The Koran: Don’t burn it. Read it.
Provocateur pastor Terry Jones is getting his 15 minutes of fame with a “burn-the-Koran” day. The media and politicians are providing him with plenty of attention oxygen. Our America-bashing State Department has dubbed his First Amendment-protected exercise of fame-seeking “un-American.” And the usual grievance-mongers are doing their thing.
Gen. Petraeus says the provocation endangers the troops. But what’s in the Koran is far more of an inflammatory threat to American soldiers than any match with which to light it. What’s in the Koran has inspired decades of bloody warfare by Muslim operatives targeting our troops, civilians, and Western infidels around the world.
Don’t take my word for it. Take the time to re-read Ft. Hood massacre suspect and Muslim avenger Nidal Hasan’s own powerpoint presentation on “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.”
Slide 11:
Slide 12:
Slide 35:
Slide 42:
Slide 43:
Slide 48:
Instead of burning the Koran, Americans need to be reading it, understanding it, and educating themselves about the Koran passages, Islamic history, and jihadi context that brought us to this 9th anniversary year of the 9/11 attacks.
Flashback: It’s In the Koran…
Reminder via Timothy Furnish in the Middle East Quarterly:
Groups such as Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad (Unity and Jihad) and Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Hasan bin Mahmud’s Ansar al-Sunna (Defenders of [Prophetic] Tradition)[10] justify the decapitation of prisoners with Qur’anic scripture. Sura (chapter) 47 contains the ayah (verse): “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly.”[11] The Qur’anic Arabic terms are generally straightforward: kafaru means “those who blaspheme/are irreligious,” although Darb ar-riqab is less clear. Darb can mean “striking or hitting” while ar-riqab translates to “necks, slaves, persons.” With little variation, scholars have translated the verse as, “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.”[12]
For centuries, leading Islamic scholars have interpreted this verse literally. The famous Iranian historian and Qur’an commentator Muhammad b. Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923 C.E.) wrote that “striking at the necks” is simply God’s sanction of ferocious opposition to non-Muslims.[13] Mahmud b. Umar az-Zamakhshari (d. 1143 C.E.), in a major commentary studied for centuries by Sunni religious scholars, suggested that any prescription to “strike at the necks” commands to avoid striking elsewhere so as to confirm death and not simply wound.[14]
Many recent interpretations remain consistent with those of a millennium ago. In his Saudi-distributed translation of the Qur’an, ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali (d. 1953) wrote that the injunction to “smite at their necks,” should be taken both literally and figuratively. “You cannot wage war with kid gloves,” Yusuf ‘Ali argued.[15] Muhammad Muhammad Khatib, in a modern Sunni commentary bearing the imprimatur of Al-Azhar university in Cairo, says that while traditionalist Muslims tend to see this passage as only applying to the Prophet’s time, Shi’ites “think it is a universal precept.”[16] Ironically, then in this view, Zarqawi has adopted the exegesis of his religious nemeses. Perhaps the most influential modern recapitulation of this passage was provided by the influential Pakistani scholar and leading Islamist thinker S. Abul A’ la Mawdudi (d. 1979), who argued that the sura provided the first Qur’anic prescriptions on the laws of war. Mawdudi argued
Under no circumstances should the Muslim lose sight of this aim and start taking the enemy soldiers as captives. Captives should be taken after the enemy has been completely crushed.[17]
Accordingly, for soldiers of Islam, victory should be the only consideration. Status of prisoners of war was open to interpretation. Mawdudi maintained that the verse did not clearly forbid execution of prisoners but that “the Holy Prophet understood this intention of Allah’s command, and that if there was a special reason for which the ruler of an Islamic government regarded it as necessary to kill a particular prisoner (or prisoners), he could do so.”[18] As do many Islamists, Mawdudi cited historical examples of the Prophet Muhammad ordering the execution of prisoners, such as some Meccans captured at the Battle of Badr in 624 C.E. and at least one Meccan seized at the Battle of Uhud in the following year. While such examples do not directly address decapitation, they do allow for murder of prisoners-of-war. Mawdudi’s interpretation, though, does not sanction the execution of hostages. Only the government, and not individual Muslim soldiers, could determine the fate of captives.[19]
Another, albeit less-frequently, cited Qur’anic passage also sanctions beheadings of non-Muslims. Sura 8:12 reads: “I will cast dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads, then, and strike off all of their fingertips.” In the original text, the relevant phrase is adrabu fawq al-’anaq, “strike over their necks.” This verse is, then, a corollary to Sura 47:3. Yusuf ‘Ali is one of the few modern commentators who addresses this passage, interpreting it as utilitarian: the neck is among the only areas not protected by armor, and mutilating an opponent’s hands prevents him from again wielding his sword or spear.[20] The point of this opening phrase—to “cast dread” or, as some translations have it, “instill terror”—has now been adopted by Islamist terrorists to justify decapitation of hostages…
…Islamic civilization is not a historical anomaly in its sanction of decapitation.[36] The Roman Empire beheaded citizens (such as the Christian Saint Paul) while they crucified noncitizens (such as Jesus Christ). French revolutionaries employed the guillotine to decapitate opponents. Nevertheless, Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited by both state and non-state actors to legitimize beheadings. And two major aspects of decapitation in an Islamic context should be noted: first, the practice has both Qur’anic and historical sanction. It is not the product of a fabricated tradition. Second, in contradiction to the assertions of apologists, both Muslim and non-Muslim, these beheadings are not simply a brutal method of drawing attention to the Islamist political agenda and weakening opponents’ will to fight. Zarqawi and other Islamists who practice decapitation believe that God has ordained them to obliterate their enemies in this manner. Islam is, for this determined minority of Muslims, anything but a “religion of peace.” It is, rather, a religion of the sword with the blade forever at the throat of the unbeliever.
