The Traitors Gate

UAF Hunting Club

12. There are peaceful passages in the Qur’an too.

This one is easy because the Islamic world already has a well-established answer to the question. Every reader of the Quran, since the time it was written, has noticed conflicting messages. And they’ve had the question, “When two passages from the Quran conflict, which one should I follow?”

The Quran itself answers the question. It says if two passages conflict, the passage revealed later is better than the one revealed earlier. The policy is known as abrogation. Learn more about abrogation here.

Since the order in which the chapters of the Quran were written was carefully recorded, each instance of a conflicting passage is easily settled. The bad news is: The peaceful passages were some of the first written, and the intolerant, violent passages were almost all written later.

So the short answer is, “Yes, there are peaceful passages in the Quran. But they have all been abrogated.”

January 25, 2011 Posted by | Peaceful passages, Quran | , , | Leave a comment

13. People take what they want from any writings. You can pretty much justify anything if you quote it out of context.

Some day in the near future (if it hasn’t happened already), you’ll be telling someone what’s in the Quran, and they’ll respond with something like this: “Well, the Bible has a lot of violent passages too, and people can pretty much read these holy books however they want to read them.”

In other words, it’s not what is written in those books; the problem is that some people are looking to justify violence and they will pick and choose passages to help their justifications.

The person you’re talking with will probably think her or his comment will end your line of reasoning, because for someone who doesn’t know much about Islam or the Quran, the comment seems like a legitimate objection.

This is a perfect opportunity to explain a little about the differences between other religious doctrines and Islamic doctrines. Not only is the content different, the way it was written is different too. So here’s one possible way to answer:

“The Quran is different in several important ways from any other religious book. Do you know how it was written?”

The person probably don’t even know that much, and I think it’s important to establish — in this subtle and unoffensive way — just how much your listener doesn’t know about Islam. It helps to create a frame of mind conducive to listening to new information.

So when the person says, “No, I don’t know how it was written,” you can continue:

“The entire Quran was written by one man, Mohammad, over the course of his lifetime. It took him 23 years to write it. Actually he didn’t write it, he recited it because he was illiterate. It isn’t full of metaphors or obscure stories. It isn’t a collection of things written over many years by many different authors like some other religious books. It is mostly graphic descriptions of hell and Paradise, and direct instructions on how a Muslim should behave, dictated to Mohammad directly from Allah (through an angel).

“In other words, you can’t really justify anything with it. You may be able to do that with some other religious books, but the Quran says very clearly and directly what a Muslim must do to avoid hell and make it to Paradise. By the way, do you already know about the principle of abrogation?”

The person you’re talking to will probably shake his or her head. So you can explain it:

“Well, since the different chapters, or suras, came as revelations periodically over Mohammad’s lifetime, and since his circumstances changed so much, the nature of the revelations changed too. So there are conflicting passages in the Quran.

This will catch your listener’s interest.

“Some passages encourage Muslims to be tolerant toward other religions, and some passages encourage Muslims to be intolerant and even violent to unbelievers.

“But, oddly enough, the Quran itself has some passages explaining what to do with its own contradictions. The passages say when two passages in the Quran conflict with each other, the one that came later is better than the one that came earlier. This is the principle of abrogation. Unfortunately, all the intolerant and violent passages came later, and they supercede the earlier peaceful and tolerant passages.”

And at this point, I would probably try to persuade the person to read the Quran themselves.

January 25, 2011 Posted by | Quran | , , | Leave a comment

14. There are millions of Muslims in this country and they’re not blowing things up.

This objection goes to the core of the issue. The question is, “If it’s true what you’re saying about Islamic doctrine — if it’s true that violence against non-Muslims is mainstream Islam and it is explicit and inherent in the Quran and Hadith and Sira — why aren’t all Muslims trying to kill us?”

Below are four possible ways to answer this question. All of them are good opportunities to widen your listener’s understanding of Islam.

