Don't forget to slaughter a sheep !!
Posted on 01/24/2005 10:13:56 AM PST by USF
Devout Muslims are killers.
Part 2:
The Teachings on Holy Warfare in Muhammad’s Traditions (“Hadith”)
The teachings of the Koran on the use of the sword to advance the cause of Islam, are corroborated by the collections of traditions (“Hadith”) concerning the teaching of Muhammad. The nine volumes by Iman Bukhari are generally regarded as the most authentic of the Hadith literature. In volume 4 alone Richard Bailey found 283 passages teaching holy warfare (Jihad) to advance the cause of Islam. For the sake of brevity I will quote only four of them.
Muhammad said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it” (4:50). Again he said, “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.” (4:73 ). For Muhammad fighting for the cause of Allah was a way of life. He said, “My livelihood is under the shade of my spear, and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya” ( 4:162b).
The "Jizya" is the poll tax paid by subjugated peoples in return for their right to exist. Muhammad said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshiped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshiped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah (either to punish him or to forgive him.)” (4:196 ). The order is clear. Muslims had to fight people until they became Muslims.
Scholarly Support for the Four Stages Evolution of Jihad
We have briefly sketched the four stages evolution in Koran’s teaching on “holy war” (Jihad) from no retaliation, to permissible defensive fighting, to obligatory defensive fighting, and finally to offensive war at all times. Numerous scholars recognize that this evolutionary teaching on the use of warfare corresponds to the stages of development in Muhammad’s thought and circumstances. Two quotes from reputable sources suffices to prove this point.
The first quote is from Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, the English translator of Sahih Al-Bukhari’s nine volume collection of the traditions (Hadith) regarding the teachings of Muhammad. In his introduction to these volumes, Dr. Muhsin Khan writes: “So at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory: (1) against those who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) ... (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah ...” (p. xxiv).
The second quote is from the article on “Jihad” found in the Brill’s Encyclopedia of Islam. The author writes: “The jihad is a duty. This precept is laid down in all the sources. It is true that there are to be found in the Kur’an divergent, and even contradictory, texts. These are classified by the doctrine, apart from certain variations of detail, into four successive categories: those which enjoin pardon for offences and encourage the invitation to Islam by peaceful persuasion; those which enjoin fighting to ward off aggression; those which enjoin the initiative in attack provided it is not within the four sacred months; and those which enjoin the initiative in attack absolutely, at all times and in all places.”
The article continues, saying: “In sum, these differences correspond to the stages in the development of Muhammad's thought and to the modifications of policy resulting from particular circumstances; the Meccan period during which Muhammad, in general, confines himself to moral and religious teaching, and the Medina period when, having become the leader of a politico-religious community, he is able to undertake, spontaneously, the struggle against those who do not wish to join this community or submit to his authority. The doctrine holds that the later texts abrogate the former contradictory texts ... to such effect that only those of the last category remain indubitably valid” (p.538).
The doctrine in question is known as “the law of abrogation” which is accepted by Muslim scholars. According to this doctrine the later “verses of the sword” superceded the earlier “verses of forgiveness.” This means that gradually Muhammad came to accept the military Jihad as a legitimate and essential strategy to promote the expansion of Islam. No matter what people may think, Muhammad was not only a religious leaders, but also a military commander who waged war against his enemies as soon he consolidated his power and developed a fighting force.
Islam Expanded Through Warfare
A most compelling proof that Muhammad taught his followers to advance the cause of Allah by the use of the sword, is provided by the example of his immediate successors, known as Califs. They followed his intense fanaticism in waging relentless wars of conquests against Christians, Jews, and pagans. In a relatively short time they carved an enormous empire for themselves. At the height of their power, the Muslims’ territories stretched from northern Africa and southern Europe in the West to the borders of modern India and China in the East. Their battle cry was: “Before you is paradise, and behind you are death and hell.”