Related: The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims
Related: The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America
DrewM at Ace of Spades (h/t commenter J.J.):
Another interesting byproduct of this situation is once again the disconnect between the “Islam equals peace” rhetoric and the reality people see on a daily basis. If Islam is so peaceful and only a “tiny minority’ of Muslims are “violent extremists”, why do we constantly have to be so damn sensitive to pissing them off?
When the whole Piss Christ thing happened Christians were told to suck it up and shut up. I don’t remember anyone worrying about marauding bands of Presbyterians going on a murder spree over it. But when it comes to cartoons or a bunch of loons (a true ‘tiny minority) burning some books, the world has to go on red alert if it involves Islam. Why is that exactly?
***
More: Muslim writer Asra Nomani proposes burning a few, choice deadly passages in the Koran.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Pastor Nadarkhani update: Execution order reportedly issued
February 22, 2012 01:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
Obama: All troops out of Iraq by end of year
October 21, 2011 01:00 PM by Michelle Malkin
191 Comments
Arab Fall, Arab Fail: Coptic Christians slaughtered in Egypt; Plus: Nadarkhani update
October 10, 2011 11:34 AM by Michelle Malkin
46 CommentsPastor Nadarkhani update: Bogus charges, renewed call for action
October 4, 2011 11:18 AM by Michelle Malkin
20 Comments
Second U.S. jihadi reportedly killed in drone attack; Plus: Refresher course on American bloggers vs. Samir Khan
September 30, 2011 11:24 AM by Michelle Malkin
92 Comments
Pastor Nadarkhani update: State Department, Boehner weigh in
September 30, 2011 10:46 AM by Michelle Malkin
36 Comments
Dead again? New reports of jihadi cleric Awlaki’s demise; God bless our military
September 30, 2011 10:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
75 Comments
Iranian Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani faces execution for refusing to renounce Christianity: Where are the Hollyweirdos and Euroweenies now?; Update: White House statement; Britain, EU stand up
September 29, 2011 09:30 AM by Michelle Malkin
153 Comments
Categories: Islam
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?Redstate
» Civility Fails For A Reason
I will read the Koran like I have read the bible, Occasionally, and not cover to cover. While I am a failed Catholic, I have retained much of what I learned from the nuns and went forth with more than enough residual Catholic guilt to have at least stayed out of jail in y 57 years.
I am of the mind that is long as I know I have the freedom to burn the book, that is enough. The Florida preacher, Terry Jones, is the worst kind of storefront, small time, interpret the word his way, kind of preacher. I have met a few in my life in many places. For many of them it is a power trip. Terry Jones is looking for publicity from this, perhaps dreaming of his own Crystal Cathedral, or his own version of the 700 club. And of course, expanding his flock from the dozen or so fleecable sheep he now has.
There will be protests here in the U.S., and certainly mobs of screaming muslim lunatics overseas. But I disagree with the Administration, Gen. Patreous, and others who say it will threaten our troops. I really do not think that radical muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan have been holding back up until now.
Reading it would result in more burnings.
As Johnny Storm – The Human Torch said: “Flame on!”
That’s the problem with D.C. The buffoons we have running the show are corrupt, lying, two faced, back stabbing, amoral individuals. They are unable to understand the concept of someone valuing their beliefs more than they value their lives.
As such, they think that, like so many other things that they have obtained, that Islam’s favor can be bought, and that if they just play the right tune, sleep with the right people, and pay the right account, that all of Islam will turn friendly and ignore what their unholy book says.
A Christian Pastor’s main job is to share Jesus (the Gospel) with those who are open. Don’t see a lotta that goin’ on. Therefore, the MSM and ‘pastor’s’ motives are suspect, another reason to avoid the nutty bandwagon.