1. Islam’s prime directive is not to kill all non-Muslims. It is to bring all people under the rule of Sharia law. According to mainstream and accepted Islamic doctrine — accepted in all schools of Islamic jurisprudence — once non-Muslims are subjugated, they are to be given the choice between one of the following: a) converting to Islam, b) living as a subjugated, second-class citizen (a dhimmi), or c) execution. But that is after conquering non-Muslims by war.

But for many Muslims living in Western democracies, they do not believe we are in a state of open warfare yet. We are in the “pre-conquest” stage. Mohammad set the example. When he was not powerful — when Muslims were a minority in Mecca — Mohammad did not kill anyone. He focused on gaining converts. It was only when he could act from a position of strength that he began using violence. All Muslims are supposed to follow his example, according to 91 verses in the Quran. This one fact alone can fully explain the lack of universal violence among Muslims against non-Muslims.

But of course, many Muslims aren’t aware of this program. The imams are fully aware of it, but many regular Muslim citizens don’t know about Islam’s prime directive, and at the moment, they don’t need to know. It is best for Islam’s ultimate goal if they just innocently go about their lives having babies and raising them to be devout Muslims.

Not many Muslims have read the Quran or understand it, partly because it has been made difficult to understand, and sometimes because many Muslims are only Muslim in name only (MINOs), or simply Muslim by birth, and they haven’t taken the time to learn what they’re supposed to do, and if they have, they’re not interested in pursuing it.

Unfortunately, many of these apatheistic Muslims are unwitting sleeper cells. Many Muslims are secretly heterodox. They are somewhat vulnerable to recruitment, and their children are even more vulnerable to recruitment, which explains why a new study in Britain found that second generation British Muslims are more “radical” than their immigrant parents.

But for the moment, the MINOs are trying to do the one thing a Muslim must never do: Ignore the Messenger (Mohammad). So they may be perfectly nice, peaceloving people. I know three Muslims, and they are some of the nicest people I’ve ever met. None of them prays five times a day, and not one of them has read the Quran. I know far more about Islam than they do.

But the point is, they are three of the “millions of Muslims” who are not blowing things up. But notice this says nothing about the doctrine. They can function like sleeper cells without even knowing it. How? By simply raising each of their children to believe they are Muslims. They may not practice any of the five pillars of Islam, but they identify themselves as Muslims (apostasy is difficult, uncomfortable, and even dangerous).

So they go along with the program, and say things like, “the Quran is the perfect and final word of Allah” because they’re supposed to.

Then as a teen perhaps, their child goes to a mosque (eighty percent in America preach jihad) to explore his roots a little and meets someone there who has read the Quran, who has studied it and believes in it, and he says to the kid, “do you realize your parents are hypocrites?” And what young, rebellious teen is not willing to hear that?

So the recruiter gives him a copy of the Quran and tells him to read it, and talks to him about what it really says (that he must follow its teachings or he has no chance of getting to Paradise and every chance of burning in a fiery torment forever).

Yikes! The kid reads the Quran, something he has always been told is the direct word of Allah, and that’s how we end up with “homegrown jihadists” like Nidal Hasan the Fort Hood shooter, Faisal Shahzad the Times Square bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab the underwear bomber, Mujahid Muhammad the Little Rock killer, Adam Gadahn the American-born senior al-Qaeda operative, John Walker Lindh the American fighting on the side of Afghanistan, the London bombers, and on and on and on.

So yes, there are millions of Muslims who are not blowing anything up at the moment. But that does not mean we don’t have a problem and we can all forget about it and go on about our business.

2. Most people have natural empathy for other people. The second most likely reason even devout Muslims may not be blowing things up is that the vast majority (probably close to 98 percent) of human beings, by and large do not like to hurt other people or even animals. It’s plain ol’ humanity.

So it seems likely that even some Muslims who know about this agenda choose to ignore it, and hope they can get away with it.

But even though 98 percent of people have natural human empathy, far more than 2 percent of Muslims believe in the political objectives of Islam and are actively working to achieve them, including through violence. One of the things violent cultures have always done to override this natural human empathy is to convince their believers that the enemy is not human. Mohammad called Jews, for example, “apes and pigs.” Throughout the Quran, non-Muslims are depicted horribly. This indoctrination, of course, can override natural human empathy.

