Some historical context for Tariq

Submitted by Jan (Austria), Sep 30, 2006 at 19:00

My dear Tariq,

1. COPY/PASTING

You are actually right that I did a copy/paste of those verses but not from a hate-site but a book that you might call a hate-book.

The book is the english translation of Umdat as-salik, "Reliance of the traveller", a classic manual of islamic sacred law from the shafi'i school of Sunni Islam. This Shariah book has a certificate of approval from Al-Azhar university in Cairo. If you are not familiar with Al-Azhar, it is the n°1 Islamic institute in sunni islam. Those guys study islam their whole life and are more capable than you and me of interpreting the verses of the noble Quran. If you read the book (you can buy it on Amazon, it is a must buy for you), your whole peaceful perception of islam will disappear right away

The verses are quoted in the chapter of Jihad. They define jihad as war against non-muslims. They mention that there is a lesser and a greater jihad but they have nothing to say about the greater jihad apart from the fact that it is a spiritual fight to improve oneself. This does not surprise me because in the most authoritative hadith collections, you hardly find anything about this greater Jihad.

Then they continue with the lesser Jihad which is an outright war to spread islam and they mention the same verses that i mentioned. So I do exactly the same as they do but you say i quote out of context and they are top islamic experts. This is a problem: an islamophobe is telling the same as the expert who is ready to defend islam with his blood and i am the bad guy? The book continues by telling that non-muslims of the people of the book have 3 options:

- convert to Islam

- pay the jizya and accept whatever the muslim authority says

- war

other people only have option 1 and 3.

This is confirmed by the Hadith that I quoted and that I took from the following site of the muslim student association of America. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html

I have a print version of Sahih Muslim which has a different numbering system but corresponds to the website version. You can find the most reliable hadith there. i became addicted to the site already. The hadith says that fighting has to be done until people say "la illah illa allah", not in self defense. Well it can become self-defense when you threaten the people that they will only be safe when they convert to islam and they feal threatened and attack you. Then you are fighting in self-defense, right.

I have the impression however that those muslim students are Mohammad haters because they paint a very negative picture of the prophet. I wonder how a muslim can translate a text that says the prophet encouraged rape of captive women ( http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3432 ). Maybe you have a clue?

2. CONTEXT OF 2.193

Muslims who are told by non-muslims that the aggressive verses of the Quran have to be seen in their context bring trouble to themselves. Especially if you bother to look at the context.

The mentioned verse came down in relation to the invasion of Mecca. Mohammad came with an overwhelming invasion force and told his mujahidin not to kill anybody who is not resisting:fighting. That is indicated in verse 2:190. It would be as if George Bush is invading Irak and of course he tells only to shoot to the guys who shoot at them and then you say that George Bush is a very peaceful person because he only allows fighting in self-defense. big joke.

The context of 2:191 is pathetic. The biographies of the prophet tell that he reserved himself the right to shed blood at the sacred mosque adding that only he could do it but nobody before or after him is allowed to do so. Indeed at that time it was absolutely forbidden to fight at the sacred mosque under any condition. Mohammad broke that law by his aggression.

Regarding 2.193 "And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression."

It is clear that if there is no faith in Allah, there will be war as also shown in the hadith indicated to you. The prophet understood this very well and in my shariah book it is no different. By the way Tumult or oppression is only one word in the arabic version of the Quran which is fitna. Fitna has many meanings but Quran commentators agree that here it means everything non-islamic. In one hadith it says that women are fitna for men and there is means that women are causing trouble to men by using their charm.

Do you think I read the Quran? Or do I follow books that you would be tempted to call hate books but that are actually islamic sources?

3. THE MEANING OF SELF DEFENSE IN ISLAM

Meaning of self-defense in islam is completely different than what we consider it to be here in the West. A muslim is threatened when his belief system is under pressure. A westerner is threatened when a guy with a gun is about to pull the trigger;

If somebody asks me what is Islam in one sentence, I answer that it comes down to believe in one God only. Very simple indeed. Now, this principle is so important that it seems to be worth killing for it. A muslim feels personally attacked when a fool at the other side of the world criticizes the Prophet or Islam. He feels attacked when non-muslims invade muslim countries even to remove the worst of dictators because those muslim invaders might bring the muslims away from Islam. Muslims feel attacked when they can not get an interest-free lone in a German bank because interest is haram.

Muslims are not personally attacked when muslims kill other muslims like in Darfur or Somalia. This is not seen as a threat against Islam. A muslim feels attacked when muslim girls are banned from wearing hijab at school and in this way are forbidden to follow allah's commandments. In light of those multiple ways of being attacked, a muslim is always in a situation of self-defense. Look at the western european countries where all people regardless of their religion get the same chances, social security, medical care, schools, it is mainly the muslims that are involved in crime, riots, unemployment. And they always blame this on somebody else like the prophet blamed his persecution in Mecca on the people that he was continuously insulting. Read Ibn ishaq, the life of the prophet and you will see it for yourself;

4. ORDER OF REVELATON

From which source do you know that "the verses 2:190-193 were revealed before the ones in surah 8"

5. WHO THE HECK IS THIS Professor K. S. Ramakrishna Rao ? What are his sources?

I read Ibn ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Sa'd and I did not find anybody who was killed at the beginning of islam in Mecca, though there was what the israelis call moderate physical pressure. If the honourable professor does not mention his sources, his statements are worthless.

I am looking forward to your reply and wish you peace in your life...

---

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".