What is the definition of a ‘moderate’? My favorite example comes from a pseudo-quote attributed to Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” The person who does nothing, thereby allowing evil to triumph, epitomizes the meaning of ‘moderate’. Think of the German people when Hitler came to power. They are noncommittal, relativistic chameleons who leave well-enough alone and refuse to get involved. In the chicken and pig fable, they are like chickens whose involvement extends only as far as “contributing” eggs, whereas the pig is “committed” to supplying the bacon. How many more Daniel Pearls are needed to be “committed” before moderates will realize the danger they’re in? I have a very low opinion of people who wear the ‘moderate’ label. They are the favored stooges of corrupt men who abuse their positions of power and lord over their victims. A moderate muslim is akin to a lukewarm Christian; neither hot nor cold, but fit to be spit out (Rev 3:16).
While I agree with many here, there is no true “reform” of the Koran by moderate Muslims, and to deny the teachings makes you an apostate. Like pregnancy, you either are or you aren’t Muslim. This is one of the differences in Christianity, a religion that survived a murderous reformation, and, unlike Islam, does not kill those who change religions (or infidel apostates in Islam). Nor does Christianity condone the treatment/abuse and mutilation of women, polygamy, or lying about our religion to get what we want or to fool our enemy in the practice of taqiyyahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya.
This point then comes to Michelle’s “we will not submit.” As a Christian I would not submit to Islam (as the captured Fox reporters were required to do) nor lie about my religion. Nor would I burn a Koran. That said, it is hard to see our country’s slow submission, like Europe’s and the UK’s, of Islam and their gigantic sensitivity to criticism. 9/11 was not due to raging Presbyterians. Radical Islam despises our country and democracy but will use these very laws to try to defeat us in their whining sensitivity. They will continue to try for their goal of sharia law, but they won’t succeed as we are not Britain or Europe, no matter how much Obama wants us to be.
Interesting to see all the silent commenters come out of the woodwork for this topic. Christians do not support this cultish type church and are speaking out against the action of burning the Koran.
That may get to the heart of why not much comes from the moderate muslims. Maybe the moderates want to wait till one side wins and then they will be absorbed into that side. That way they can have it both ways.
Is this a “doderate” muslum
Jihad
Here is a link of what Jihad is. It is the duty of EVERY Muslim to wage Jihad.
Jihad (pronounced /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning “struggle.” Jihad appears frequently in the Qur’an and common usage as the idiomatic expression “striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)”.[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[3] In Twelver Shi’a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
Muslims who have freedom of choice may have some struggles with this. They will go to their Imam for guidance. How many of these Imams or other Muslim religious authorities have issued Fatwas denouncing the convert or die directives of the Koran? How many of the 1.2 billion Muslims have a fatwa they can point to that denounces violent jihad against non believers? Maybe 80%? Maybe 50%, Maybe 20%?, Maybe 10%? 1% Would that % be 50% in the US and .001% in Saudi Arabia? Which ones can I believe and which ones are plotting against me? Taqqiyah means deception and it is allowed for Muslims to decieve in order to further Islam. Yes, thats in the Koran too. Whos deceiving who?
Heres one fatwa denouncing violence
How many Muslims follow this fatwa? Not many. It is for the Deobandi form of Islam which is mostly practiced in India. Note the part that says this is the first of its kind in South Asia. A very telling fact. These are very rare occurances and are often overruled by other fatwas issued by a higher religious authority. You might also note that it only denounces violence in the form of terrorism. It doesn’t address the convert or die issue.
Muslims are pretty much left with the standard duty to wage jihad, convert or KILL non believers or subjugate them. Subjugation is a form of slavery. I am sure the Muslims got along quite well with the non believers during the times in history where they subjugated them such as in historical Cordoba Spain. Those slaves were probably very happy to live with the Muslims as their only other options were death or conversion.
Ask a Muslim about the convert or die part. They will tell you that non believers can live with them, they don’t have to convert or die. They won’t talk much about the rights of those subjugated non believers or the fact they would be lower class citizens under muslim law. No, why worry about that. It won’t be them.
I wouldn’t call a religion whose principal goal is to take over the world and make the entire world an Islamic society a “moderate” view by any measure. You just want to convert me, enslave me, or kill me as your religious duty but thats “moderate”. Not in my book. That places me in direct odds with Muslims, period. Sorry if they don’t like it. I’m sure they won’t.
Andrew Wilkow just brought up a good question: What doesn’t inflame radical muslims??
That brings up another good question. Are non radical Muslims (moderates) inflamed by this Koran burning? Would that be enough to incite them to violence?
Good question, T-Bone.
“Moderate Muslims” are no more Muslim than “Casual Christians” are Christian. Each of those groups only think they have the eternal life insurance package. Neither understand the underlying faith they profess.
Islam is a vile and hateful culture. True believers of the Islam faith see all non-believers as infidels to be murdered, or coerced into confessing “faith” in their pedopsycho prophet Muhammed (*).
Burning the Koran, Satan’s Bible, foreshadows the time when Jesus will come to “burn” Islam’s false prophet, in the Lake of Fire. Burn, baby burn.