that hadith which contradict the Koran can not be authentic. How then do you explain its inclusion in the most authentic of the six canonical collections? Is there something more? Of course there is.

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.

This ayeh answers two questions:

1. Is Islam violent?
2. Is Islam compulsive?

The verb is clear and obvious: fight. Al-Anfal 39 is in the form of a fight until loop, with a compound terminal condition.

• persecution is no more
• religion is all for Allah.

Persecution is a reference to the Meccan habit of hassling Muslims, who were viewed as a threat to their livelihood. The second part of the compound terminal condition is absolutely clear: only Allah is worshiped. Click through to the parallel translations and observe the wording of the other translations. The obvious meaning is confirmed by confirmed by Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr.

One hadith confirms the meaning of this ayeh with extreme clarity. I have added emphasis to make the critical sentence stand out.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

Besides several variants of that hadith, there are two others which remove all doubt. I will quote excerpts, linking them to the hadith at USC-MSA for those who wish to read the context.

...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...

...Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." ...

Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Islamic law, provides the ultimate confirmation. The clause I emphasized says it all.

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

The six eminent professors claimed to refute Wilders with a single ayeh. Is it possible that those scholars with doctoral degrees in the field are unaware of the conflicting ayat, hadith and Shari'ah, or were they practicing the art of kitman, lying by obfuscation?

• Wilders says: "And the Qur'an is the Mein Kampf of a religion that seeks to eliminate others ..."
• Mein Kampf (My struggle) calls for no more war. The Koran is sometimes called for violence, in other cases to peace and reconciliation, for example:
• "You will not shed each other's blood." K.2: 84-
• "God calls for the house of peace." K.10: 25
• "Does God not an obstacle ... to ... peace among the people. "K.2: 224
• "Think of God's mercy to you when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and by His grace you became brethren;" K.3: 103

It seems that Hitler was intent on imposing his racist system by force, invading much of Europe. History shows us that Muhammad and his rightly guided caliphs acted the same way in Arabia, Africa, Asia & Eastern Europe.

Take a good close look at the expert's citation to 2:84. What does it mean? Perhaps we should examine the full ayeh.

2:84. And when We made with you a covenant (saying): Shed not the blood of your people nor turn (a party of) your people out of your dwellings. Then ye ratified (Our covenant) and ye were witnesses (thereto).

This ayeh is about infighting among the nation, it is not about attacking other nations. Lets give the next citation the same treatment.

10:25. And Allah summoneth to the abode of peace, and leadeth whom He will to a straight path.

This ayeh is explained in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: Invitation to the Everlasting Gifts that do not vanish.

...(And Allah calls to the Abode of Peace) When Allah mentioned the swiftness of this world and its termination, He invited people to Paradise and encouraged them to seek it. He called it the Abode of Peace....

See how passive Islam is? Allah invites people to Paradise, the house of peace. Do the experts understand what a Muslim must do to gain admission to Paradise? He must fight in Allah's cause, participating in Jihad, killing and being killed to gain one of the best seats. See At-Taubah 111 & As-Saff 10-13 for the gritty details. Would they try to fool us again? Examine their next citation to find out.

2:224. And make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to your being righteous and observing your duty unto Him and making peace among mankind. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

Ordinarily, I would quote the context to show you the egregious nature of the expert's deception, in this case I will not, because of the sexually explicit nature of the ayeh which proceeds 224. Instead, I will provide a link to three parallel translations hosted by USC-MSA, which you can easily scroll to view the context without clicking extra links. 2:223. Once again, Ibn Kathir's Tafsir gives us a vital clue to the meaning of the ayeh in question: The Prohibition of swearing to abandon a Good Deed.

...Allah commands, `You should not implement your vows in Allah's Name to refrain from pious acts and severing the relations with the relatives, if you swear to abandon such causes.'... (And make not Allah's (Name) an excuse in your oaths) means, "Do not vow to refrain from doing good works. (If you make such vow then) break it, pay the Kaffarah and do the good work.''...