But for people who have not been educated in a madrassa or who had MINOs for parents and no access to a mosque, and who have not read the Quran, none of that indoctrination took place and their natural human empathy is dominant.

3. Jihad means “to strive in the way of Allah,” and the striving can be done in many ways. Here are a few ways Muslims are striving in the way of Allah without physically harming anyone. Blowing things up is only one of many ways to accomplish Islam’s prime directive.

Many mainstream Muslim organizations in Western democracies have decided that tactically — with some countries and in some circumstances — jihad is best waged non-violently, at least until the percentage of Muslims in the population is higher. It’s a tactical decision, not a moral one. Jihad and the basic, supremacist nature of Islamic teachings have not been rejected; the violence has been postponed for strategic reasons. The strategy is to build numbers, political power, seek concessions and accommodations to Islam, and most important, disable free speech (to make it a crime to educate non-Muslims about Islam).

This is not a guess. Their purposes and strategies have been uncovered in FBI raids and the undercover infiltration of a key Islamic organization (CAIR).

4. Use Robert Spencer’s standard statement. Another possible way to respond to this objection is to use the same statement Spencer uses in almost every one of his speeches: “In Islam, as in all other religions, there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor.” What it says in the doctrine does not necessarily correlate with what any particular individual will do. Enough Muslims are following the doctrine that we can’t really ignore it, but that doesn’t mean every single person who calls himself a Muslim is doing what Allah has commanded.

Okay, now you have four possible ways to respond to this objection. While answering, keep in mind that most people are behind the curve on jihad. They still think what we need to do is “stop the terrorists.” That’s only part of a much larger and far more sinister threat: The ultimate annihilation of civilizations, as was done very successfully in the first two jihads.

But I don’t suggest you tell people about the annihilation of civilizations until you get them up to speed on some more basic information about Islam. If you go too far too fast in the educational process, they will mentally place you in the category of “complete nutcase” and will stop listening. Talk basics first. Let the full implications come later.

January 25, 2011 Posted by | Muslims | , , | Leave a comment

15. My family and my community is Muslim, and none of us are terrorists.

You will sometimes criticize Islam and a Muslim will say something like, “My family and my community is Muslim, and none of us are terrorists.” Rather than jumping in and crying “taqiyya!” I think the best approach is to take their statement as a sincere and even innocent and legitimate objection, just as a matter of policy.

I once got this objection from a young woman who I knew was promiscuous and partied a lot (including drinking alcohol, which Islamic doctrine says is taboo). My response was, “I am criticizing Islamic teachings. You do not follow these teachings, so what are you objecting to?” It effectively stopped her in her tracks. I think she was afraid someone in her family would find out, and didn’t want me saying any more.

But I generally avoid telling Muslims about the doctrines of Islam. If they don’t know, I’d rather they stayed ignorant, unless I feel I could actually turn them into apostates. And if they already know the doctrines, I am unlikely to dislodge their belief, so it’s a waste of time.

But occassionally you will accidentally have to engage Muslims. For the most part, you can simply say, “I’m glad you and your family and community are not terrorists.” But if you have an audience — if this is a public conversation, or if it’s a comment on Facebook or a blog or YouTube, and others are waiting to see how you will respond — here’s a way you could answer the objection:

Terrorism is a tactic. The goal is to bring “the light of Islam” to the world. That is one of a Muslim’s primary religious obligations. It is known as jihad. The purpose of jihad is not to blow things up. The purpose is to bring Islamic law to the world; to ultimately create the conditions wherein all people on earth are under the legal rule of Sharia law.

One way to accomplish this goal is with intimidation. If you can frighten people with your willingness to do violence if they don’t comply, if you have sufficient power to inflict the violence, this tactic can be very effective. In places like India, where there is a sizable minority of Muslims, the tactic is powerful.

