"Islamic terrorism, its theological underpinnings, its mandate, and its antidote"

Submitted by Lactantius Jr (United Kingdom), Dec 27, 2008 at 06:44

To Keith Williams

I quoted some truly appalling words Keith, but please don't blame me, I didn't write them, but quoted them to demonstrate the mandate that Muslims have for violence against non-Muslims, which is contained in Islam's most authoritative writings, and modeled by Muhammad the prophet of Islam, and when presented with the appalling violence of the Islam of your prophet, you protest that I have "taken it out of context." Please enlighten me with its proper context.

That violence was foundational to Islam and remains deeply embedded in it, is readily established by reading Islam's most authoritative documents, the Qur'an, the Sahi Hadith collections, the Sirat literature, especially the Sirat Rasulullah of Ibn Ishaq (Muhammad Ibn Ishaq Ibn Yasar Ibn Khiyar, born 704 AD, died 767 AD), the earliest, most comprehensive and most important biography of Muhammad, which provides one of the most important sources of information about Muhammad's life, and the Tar'ikh (‘history') of al-Tabari (Muhammad Ibni Jarir Abu Jafar Al-Tabari 838 – 923 AD), "who is today recognized as the father of Islamic history, and one of the greatest historians that the world has produced."

http://www.renaissance.com.pk/myletfor95.html

These Islamic authorities (the Islamic "title-deeds") clearly describe Muhammad as the archetypal Islamic terrorist, also showing that the Qur'an is "a tale of two halves."

Attempting to understand the Qur'an, requires that we know about Muhammad's Hijrah (Emigration or Flight) from Mecca to Medina in AD 622, Muhammad receiving ‘revelations' in both cities, hence "the tale of two halves." While he lived in Mecca, he had no military power, so had to take a docile, submissive attitude towards his opponents. The Meccan surahs reflecting this historical reality. Under persecution, he leaves Mecca and relocates to Medina. Now the ‘revelations' change in tone, he raises a lethal band of raiders and eventually a large army of warriors and becomes bellicose. Textual reality of the Medinan surahs in the Qur'an, likewise reflecting this historical reality. The Medinan surahs have far more violence in them, with many Muslims believing the Medinan surahs take priority over the Meccan ones, certainly the jihadists believe this, and they are the Muslims who harm and kill people, and Muhammad did command jihad and the killing of those who would not accept Islam, and Muslims today, who commit acts of violence and terror in the name of Allah, can find ample justification for their actions, based on the teachings of the Qur'an and the sayings and examples of Muhammad himself, they can rightly claim to be following the commands of Allah in the Qur'an, and imitating their prophet as their role model, the use of aggressive violence to further Islam being in harmony with the example of Muhammad the prophet of Islam and the teaching of the Qur'an, and whilst I quote the Qur'an, I do so not because I believe it to be divinely inspired, or because it is authoritative for me, I don't and it isn't, but you and other Muslims do believe it to be divinely inspired and accept it as being authoritative for them, and this is what is so troubling concerning violence, and its use in attempting to spread Islam and make it supreme.

The resurgence of Islamic terrorism around the world indicates tough, tough times ahead for Western secular democracies, who still haven't cottoned on to the threat posed them by the Islam of Muhammad, most amazingly so in the US, despite the fact that the FBI website's list of "Most Wanted Terrorists," contains 23 names, all of them Muslims, that's right Keith, all of them!!

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm

Since 911 non-Muslims have been hearing two different messages about Islam. One that "Islam is a religion of tolerance, peace and mercy." The other that "Islam is a religion of jihad, killings, and the persecution of non-Muslims."

Which are we to believe Keith? Which is the real Islam? Because there are actually two Islams aren't there? There is the Islam of Mecca, and there is, the Islam of Medina. Meccan Islam is characterized by peace and the absence of violence, which is when Muhammad was weak and persecuted by the leadership of the Quraish tribe. But when he migrated to Medina, he became militarily strong, and eventually organized an Islamic state. It was during this period (622-632 AD,) that he ‘received' surahs calling for Jihad against the unbelievers in Mecca, as well as the Jews and Christians in Arabia. Therefore, those who like you, claim that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, are referring to Meccan Islam, and those who say that Islam is a religion of murderous jihad are referring to the Islam of Medina.

Whilst the Qur'an does initially state that Muslims and others are to live amicably with each other, this teaching is abrogated (cancelled, annulled, set aside) by later verses, when Muhammad and his Muslims were more numerous and more powerful militarily, which state that Islam is to be "shown" to people of other faiths, who, if they refuse to acknowledge, accept and follow it, are then are to be slain (suras 9:5, 9:29; 47:5, and 8:39 among many others).

The Qur'an is quite literally a tale of two-halves, with plenty of nice-sounding verses "the Meccan Surah's" from Muhammad's militarily powerless period, and which Muslims are fond of quoting, and nasty-sounding ones, "the Medinan Surah's" from Muhammad's militarily powerful period, usually quoted by shahids ("martyrs") who think they're on their way to al-janna ("paradise") for killing kafirun ("infidels") and the widely reported remarks of these jihadis tell us why they do what they do, and what they expect from Allah for doing so.