Click the link to the tafsir, click the previous button, scroll to the bottom of the page and read the ayeh which is explained on the page I linked to. If you did not read the full context earlier, click the next button in the tafsir, scroll down to the bottom and read 2:226. It will then become clear to you that the experts misquoted an ayeh out of context for the purpose of deceiving the court by perverting the meaning of the verse. Lets check the next citation.

3:103. And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate. And remember Allah's favour unto you: How ye were enemies and He made friendship between your hearts so that ye became as brothers by His grace; and (how) ye were upon the brink of an abyss of fire, and He did save you from it. Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations unto you, that haply ye may be guided,

To discover the context, begin at 3:98 and keep reading through 3:198. Ibn Kathir explains this ayeh in his tafsir: The Necessity of Holding to the Path of Allah and the Community of the Believers. I have removed the Arabic script and emphasized the key part of this excerpt.

(And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves.) It was said that, (to the Rope of Allah) refers to Allah's covenant, just as Allah said in the following Ayah, (Indignity is put over them wherever they may be, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allah, and from men;) ﴿3:112﴾, in reference to pledges and peace treaties. ... (and remember Allah's favor on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His grace, you became brethren) ﴿3:103 ﴾.This was revealed about the Aws and Khazraj. During the time of Jahiliyyah, the Aws and Khazraj were at war and had great hatred, enmity and ill feelings towards each other, causing long conflicts and battles to occur between them. When Allah brought Islam, those among them who embraced it became brothers who loved each other by Allah's grace, having good ties for Allah's sake and helping each other in righteousness and piety.

This ayeh is about Muslims being united in warfare against disbelievers, not about making peace with disbelievers. Another ayeh, which Muslims will not quote to us, exposes the reality of Islam's attitude toward peace.

47:35.So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions.

The meaning should be obvious to you. If it is not, refer to Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: Nullifying the Disbelievers' Deeds and the Command to chase Them.

(So do not lose heart and beg for peace while you are superior.) meaning, in the condition of your superiority over your enemy. If, on the other hand, the disbelievers are considered more powerful and numerous than the Muslims, then the Imam (general commander) may decide to hold a treaty if he judges that it entails a benefit for the Muslims. This is like what Allah's Messenger did when the disbelievers obstructed him from entering Makkah and offered him treaty in which all fighting would stop between them for ten years. Consequently, he agreed to that.

Fitna

The experts advance to charges related to the short documentary created and published by Geert Wilders.

• In the film Fitna quotes below were presented, together with "images of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York (11/9/2001), and the attacks by Muslim extremists in Madrid and London, accompanied by images of victims." DV7

• Wilders cites a half sentence from Surah 47 verse 4
  "If you have an encounter with those who disbelieve than hew the necks of them and when ye have caused a bloodbath bind them in chains." (Translation unknown, Theo van Gogh in focus)

• Wilders suggests that this called for a Muslim in peacetime 'infidels' to kill. This suggestion is reinforced by the images of bombings of civilians in peacetime. With this half quoting of the Quran verse, he in trouble: the enemy is apparently slain first and then be bound in irons. Why corpses seem to be put in chains is not clear.
  
  The same verse, is now complete:
  
  "And when you have those who disbelieve [in battle] meet, turn them dead, but if you then prevail over them have obtained fascinates them firmly,
  later as a favor to them or release them or to buy them separately, when the burden of the war are made. "Sura 47 verse 4 Leemhuis:
  
  The full quote shows:

• that this is a war is to kill enemy troops on the battlefield, and not to attack civilians in peacetime,
• according to the Koran quote must stop killing one soldier when once more prevails. There is no elimination of the enemy.
• the enemy from that moment must be captured to him after the war to be released.

This is in line with modern international law on war prisoner of war.

Lets take a close look at the cited ayeh.

47:4. Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Did the experts quote the full verse? Is the translation accurate? Several translators use different expressions:

• when you have killed and wounded many of them
• made wide slaughter among them
• until ye have massacred them
• till ye have made a great slaughter among them
• until ye have made a great slaughter among them

http://www.openburhan.net/ displays a break down of the Arabic text: اثخنتموهم - you (p) exceeded in killing them/you weakened them; the dictionary they link to defines the Arabic word as subdued. Note the phrase I highlighted; how does it compare to the variant expressions in the other translations?