Most of the people the Muslims conquered were nominal Christians who surrendered their faith because they had lost the vision of the Christian message and mission. A major reason is that church leaders at this time were wasting their time fiercely quarreling about metaphysical questions such as the divine/human nature of Christ, rather than inspiring Christians to proclaim the Gospel to the pagan nations. The first seven ecumenical councils held between 325 and 787 A. D. were largely concerned with the definitions of the nature and relationship between the three Beings of the Godhead. Bitter battles were fought over metaphysical questions that should be accepted as mystery. By loosing their evangelistic vision, many Christians succumbed to Islam, instead of bringing to the Muslims a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
During its first century of Islam’s expansion from 632 to 732, Muhammad’s successors subdued Egypt, Palestine, Syria, part of Turkey (besieged Constantinople twice in 668 and 717), and all the countries of northern Africa. In 711 they crossed from Africa to Spain and crossed the Pyrenees into southern France. They boasted that they would soon stable their horses in St. Peter’s cathedral in Rome. But in 732 the Frankish ruler Charles Martel defeated then at the Battle of Tours and checked their progress in the West.
In the East the Muslim conquest continued unabated. In the ninth century they subdued Persia, Afghanistan, and a large part of India. In the thirteenth century they conquered the Turks and the Monguls. Bulgaria, Serbia, and parts of Hungary were soon to follow. Finally in 1453 the city of Constantinople itself fell into the hands of the Muslim Turks, who turned the magnificent church of St. Sophia into a mosque where the Koran is read instead of the Gospel. From Constantinople the Muslims spread panic in Europe and threaten the German empire until they were finally defeated at the gates of Vienna in 1683.
The Decline of the Muslim Power
At this time began the decline of the Muslim power with the rise of European nations which gradually broke up and divided among themselves much of the Muslim territory known as the “Ottoman Empire.” The development of strong European nations and a powerful America, coupled with the aggressive missionary movement of the 19th and 20th centuries, has created serious problems for Muslims. The political-religious Islam movement which during the Middle Ages seemed destined to rule the world, has gradually been humiliated by Western colonial powers which have divided much of the Muslim territories among themselves. What ended the expansion of Islam was not a change of beliefs, but the European military might.
Anger Driving Terrorism
The humiliation Muslims have experienced in the last two centuries, is a contributing factor to the anger that is driving terrorism today. In recent years Muslims have been humiliated not only by the Jews in Palestine, but also by Christian Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo, by atheistic or Christian Russians in Chechnya, and by Hindus in Kashmir and Pakistan.
It is hard for some Muslims to accept the shame of their international failure. After being the superpowers for over a thousands years, believing that Allah had empowered them to wipe out Christians, Jews, pagans, and to rule the whole world, today they find themselves governed politically or controlled economically by nations made up mostly of “infidels.” Many Muslims are angered by the superior power of Western countries, especially America, because they still believe in the superiority of their religion and culture which they want to impose on the rest of the world.
In his book Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Princeton 1996), Rudolf Peters, Professor of Islamic Law at the University of Amsterdam, observes: “The crux of the doctrine is the existence of one single Islamic state, ruling the entire umma [Muslim community]. It is the duty of the umma to expand the territory of this state in order to bring as many people under its rule as possible. The ultimate aim is to expand the territory of this state in order to bring the whole earth under the sway of Islam and to extirpate unbelief” (p. 3).
The fact that the expansionistic vision of Islam to bring the whole earth under its sway, has suffered constant set backs during the past two centuries, and especially in recent years, is inspiring some concerned Muslims to commit the terroristic acts reported in the daily news. Their aim is to show that in spite of their state of humiliation, Muslims are still capable of terrorizing Western superpowers like America. This is another way for them to show that Allah is still empowering them to accomplish their mission.
Concerned Muslims want to punish America for her alleged anti-Islam policies, b y hitting the people in their “comfort zone.” This entails in forcing Americans to “pay more and play less,” by burdening them with billions of dollars of expenses to fight terrorism at home and abroad, It also consists in distressing Americans with the constant fear of unsuspected attacks. By keeping Americans on the edge and thus undermine their traditional sense of security, many devout Moslems believe that they are scoring a major victory for the cause of Islam. They think that they are showing to the world that Allah has empowered them to humiliate the most powerful nation, America. For them this represents the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
The threat is heightened by the development of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction by such Arab countries as Iraq, Iran, and Libya. If a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology could devise a nuclear bomb in five weeks using published material available in a good library, it is conceivable that these and other developing countries could assemble thermonuclear weapons. When this happens, even a small use of nuclear weapons by Muslim countries committed to advance the cause of Allah by humiliating the Christian superpowers, could degenerate into a major international conflict which would bring ruin to all and victory to none.