The Muslim Brotherhood — the largest Muslim organization in the world — has set up lots of seemingly mainstream and moderate organizations, working legally within the UK and other Western democracies, to accomplish the goal of getting non-Muslims to follow the legal rules of Islamic law. For example, it is against Sharia law to criticize Islam or Mohammad, and these organizations are working hard to make Brits/Americans follow this rule. So organizations like CAIR will sue people, or get the media involved in conflicts so someone gets fired, and many other legal means they can use to suppress the free expressions guaranteed under our constitution but illegal under Sharia, and they often succeed. One example of their success was the riots over the Mohammad cartoons. One one newspaper in the United States reprinted the cartoons. Every other newspaper, in essence, followed Sharia law.

Groups like CAIR and ISNA are funded, in part, by donations from Muslims. And many other politically-oriented Muslim projects are funded by mosques around the country. So if the Muslim who has a family and community who are not terrorists are paying their zakat, they may well be funding this ongoing non-violent jihad without knowing it. If they are a member of any religious organizations like the Muslim Students Association, ISNA, or whatever, they may be advancing the agenda without ever doing anything that might be considered “terrorism.”

My general goal when answering an objection is using the objection as an opportunity to get more good information into the other person’s head. Not to argue. To educate.

Now in this case, you are answering a Muslim, but the purpose is not to educate the Muslim. Try to educate anyone who is listening. I don’t recommend arguing with Muslims at any time. You have more important things to do. Focus your attention on educating your fellow non-Muslims. But if the situation comes up, and if there is a non-Muslim audience, use your conversation with the Muslim to help educate your fellow non-Muslims. Get some important, basic facts into their heads.

January 25, 2011 Posted by | Community, Non-Terrorists | , , | Leave a comment

16. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism.

I’ve heard this one implied and also spoken aloud: Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. In other words, the dangerous thing is the fundamentalism itself, and it is not proper to single out any one religion because they all have their extremists.

The answer to this is, as always, basic education in Islam. Underlying the statement is one big assumption that happens to be wrong — that the core teachings of all religions are the same. When you clear up this misconception, the argument “fundamentalism is fundamentalism” will lose its foundation.

The truth is, not all religions are the same. Islam has several precepts in its core teachings, written in their most holy book, the Qur’an that are different from any other religion.

For example, it says in the Qur’an it is a Muslim’s duty to refuse to be friends with a non-Muslim, to deceive them if it will help the cause of Islam, to strive to subjugate non-Muslims politically, and if they resist, to make war on the unbelievers and slaughter them. It doesn’t imply this. It doesn’t require any interpretation or reading between the lines. It says this quite clearly. So a “fundamentalist” who is following Islam will be (and, as you can see around the world, IS) quite a bit more willing to kill people just because they are not Muslims than, say, a fundamentalist Buddhist or Hindu. Read a fairly complete comparison between Islam and Christianity here.

Another thing very different about Islam is that it is written in very straightforward prose by a single man. Most non-Muslims don’t even know this much about Islam. The Qur’an isn’t a collection of writings from many different sources. It isn’t metaphorical. It isn’t strewn with allegories open to interpretation.

If you have read the Qur’an, you may speak with authority about this. The person who says “fundamentalism is fundamentalism” is either a Muslim giving you taqiyya or a (probably well-meaning) non-Muslim who has never read the Qur’an. Your best approach is probably to convince them that they cannot know what’s true about Islam until they, too, read the Qur’an for themselves.

That’s how I’ve approached answering this objection before, and it has worked fairly well.

January 25, 2011 Posted by | Fundamentalism | , , | Leave a comment

17. Haven’t mosques and churches and synagogues sat side-by-side in the Middle East for a thousand years?

You hear this objection from people who know a little about the Middle East: “Haven’t mosques and churches and synagogues sat side-by-side in the Middle East for a thousand years?”

The implication is, of course, that if all you’re saying about Islam is true, then all Christians and Jews who live in Islamic lands would have been wiped out or converted centuries ago. But they’re still there, and not only are they still there, they have their houses of worship still standing there, proving Islam’s tolerance, right?

The answer is, “Yes, mosques and churches and synagogues sit side-by-side in the Middle East (except Saudi Arabia).” But the missing piece of information is the dhimma laws. So the rest of the answer is, “Islam allows for Jews and Christians (but not Buddhists, Hindus or atheists) to continue practicing their religions as long as they keep the contract of the dhimma.”