Ibn Kathir has something important to tell us about this ayeh. The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom

...It appears that this Ayah was revealed after the battle of Badr. At that time, Allah reproached the believers for sparing many of the enemy's soldiers, and holding too many captives in order to take ransom from them.... (It is not for a Prophet to have captives of war until he had made a great slaughter (among the enemies) in the land. You desire the commodities of this world, but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. Allah is Mighty and Wise. Were it not for a prior decree from Allah, a severe torment would have touched you for what you took.) (8:67-68)...

The experts have played fast and loose with the facts. They cited page 7 of the indictment as linking the images of the devastation in London, Madrid & New York to 47:4. The Koran references on that page, associated with those images, are: 8:60 and 4:56, associated with the next frame.

47:4 is not displayed until three frames later. The learned expert professors took the Koran out of context, but were not satisfied with that trick, they also took the indictment out of context!

8:60, which is associated with the images of devastation, commands Muslims to accrue weapons and war horses to strike terror into the hearts of enemies, both known and unknown. 8:57, not cited in the documentary, commands Muslims to punish their victims severely to serve as an example for others they wish to threaten.

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.

• Wilders Sura 8 verse 60: "Make preparations against them with what you can to force people to take this horse and to terrorize, terrorize Allah's enemy and your enemy." Dv7
• Surah 8: 60-61 Pickthall: "And to make them as good as you can and deployable armaments horses ready for God's enemy and your enemy so intimidating and apart from those others that you do not know, but God knows . And what you also helping to give God's way, you will be reimbursed and you will not be wronged. And if they are inclined to peace, make this tendency and also put your trust in God; "
• The translation of Wilders appears without a source, wherein 'terrorize' ie "the systematic instill terror by violence, by terrifying violence and control." Leemhuis translates 'instill fear' "This is equal to scare away someone: a proven military strategy by means of war drums, production of weapons-without actually use - to persuade the enemy to refrain from violence. The deterrence strategy shown to prevent weapons of war. Compare the NATO strategy against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The slogan of the NATO armed to the teeth at the time was "Peace is our Profession". It worked.

Lets compare translations.

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, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.[Pickthall]

• to strike terror into . [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
• frighten thereby the enemy [Shakir]
• terrify thereby [Arberry]
• strike terror into [Rodwell]
• strike a terror into [Sale]

Lets see what Muhammad had to say about terrorism.

1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),

What is the practical application of this tactic?

33:26. And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.

• "Destroy the infidels and polytheists, your (Allah's) enemies and the enemies of the religion. Allah, count them and kill them until the very end. And let no one about. "Dv 7
  
  This sentence, with no source, is contrary to the Koran above quotes in their entirety in that direction, rather than a controlled 'total war' pages, and contrary to the Koran quote "no compulsion in religion. 2:256

But it is not contrary to 8:39 & 9:29 nor is it contrary to the infamous genocide hadith. The quote is from a video of an Imam rousing the rabble to Jihad.

• The comparisons between the texts as presented by Mr Wilders and the existing scientific knowledge of the contents of the Koran, we conclude first that the conclusion of Mr Wilders is not based on facts, but only on improperly constructed "facts".

Scientific knowledge? Being Muslim makes them scientists, no reference to tafsir, hadith or jurisprudence is required, just scientific expertise.

• Second, a more general question arises about the statement of Mr Wilders that Islam is a violent religion. Could it actually be true that a religion is violent?

So Islam is peaceful, not violent? How then do you explain the title of the 8:^th surah: "The Spoils" ? Why does the "religion of peace" need rules for allocation and division of spoils of war? Why does it need terms such as fei & ganimah to describe spoils of war? Why did Allah give Muhammad special dispensation to accrue spoils? Why did Allah say "Ye desire the lure of this world" to Muhammad in 8:67? Why did Allah promise "abundant spoils that you will capture". Why does Shari'ah say :"the caliph makes war on Jews and Christians" and "the caliph fights all other peoples"?