Surah 9 is the last Surah to be ‘revealed' in its entirety, with aya 29 being a war proclamation/declaration against Jews and Christians that has never been cancelled, no passage comes after it that can cancel or abrogate it, and I recommend you look at Revd.Richard Baileys 26 page study of what the Qur'an and Sahi Hadith have to say about jihad, it is titled, "Jihad The Teachings of Islam From Its Primary Sources-The Quran And Hadith" posted at:-

http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Bailey/jihad.html

I now quote Surah 9:5 and 9:29 using the translation by Dr Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al Hilali and Dr Muhammad Musin Khan, which is online at, http://www.mlivo.com/translations/Hilali%20Khan.htm

Hilali and Khan are scholars at Islamic University, Madinah, their translation is subsidised by the Saudi Royal family, and published by the King Fahd printing complex, Madinah, "and this is the Qur'an often distributed to hajjis in Saudi Arabia." http://www.onlineislamicstore.com/nobqurarenmu.html

"Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Surah 9:5

"Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Surah 9:29

Christians are in view in both passages, with 9:5 referring to Mushrikun, and the Qur'an clearly teaches that Christians are Mushriks, as this detailed study by Sam Shamoun demonstrates,

"Are Jews and Christians Mushriks according to the Quran?

Responding to One Muslim Scholar's Denials"

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_mushrik.htm

Surah 9:5 is known as "the verse of the sword," and is cited by Islamic terrorists to ‘justify' their murderous jihad against mushriks, and it contributes to Islam's final theological doctrine of violent aggression towards all non-Muslims for all time, and whilst Surah 9:5 is not the only verse on which Islam's final theological position rests, regarding the use of violence to extend its domain, it is foundational in the Islamic theology of murderous jihad, and comports with the entire Qur'anic teaching, other Islamic source materials, and Muhammad's actions and lifestyle (Sunnah), and because the Qur'an lacks internal contextual references, the other authoritative Islamic references need consulting, in order to accurately understand the meaning of Surah 9:5. ‘Silas' has done this, and his detailed study titled, The Verse of the Sword: Sura 9:5 And Jihad is at http://answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

Another very detailed study of Surah 9:5, and also Surah 9:29 by Sam Shamoun, carries out a historical and contextual analysis and exegesis of them, referring to Islam's most authoritative documents, it is titled,

"Kill those who Associate Partners (Mushrikun) Wherever You Find Them!"

A Historical and Contextual Exegesis of Q. 9:5 and 29

and it is posted at http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/q9_5_29.html

I really do believe that you, and the majority of Muslims, live very much better lives than Muhammad himself lived, and this results not from following his teaching and his example, but by disobeying it, if indeed you and they are aware of it, and believing the words penned in 1839 by the English novelist, Edward Bulwer-Lyttton (1803-1873) to be true, that "The pen is mightier than the sword," I shall continue to critique Islam from its own most authoritative records, seeking to have it brought into the public square, where it is available to everybody with Internet access.

In saying that "We have to show them the right way in one way or the other," with reference to Islamic terrorists, you remind me of Al-Ustazh ("revered teacher") Mahmud Muhammad Taha, who wanted to "modernize" Islam in the Sudan, by wanting 20th century Islam to be the "nice, peaceful, peaceloving, tolerant Meccan Islam" rather than the "harsh, violent, warlike, warmongering, flogging and stoning Medinan Islam."

In 1985 Sudanese President Ja'far Mohammed al-Nimeiri mis-used both the Sudanese legal system and Islamic Shariah, to have Muhammad Taha sentenced to death for apostasy, for which he was executed by public hanging on 18th.January 1985, despite the Sudanese penal code of 1983 having no mention such a "crime."

Around 3,000 people gathered to "enjoy" seeing his execution, many chanting that Taha's execution "was a victory for Islam. For a report of what happened to Muhammad Taha, see:-

http://www.alfikra.org/index_e.php

Can Islam be modernized Keith? Can Islam change its "unchangeable" Qur'an? Can a leopard change its spots? Can Islamic terrorists "be shown the right way in one way or the other?" please be aware of what could happen to you, should you ever live under Islamic jurisdiction, and want Meccan Islam to replace Medinan Islam, and be aware that twenty years ago in July 1988, CAIR's long-serving chairman, Omar Ahmad, told a crowd of California Muslims, that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." http://www.danielpipes.org/394.pdf

It has been so well said, that the massive difference between the Gospel of Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Islam of Muhammad, is that the nearer one gets to Jesus Christ, His teaching and the example of His life, the more peaceful and peaceloving one will be, whilst the further away from His teaching and the example of His life one is, the less peaceful and peaceloving one will be, and comparing/contrasting this with the Islam of Muhammad, the nearer one gets to the Islam taught and practiced by Muhammad, the more violent and murderous one will be, whilst the further one is from the Islam taught and practiced by Muhammad, the less violent, the less murderous and the more peaceable one will be. That's some difference isn't it? and at the time of 911, John Ashworth, the then US Attorney General, showed he knew much more about Islam than his President by saying, "the fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam is that the God of the Bible sent His Son to die for us, whilst Allah, the god of the Qur'an requires Muslims' sons to die for him," and that's some difference isn't it? and at the heart of the Gospel are the words recorded at John 3:16 that, "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believed in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life."

This is available to me and you Keith, and to anyone who will accept it, we're not worth it, we don't deserve it, we can't earn it and once accepted, we can't lose it, do we want it? it's a free gift, the Bible saying that,

"The wages of sin is death, but, the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord."

Romans 6:23

I close by offering you the peace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, Who said,

"I am leaving you with a gift—peace of mind and heart. And the peace I give is a gift the world cannot give. So don't be troubled or afraid."

John 14:27

and by saying as emphatically as I can, that I firmly believe politicians with their bombs, bullets, battleships, helicopter gunships, cruise missiles etc. will not defeat the Medinan Islam of Muhammad, and that only the Gospel of Grace will defeat it, but the Christian church has to waken up, and get about the commission given them by the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the One who can bring peace to this world. He is the Prince of Peace. He is the paradigm. He is the exemplar. He is the sinners all-sufficient Saviour, He is the redeemer. He is……...I wish I could describe Him to you Keith, but He's indescribable!!

With kind regards and best wishes

Lactantius Jr

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".