Then, of course, you can explain what dhimmitude is and how it works. Dhimmis must pay a tax, usually 25 percent to 50 percent of their income. Muslims do not pay this tax. It is “protection money,” which is not a slander — that’s how the Muslims themselves think of it. As long as dhimmis pay this money and accept the other stipulations and humiliations required of dhimmis, they are allowed to live. If they break the dhimma contract, their lives are forfeit.

Other stipulations are many. Dhimmis are not allowed to repair their churches or synagogues, nor are their religious buildings allowed to be taller than the mosques. Jews and Christians are not allowed to display any symbols of their religion where a Muslim may see it. They are not allowed to make any religiously-oriented sounds (like singing a hymn, for example, or praying aloud) where a Muslim might hear it. They are not allowed to talk to a Muslim about their religion. The list goes on and on.

If a dhimmi violates any of these rules, the penalty is death. If they keep these rules, then yes, they can have their churches and synagogues, and so we see them throughout the Middle East and North Africa, since prior to the Muslims conquering what we now know as the Middle East, it was primarily Christians and Jews that populated those lands. Their numbers have dwindled down over the last 1400 years as they fled or were converted or killed, but there are still some remnants of the Christians and Jews left in those areas.

Islamic law covers every aspect of life, and when it is applied, Islam essentially eliminates other cultures until there is nothing left except Islam (read more about that here). The numbers of Jews and Christians in Muslim countries continues to dwindle.

When you are done explaining how and why synagogues and churches can be found in Muslim countries, explain that this is basic Sharia law, and recommend the book, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims. This slim volume gives a great overview of this fascinating topic, and can be a real eye-opener for people.

January 25, 2011 Posted by | Churches, Mosques, Synagogues | , , | Leave a comment

18. You’re taking the verses of the Quran out of context.

You will hear this comment many times:

“I have been a Muslim all my life. Westerners in general love to take the verses of the Quran out of their historical context and just blindly accuse Islam and the Quran of violence. For your information, many of the “violent” verses were revealed to prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) when he was at state of war with the pagans of Makkah. So read the reason of revelation very carefully. Then you will understand what those verses were intended for.”

Respond:

I’m going to answer you in several ways, not because I believe I will change your mind, but because everyone who comes after you to read these comments may learn something from our interaction.

1. According to mainstream Islam since the time of Mohammad, the Quran is the perfect, unalterable, eternal word of Allah.

2. It says in the Quran 91 times a Muslim must follow the example of Mohammad.

3. Mohammad was intolerant and violent toward non-Muslims, repeatedly and consistently, as soon as he had the power to do so. He ordered the assassinations of those who insulted him or Islam. He ordered and personally oversaw the beheading of his political prisoners. He raided and plundered and conquered for the last ten years of his life. This is not history as told by his enemies, but history as told in the Sira and the Hadith, written by devout Muslim believers.

4. There are not many peaceful passages in the Quran, but what few exist have all been abrogated by more intolerant and even violent verses revealed to Mohammad later in his prophetic career.

Islam’s original enemies were…historical (e.g., Christian Byzantines and Zoroastrian Persians), the Qur’an rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—’until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled’ and to ‘slay the idolaters wherever you find them.’

“The two Arabic conjunctions ‘until’ (hata) and ‘wherever’ (haythu) demonstrate the perpetual and ubiquitous nature of these commandments: There are still “people of the book” who have yet to be ‘utterly humbled’ (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and ‘idolaters’ to be slain ‘wherever’ one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa). In fact, the salient feature of almost all of the violent commandments in Islamic scriptures is their open-ended and generic nature: ‘Fight them [non-Muslims] until there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely.’ Also, in a well-attested tradition that appears in the hadith collections, Muhammad proclaims:

“I have been commanded to wage war against mankind until they testify that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God; and that they establish prostration prayer, and pay the alms-tax [i.e., convert to Islam]. If they do so, their blood and property are protected.”