• Religion is a set of values, norms, and writings. Religion is preached and adhered to by people. Violence is an action committed by people and groups of people, not a religion. Religion itself is not violent or peaceful.

How do you explain the existence of Surah Al-Anfal & At-Taubah, which are entirely dedicated and devoted to warmongering? How do you explain the existence of books of jihad or expedition in four of the six canonical hadith collections? How do you explain the communal obligation to attack disbelievers at least once in every year? Doubt this? Click the link above to Reliance of the Traveller, Search for Book O, Search for Chapter 9 and start reading.

• Claiming a religion as violent is a suggestive way to accuse a group of people, some believers, as being violent.

How did Hindu Kush get its name? What does it mean? Why are Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Iran and Egypt Islamic? Was violence involved?

• Scientific research indicates that in the Quran, as in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible, both incitements to violence and peace are to be found. This can be verified by anyone.

Show me the New Testament book, chapter and verse in which Jesus Christ issues open ended, outcome oriented commands to engage in conquest without geographic or temporal limits; the equivalent of 8:39 & 9:29. The ancient Hebraic conquest/genocide imperatives were limited to particular places and people, once they were completed, they expired. Islamic jihad continues from 610 to Judgment Day.

The lesson learned: Islam is not more violent than Christianity.

• Christianization and Islamization have been globally accepted voluntary and partly by force, if .., because fair to say that much about that history is not known.
• It is known that many more victims died in internal conflicts among Christians, than the relatively few wars between Christians and Muslims. Conflicts such as the Thirty Years War or the war between Turkey and Persia dragged on longer and cost more casualties than the war against the Turks eg culminating in the Battle of Vienna.
• The time when it was generally accepted that one faith is spread by the sword has passed. This applies to both Islam and Christianity. Extremists are an exception to the general consensus.

Christianity was co-opted by the Roman Empire. Unlike Islam, it has no intrinsic war imperative. Islam has a 1400 year record of rapine, accruing an estimated total of 270*10⁶ victims.

Those are not extremists, they are salafists, emulators of Muhammad. Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and his Messenger. "Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow" . What did he do?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 285:

Narrated Abu Ishaq:

Once, while I was sitting beside Zaid bin Al-Arqam, he was asked, "How many Ghazwat did the Prophet undertake?" Zaid replied, "Nineteen." They said, "In how many Ghazwat did you join him?" He replied, "Seventeen." I asked, "Which of these was the first?" He replied, "Al-'Ashira or Al-'Ashiru."

Terrorism

• Terrorists are not representative of Islam
  
  Radical Islamists committing attacks and now regularly seek to acquire state power in Muslim-majority countries. The latter, however, they very rarely succeed, what makes them resentful, and leads to new attacks. Most of the terrorist attacks by Islamists, have Muslim victims. Logically, the vast majority of Muslims disapproves of this violence.

Islam is not logical, it is a way of life imposed on people by force. 3:151 & 8:12 sanctify and mandate terrorism. 33:26 & 59:2 exemplify it. Islam's founder declared that he was made victorious by terror.

• There are also peaceful sounds within Islamic circles.
  
  Every Muslim knows that the word "Islam" comes from the same root as the word 'salaam' (Hebrew: "Shalom"), in both languages it means 'peace'. With this knowledge, 138 (grown to 307) authoritative Muslims, political and spiritual leaders and intellectuals, have sent in 2007 an open letter to their Christian counterparts.
  
  "The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians. The basis for peace and understanding already exists ... the love of God and neighbor in both religions and preached in both the Bible and the Koran can be found. "

Wikiislam has an etymology chart which makes the matter clear:

Word	Arabic	Meaning
Islam	اسلام	Submission
Salam	سلام	Well-being/Peace

The Ulema's missive "A Common Word between Us and You". is an obvious deception, it is an extortion letter cleverly disguised as an overture of peace. One blog: Go Burn With Muhammad is entirely devoted to pointing out the malignant malarkey in that missive.