Is Islam a Peace-loving Religion?
The preceding survey of the teachings of the Koran and of Muhammad’s traditions (Habith) regarding warfare, discredits the popular claim that Islam is a peace-loving, peace-preaching religion. There is no question that there are many peace-loving Muslims who condemn the use of violence to promote their faith, but this can hardly be said of the teachings of the Koran and Hadith.
To say that Islam is a religion of peace, means to ignore the example and teachings of Muhammad. He fought all the pagans, Jews, and Christians in Saudi Arabia, until he subdued them, forcing them to accept Islam. What Muhammad did is reflected in what he taught about fighting and slaying the infidels: “When the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity [become Moslem], then open the way for them” (Sura 9:5).
The claim that Islam is a peace-loving religion, is openly contradicted by the Koran that reads like a terrorist manifesto. We must not be fooled by the speeches of Arab leaders who condemn the acts of terrorism when their people are out in the streets in a carnival-like atmosphere celebrating the carnage of innocent people by suicide bombers.
Real peace with Muslims is impossible as long as they believe in the example and teaching of Muhammad. For the Prophet peace comes only through submission to Islam, which is the very meaning of “Islam,” namely, “submission.” But the Islamic concept of peace as a world dominated by Muslims is ultimately a mandate for war.
The challenge that we face today in seeking to establish peaceful relations with the Moslem world, is to help our Muslims friends understand the fundamental flaws of the teachings of the Koran regarding the use of violence to advance the cause of Allah. A religion that advocates engaging in “holy war” (Jihad) to propagate its faith, is a repressive movement that violates the fundamental human right to choose whom to worship. This fundamental right is recognized and respected by the God of biblical revelation who says: “Choose ye this day whom you will serve” (Jos 24:15).
VIOLENCE IN THE BIBLE AND THE KORAN
This leads us to the discussion of violence in the Bible and in the Koran. The debate over this question has intensified after the events of September 11. Those who want to exonerate the use of violence by Muslims, are quick to point out that Christianity is not different, because the Bible and Christian history are filled with violence. Earlier we cited Kenneth Woodward who wrote in Newsweek: “The Bible, too, has its stories of violence in the name of the Lord. The God of the early Biblical books is fierce indeed in his support of the Israelites warriors, drowning enemies in the sea” (Newsweek, February 11, 2002, p. 53).
How can we respond to this popular argument that the violence in the Koran is not different from the violence we find in the Bible? For the sake of brevity I will limit my response to three major considerations
1) Christians Have no Biblical justification for Using Violence in the Name of Christ
There is no question that Christians have used violence, torture, and military crusades to destroy “infidels” and “heretics,” but those who committed these shameful acts, betrayed the Person and teaching of Christ. They turned the Christian church into a terroristic organization acting against the teaching of Christ who condemned the use of violence as a means to establish His Kingdom. He told Peter who cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt 26:52).
While Muhammad commanded his followers to fight pagans, Jews and Christians until they were killed or subdued, Christ taught his disciples to endure persecution and pray for the persecutors. “Blessed are you when men revile you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven . . . I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matt 5:11-12, 44,45).
Muslims who use violence, warfare, and terrorism to advance the cause of Allah, can legitimately claim to be following the example and teachings of their prophet, Muhammad. He was both a religious and political leader who fought until he subdued the people of Mecca and the Christian and Jewish communities living in Saudi Arabia. He taught: “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.” (4:73 )
But Christians who have resorted to violence to advance God’s Kingdom, cannot appeal to the teachings or example of Christ. They have betrayed His teachings. Christ chose to be crucified rather than to slay His enemies with the sheer power His spoken word. He taught His followers to establish the Kingdom of God, not through physical confrontation, but through the peaceful proclamation of the saving grace of God.