And finally, whether you believe the Quran commands you to be intolerant or violent towards non-Muslims, many Muslims do obviously believe it, and they are using the Quran to justify their violence against non-Muslims all over the world, and they have been doing so for 1400 years.

It has been such a consistent theme, a web site keeps track of all the violence committed in the name of Islam around the world, and has been doing so since 9/11.

If you’re trying to convince me that because you don’t believe the Quran encourages violence against non-Muslims then none of the rest of the Muslims do either (or that the Quran really doesn’t encourage intolerance and violence toward non-Muslims), I think your task is hopeless.

January 25, 2011 Posted by | Quran | , , | Leave a comment

19. But jihad is an internal struggle.

When you mention jihad, many people will say that “jihad means struggle.” They say (or imply) that since Islam is a religion of peace, then jihad is the spiritual struggle to perfect oneself, and the terrorists are taking it out of context or twisting and distorting the perfectly peaceful Islamic teachings into something violent.

This objection is easily dispached. Bill Warner has done the footwork of counting every mention of jihad in Bukhari’s hadith. Wikipedia says, “Most Muslims view this (Bukhari’s) as their most trusted collection of hadith and it is considered the most authentic book after the Qur’an.”

In reading Bukhari’s collection of hadith, this is what Warner found:

“The Hadith of Bukhari gives all of the tactical details of jihad. A simple counting method shows that 3% of the hadiths are about the inner struggle, whereas, 97% of the hadiths are about jihad as war. So is jihad the inner struggle? Yes, 3%. Is jihad the war against kafirs? Yes, 97%.”

That’s a great answer. I have used it many times, and it completely answers the objection, removing it from consideration.

And it goes beyond answering the objection. It points to a fundamental misconception many people have about Islamic terrorists: That their interpretation is a fringe element. The truth is, relentless violence against (and subjugation of) non-Muslims is mainstream Islam. The terrorists have not “hijacked” a religion of peace. This kind of intolerance toward non-Muslims has been a cornerstone of mainstream Islam for 1400 years.

An objection like this is an opportunity. If you study the answers to objections, you should actually look forward to objections because they give you great opportunities to educate and awaken another potential ally in this fight.

January 25, 2011 Posted by | Jihad | , , | Leave a comment

20. Criticizing Islam will push the moderates into the arms of the extremists.

This is a fairly common argument — that by educating non-Muslims about Islam, we are risking the possibility that otherwise peaceful Muslims will take up arms and join the third jihad. But the argument doesn’t have much heft if you give it even ten minutes of thought. I heard Robert Spencer put it this way, in essence: Do you really think devout Muslims or even heterodox Muslims will be swayed by the teachings of a non-Muslim? That’s ridiculous.

Spencer was commenting on the new limitations imposed on U.S. security agencies to avoid using such terms as “Islamic terrorists” because it might make “moderate Muslims” want to blow things up. He asked how anyone could think that a believing Muslim would use the U.S. government as a reliable source on the teachings of Islam? Good question.

A Muslim, of course, will be influenced much more strongly by their own personal (usually life-long) understanding of Islam, their own reading, their own imam, the teachings of their own sect and their own parents, etc. To believe that a non-Muslim pointing out the supremacist teachings of Islam would cause a Muslim to give up his own understanding of his faith and become a jihadist seems, to put it mildly, highly unlikely.

Let’s look at this another way. By definition, a “moderate Muslim” must reject some basic Islamic principles. Of course, for someone who knows little about Islam, this will not be obvious. But once they learn about Islam, this much will be clear.

Does it make any sense that a “moderate Muslim” who rejects some of Islam’s teachings would become a fundamentalist because I am educating non-Muslims about those rejected teachings? Will my educational efforts make our moderate Muslim embrace what he has rejected and become an “extremist?”

I propose to you that this argument was originally created by politically active Muslims in order to silence non-Muslims who are trying to educate other non-Muslims about Islam. This argument was then disseminated widely and taken up by devout multiculturalists because it served their own agenda, and it has now become widespread.