---

Arabist Hans Jansen wrote a brief rebuttal, this is a Google translation. .

The letter of retired professors, Wilders on the process, about the peacefulness of Islam, a trifle late to be desired. There are no references to sermons in the mosque, to manuals of Sharia, or Koranic commentaries. Also, the letter was not by Muslim religious leaders meeondertekend. The most important Muslim theologian is Tofiq Dibi agrees. The letter is a dream: if only that Islam is like the letter writers make.

In sermons in the mosque, in the manuals of the sharia and the Koran commentaries calling for the harassment, murder and make war on dissent. It is very easy to control. The Koran itself can very easily be interpreted as an instruction to intimidation, assassination, murder, and war - but when the Amsterdam court says that the true meaning of the Qur'anic text is just very peaceful, then all the problems with Islam course solved in one stroke. It is inconceivable for Muslims the Koran as a license to kill would dare conceive as the Amsterdam court maintains that the Koran is not actually a license to kill is.

Sphere: Related Content

Swiss Minaret Ban: Big Deal

Regular readers of my blog posts know that I waste few opportunities to blast Islam with facts. They must be wondering why I have not written about the Nov. 29 referendum which banned new minarets in Switzerland. There are two primary reasons. First, I am not entirely in agreement with the concept. Second, I wanted to let others write first so that I could take the role of clean up writer.

First and foremost, I am opposed to superficial, symbolic attacks which accomplish nothing beyond the counter productive stimulation of Islamic resentment. Beards, burkas & hijabs are symbolic, but they are not more important to the wearer as they are to us. Their value is more than symbolic, they are warning signs. Like a skunk's stripes and a rattle snake's noisy tail, they serve to alert us to the proximity of danger.

Second, I perceive the vote to be a temporary victory. I have little doubt that the result will be overturned in the courts. The vote serves mainly as a signal of rising public awareness of Islam's true nature and the existential threat it poses to Western Civilization.

My readers know that I will take on anyone, without fear or favor. While other writings have been more deserving of criticism, My choice did a better job of clarifying some of the issues involved. Dr. Sami Alrabaa wrote an exclusive for Family Security Matters: Minarets are Symbols of Bigotry. I will quote some good parts, but you really should click the link and read the entire article because the quotes which follow are taken out of context. .

It is also true that huge lavish mosques funded by petrodollars are being constructed to prove that Islam is omnipresent everywhere and Islam – the best religion on earth! – is increasingly being accepted and practiced all over the world.

The huge mosques & soaring minarets are symbols of Islamic supremacism & domination.

Minaret construction is an exhibition of political power spearheaded by Islamists. These “towers” are simply aggressive symbols of fanatic defying power.

Minaret construction has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It is a symbol of bigotry.

If we allow the erection of minarets without offering resistance, our silent acquiescence is a token of surrender. The Swiss electorate decided not to surrender, but they stopped short of effective resistance. They attacked symbolism, not substance.

But when it comes to referendum, the majority in the Western world would also reject Islam as a stone-age “religion.” I am pretty sure that if the Swiss referendum were held in other European countries, the majority would also vote in favor of banning the construction of minarets. The European public is better informed than their self-appointed defenders of Islam.

I am not yet convinced that a majority are fully aware of the nature of Islam. But the Swiss vote may indicate a trend of increasing awareness. Lapidation may be a stone age execution method, but Moe had weapons made of more advanced materials. 610 was hardly part of the stone age.

It is also true that the Swiss and the rest of the world are not against Muslims practicing their own religion in peace like all followers of other religions.

Islam can not be practiced in peace. Jihad is an intrinsic and inseverable part of Islam. Al-Anfal & At-Taubah are permanent parts of Islamic scripture. If we are not against the practice of Islam, then we are passively surrendering.

If, however, people around the globe, especially in the West, read the Koran and Hadith and realize how this religion incites to hatred and violence against non-Muslims, and discrimination against women, they would classify it as an extremist ideology, as politically incorrect and demand banning it like all extremist organizations. Check out “Is Islam a Violent Faith?” and “Women in Hadith.”

