Wednesday, February 8

Defending the truth at the evangelical outpost

Some thoughts regarding a reply to one of my posts at EO:
“Chapter 9 of the Koran has become the touchstone for those out to prove a particular point.”
Like Mohammed? Like Allah?

There’s a reason both devout Muslims and informed Infidels refer to Sura 9. That’s because as the last of Allah’s revelations, it is his authoritative last word. All previous Qur'anic passages contradicted by Sura 9 are abrogated.

Or are you simply implying that those Infidels who are willing to take Islamic “sacred” texts at face value are somehow distorting their meaning? If so, demonstrate from Islam’s scriptures (Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira) that “those out to prove a particular point” are being anything less than truthful.

You won’t, because you can’t.
“The Koran is either in time, i.e. the 7th century Arabia where it was revealed, or out of time, i.e. true for all time and places.”
That’s a false dichotomy.

The Qur’anic texts have certain historical and literary contexts. Within the Qur’an are certain commands that were intended by Allah as universal and timeless. That this is true is clear not only from those passages' literary contexts, but also from the historical context provided by Hadith and Sira.

Maududi makes clear in his commentary on Sura 9 that war against the Infidel was to be carried to the whole of the non-Muslim world. Mohammed’s example and the violent, bloody expansion of Islam (proceeding in fits and spurts over the centuries) also demonstrate this understanding to be what Allah intended.
“If the latter is correct, then such Moslem luminaries as Sistani, King Abdullah and millions of others must be very bad Moslems indeed, since they're not killing the unbelievers wherever they find them. Is this what what you are suggesting?”
Do you always view issues in such a “nuanced” fashion? Resorting to an obviously fallacious argument is a bit of a disappointment.

The fact that certain individuals do not carry out a particular “divine” command does not mean the command does not exist; even a brief glimpse at history (or one’s own life) will provide ample evidence that human beings often violate (or fail to fulfill) tenets they hold dear.

There are (no doubt) many Muslims around the world who are ignorant of Allah’s commands (many recite Qur'an in Arabic without knowing what they are saying). Just as many nominal "Christians" couldn’t cite a Biblical text to save their soul, many Muslims around the world are ignorant of their religion's scriptures. And I do not doubt many of these nominal Muslims would be horrified if they knew the nature of their god and his prophet.

That Allah commands his faithful to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims is clear from Islam’s “holy” texts, history, and jurisprudence. Someone as knowledgeable of Islamic texts as you would know (and this was true especially of Mohammed) that whenever Islam is weak, it will treaty and placate and smile and bow and negotiate until it is strong enough to turn and slash your throat.

Finally, the command to engage in actual fighting is for able-bodied Muslims. There are other ways to carry out Jihad, including providing financial, material, and moral support. How many Muslims publicly reject Jihad and Dhimma? How many publicly reject Shariah? How many denounce as an unbeliever bin Laden and his ilk?
“Imagine the scene at the United Nations if all the Moslem delegates woke up today and realized that they have been acting like apostates all this time and suddenly pounced on their colleagues. Would you like more reductio?”
Making an absurd argument does not make what is demonstrably true false. You must address the following:
  • Either the Qur'an says what it does, or it does not.
  • Either Mohammed said and did certain things, or he did not.
  • Either Islamic history demonstrates a certain understanding of Jihad, or it does not.
Your simplistic view of Islam fails to take into account: 1) human weakness, 2) ignorance of the command for Jihad, 3) other ways to aid the “cause of Allah,” and 4) taqiyya (and you know what that is--you're soaking in it).

(And one of the complaints against the leaders of some Muslim nations is that they are failing to obey Allah and defend Islam.)
“It sounds like that the only good Moslem is one that goes around killing unbelievers, a thing that I only hear from the mouths of the Islamists.”
There's a reason for that. It's because that is what comes from the mouths of Allah and his apostle. Shouldn’t that tell you something?

Islam does not view “good” and “bad” the way Judaism/Christianity does.

If you study Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, you know that Islam views as “good” that which aids Islam, regardless of any other moral absolutes Infidels might consider important.

This is why Mohammed is considered the “ideal man,” one whose example is to be imitated by all faithful Muslims, even though he personally murdered, raped, stole from, assassinated, enslaved, tortured, and mutilated countless thousands, and is responsible for the same being carried out against untold millions (billions?) more throughout history and around the world.
“even though Chapter 9 refers, by name, to a specific 7th century event.”
If you are referring to the “sacred months,” you should also note that it says “after...[they] have passed.” There is nothing in their contexts that limits 9:5, 9:29, or any other Qur’anic passage requiring offensive violence against the unbeliever to a certain time and place. Islam has never set the limit you are trying to set.

Can you cite anything in Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, or Islamic jurisprudence that makes 9:5 or 9:29 something other than commands to wage offensive warfare against non-Muslims?
“Other people will read 'kill the unbeliever' as meaning the unbeliever inside oneself, the hypocrite, if you will, that lives within each of us.”
What "other people"? Mohammed certainly did not understand Sura 9 to be speaking of some spiritual, inner struggle. Apart from apologists for Jihad (read liars), what Muslims do you hear today claiming that "the Verse of the Sword" has ever been understood as anything other than the command to wage offensive warfare against the Infidel? If you can find even a few, what does that imply about the true identity of the "tiny minority of extremists perverting a great religion"?

You've got other factors to consider: How do you know these "moderates" are telling the truth and not engaging in taqiyya or kitman? Is their interpretation consistent with centuries of Islamic history and jurisprudence, or is it a "new" interpretation? Can you name any major school of Islamic thought that rejects offensive warfare against unbelievers to establish Shariah? Can you demonstrate from the life of the (false) prophet that he understood 9:5 in only a spiritual sense? Of course not.
“How charming to call Hugh Hewitt, a genuinely decent man and, dare I say it, a Christian gentleman, a dhimmi; what's next: collaborator?”
Hugh Hewitt is someone I have respected and admired since I first became aware of him while he was providing political commentary for public television.

Hugh began his public education in Islam several months ago when he gave a public platform to an apologist for Jihad with documented ties to convicted terrorists. Rather than listen to the multitude of callers warning him about what Islam requires with regard to the Infidel, he dismissed them as ignorant. It was obvious he had no idea what he was doing.

Out of the goodness of his heart, Hugh wants to believe that a religion that (falsely) claims to be related to Christianity and Judaism could never believe and require those things its “sacred” texts state. But it does because they do.

Perhaps Hugh wants to avoid having to contemplate the terrible, logical conclusion to be drawn from the fact that Allah and his apostle require such conduct: every single person who reads Qur’an and believes it is the word of a god will be required to war against us. Who wants to admit that?

Maybe Hugh wants to believe in his "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" so much that he is unwilling to look at Islam truthfully.

The reason “dhimmi” is applicable is because rather than tell the truth for fear of offending someone, he is intentionally and repeatedly obfuscating. Whom does this aid? Not fellow infidels. (And isn't the fear of angering one billion Muslims over a cartoon an admission that there is a serious problem with Islam itself, or does Hugh have lower expectations for Muslims than the rest of us?)

After studying Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, any intellectually honest person will acknowledge that Allah requires the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims until all the world is made Islam.

You appear unable or unwilling to view Islam through its own eyes. You claim to be respectful of Islam. Allow Allah and his apostle to speak for themselves.