But however it happened, the argument is pathetic. Knowing what it really says in Islamic doctrines clearly has better long-term prospects than pretending it doesn’t say those things and silencing anyone who tries to educate non-Muslims about it.

January 25, 2011 Posted by | Extremists, Moderates | , , | Leave a comment

21. You’re cherry-picking verses out of the Quran.

The Quran is considered by Muslims as Islam’s most holy book. Sixty-one percent of the Quran is about non-Muslims. Writings about what Muslims should do is religious. Writings about what non-Muslims should do or how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims is political (read more about this distinction). Therefore, based on Islam’s most holy book, Islam is more political (61%) than religious (39%).

There are 245 verses in the Quran that could be considered “positive verses” about non-Muslims. Every single one of those verses have been abrogated by later, negative verses about non-Muslims. Not one positive verse about non-Muslims is left.

In contrast, there are 527 verses of intolerance toward non-Muslims, and 109 verses specifically advocating violence towards non-Muslims. Not one of these verses has been abrogated.

Even if you completely ignore the Quran and only look at what Muslims actually do in the Muslim world, the conclusion is the same. Whenever Muslims get a large enough minority to seize the reigns of power and impose their will, they treat non-Muslims horribly, and eventually drive out non-Muslims or subjugate them, or set up conditions that cause non-Muslims to convert to Islam just to relieve the burden of dhimmitude.

The end result is 56 countries in the world that consider themselves Islamic (members of the OIC, the largest voting block in the U.N.) and that have ever-decreasing percentages of non-Muslims in their countries because non-Muslims flee, are killed, or convert to relieve the dhimmi burden.

So if I am “cherry-picking” verses out of the Quran, apparently Muslims around the world today, and Muslims throughout Islamic history, have cherry-picked in exactly the same way.

The fact is, every Muslim is commanded by Allah to follow the example of Mohammad, an example that was written down in great detail. The Hadith is an enormous written record of what Mohammad said and did. There are two versions of the Hadith, which are very similar, that are considered to be the most authentic by Islamic scholars and the Muslim world throughout its history, one by Sahih Bukhari and the other by Sahih Muslim.

If you count up all references to jihad in Bukhari’s voluminous record of Mohammad’s life, 97 percent of the passages refer to jihad as bloodshed and warfare against non-Muslims. Three percent of the references are about jihad as an inner struggle. So even if Muslims ignore the Quran completely and simply follow Mohammad’s example, they would still be violent, aggressive, and intolerant, following the same course as would be described by “cherry-picking verses” out of the Quran.

January 25, 2011 Posted by | Quran | , , | Leave a comment

22. What about the good verses in the Quran?

How many verses in the Quran are positive for non-Muslims ?

The answer is 245. That’s pretty good. That adds up to 4,018 words in the Quran, and comprises 2.6 percent of the total Quranic text. But the verse is followed by another verse that contradicts the ‘good’ verses.

Furthermore, except for seven verses, every “good verse” is abrogated later in the same chapter (known as a “sura”). Those seven exceptions are abrogated in later chapters.

In other words, every single one of the verses in the Quran with a positive message for non-Muslims is abrogated, leaving nothing positive for non-Muslims. Not one verse.

There’s more. The media emphasizes Islam’s positive verses about the People of the Book, the Jews and Christians. Even this turns out to be illusory. Christians and Jews receive the goodness of Islam only if they agree that their sacred texts are corrupt, the Koran is true, and that Mohammad is a prophet of the Christian and Jewish religion. If they do that, they will get the blessings of Islam. Of course, if they do that, they are no longer Christians or Jews; they’re Muslims.

So there is nothing positive in the Quran for non-Muslims. Period. And there are 527 verses in the Quran that are intolerant to non-Muslims, 109 verses calling on Muslims to make war on non-Muslims.

When non-Muslims read the Quran and don’t like it, sometimes they’re accused of “having an unfavorable view of Islam” or being an Islamophobe. Or they may be simply accused of “hatred.”

But, really, what is there to like about any of this if you’re a non-Muslim?

January 25, 2011 Posted by | Quran | , , | Leave a comment