Nevertheless, the world community, including Switzerland, accepts Islam as a “religion” and allows its followers to practice it under the principle of religious freedom.

We accept Islam as a "religion" and allow its practice, but if we read Islam's canon of scripture and tradition we would reject it. Will anyone get a clue from those vital paragraphs?

Before the West accepts Islam as a religion it must demand that Muslim states reform Islam; accept/apply universal human rights and religious freedom in their societies.

Preaching hatred and violence must be banned and their perpetrators must be punished. Additionally, the free civilized world must demand from Muslims and their religious institutions and states: Drop all those atrocious passages from your Koran and Hadith if you want to be part of the civilized world.

So Islam must be reformed; the violent passages must be removed from its canon of scripture & tradition. You forgot one, Dr. Alrabaa : Shari'ah. Islamic law reflects Islamic scripture & tradition. How many of those texts exist in book stores and in libraries all over the world? How many exist in computer hard disks and web pages? How do you hope to edit all of them? Who will edit all the copies of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir and Riyad us-saliheen?

Allah tells us in 5:3 & 11:1 that Islam and its scripture are perfected. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. Allah tells us in 6:115, 10:64 and 30:30 that the Koran and the "religion" of which it is the foundation can not be changed. In Sahih Bukhari 9.78.174 Moe is on record cursing anyone who changes Islam after his death, saying that they will be far removed from mercy. Abu Dawud 23.3455 has Moe saying that if Muslims abandon Jihad in favor of agriculture, "Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion." [Emphasis added.]


Muslims who would reform Islam risk fatwa as apostates. Muslims Against Sharia is a prime example. Their Koran revision leaves As-Saff 10-13 intact. while Surah At-Taubah has been entirely excised. Surahs 8 & 47 lose context & continuity when the violent ayat are removed.

Perhaps you'd prefer to re-interpret the Koran. But the gates of ijtihad have been closed for 900 years. They are not about to spring open. Who knows the interpretation better than the one who revealed it? His Sunna & Sira show us what the Koran means. What does this mean?

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

Moe will tell you what it means!

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have." [Emphasis added.]

Allah's jihad imperatives mean exactly what they say. They can not be edited, and if they were, they would eventually be restored.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4278:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah will raise for this community at the end of every hundred years the one who will renovate its religion for it.

The Swiss initiative is symbolic, with no effect beyond giving visibility to the rising tide of rejection of Islam. Islam is an intolerable predator which can not be reformed. That leaves Western Civilization one alternative: Islam must be prohibited by law. Ban the substance, not its symbols.

Dr. Sami Alrabaa asserts that we would reject Islam and favor banning it if we understood it from reading the Koran & hadith. You can test that hypothesis without slogging through thousands of pages of musty text. The ayat most relevant to Islamic aggression, the tafsir which explain them and the ahadith which confirm them are contained in EgregiousAyat.chm, along with the most important part of Shari'ah which codifies them into law.

The practical application of those texts is found in fiqh: rulings by Islamic jurists. FOMIJihad.chm's Jihad in Fiqh chapter presents a significant sample of relevant rulings. For those who prefer the hard slog method, the Muslim Student Association at USC maintains a data base containing three parallel translations of the Koran and four of the six canonical hadith collections.

For those who need the look, feel, permanence & aroma of printed text:

• The Meaning Of The Holy Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Hardcover - May 2004) Buy new: $24.95 $20.60
• The English Translation of Sahih Al Bukhari With the Arabic Text (9 volume set) by Muhammad Ibn Ismail Bukhari and Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Hardcover - Oct 1996) 2 new from $158.98 2 used from $169.23
• Tafsir Ibn Kathir (10 Volumes; Abridged) by Hafiz Ibn Kathir (Hardcover - Sep 1, 2000) Buy new: $279.50
• Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib and Noah Ha Mim Keller (Hardcover - Jul 1, 1997) Buy new: $29.95 $25.60

Sphere: Related Content