Christianity turned the Roman world upside down during the first three centuries by the sheer power of the grace of God manifested in the loving and forgiving attitudes of Christians, who were willing to suffer and die for their faith. By contrast, Islam conquered much of the Roman world during the first century of its expansion (632-732) b y slaughtering a countless number of innocent people and forcing their faith upon the survivors. What a difference! Christ condemned the use of violence to promote the Christian faith, while Muhammad commanded the use of the sword to advance the cause of Islam.
2) The Extermination of the Canaanites Was a Divine Punishment for their Wickedness.
Some appeal to passages found in the book of Joshua regarding the extermination of various tribes living in Canaan, to argue that the Bible is not different from the Koran in sanctioning a “holy war” to promote the true worship of God. If this allegation were true, then the teachings of the Bible on the use of violence would be similar to those of the Koran.
The problem with this allegation is the failure to recognize that the extermination of the various tribes living in Canaan was a divine punishment for their wickedness, and not a method to convert them to the religion of Israel. Dead people cannot change their religion.. Like Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their wickedness had reached the limits of God’s mercy, so the tribes living in Canaan were exterminated on account of their sinfulness.
Hundreds of years before the invasion of Canaan, God told Abraham that his descendants would be sojourners in a foreign land for “four hundred years” (Gen 15:13), before they could settle in the land of Canaan. The reason given for this waiting period is clearly stated: “for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen 15:16). In other words, God was willing to wait for several generations before exterminating the tribes living in Canaan, because their wickedness had not yet reached the limits of His mercy.
Later God warned the nation of Israel to be careful in not repeating the sins of the Canaanites, otherwise they would suffer a similar punishment. The warning was in vain. Eventually God used the Assyrian and Babylonians as the instrument of His justice to punish the people of Israel for their sinfulness, in the same way as He had used Israel as an instrument of His justice to purge the land of Canaan of its sinfulness.
There is a dramatic difference between the account of the extermination of the Canaanites and the events of the early history of Islam. The primary theme in the biblical account is that of God’s holiness manifested in the punishment of unrepentant sinners. This theme is missing in the early accounts of Muhammad’s raid and wars. Instead, the primary motivation we constantly encounter in the accounts of Muhammad’s warfare is the spreading of the rule of Islam by destroying and looting the enemies.
3) The Bible Does not Enjoin the Use of Warfare to Promote the Worship of the True God
Another important point to consider is that nowhere the Old or New Testaments command God’s people to attack pagan nations, either in self-defence or as a way to promote the true worship of God. The proclamation of salvation in the Bible is always b y witnessing and persuasion.
God placed Israel in the land of Canaan because of its strategic location at the crossroads of the ancient world. The Israelites were to be God’s showcase to the ancient world, especially to the merchants and armies crisscrossing Palestine. This so-called “King’s Highway” was an obligatory “interstate” route for people who traveled from the South to North or from the North to the South of the Middle East. God wanted to establish His people at the hub of the ancient world for them to be a light to the nations. “The Lord will establish you as a people holy to himself, as he has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and walk in his ways. An all the people of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the Lord; they shall be afraid of you” (Deut 28:9-10).
The Israelites were called to promote the true worship of God, not by conquering nations through warfare, as enjoined in the Koran, but by being a shining light to the world. “Arise and shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you. . . . And the nations shall come to your light, and the kings to the brightness of your rising” (Is 60:1, 2). There was no need for the Israelites to promote their faith by the sword, because God promised to fight for them and to bring the nations to their door steps to learn about the true worship of God (Zech 8:20-22).
The OT anticipation of the proclamation of salvation to all the nations, becomes in the NT Christ’s great commission to His followers: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:19). This great commission is to be fulfilled, not by the use of the sword, but by “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:20).
Islam is a Violent Religion
A comparison between the teaching of the Koran and that of the Bible on the use of violence, shows the fundamental difference that exists between Islam and Christianity. We have found that Islam is a violent religion because the Koran teaches holy warfare (Jihad) to force people to submit to its religious/political system. A religion that resorts to violence to force its teachings upon others, can hardly be called a “religion,” because a true religion presupposes reverence for God and respect for fellow-beings. It would be more appropriate to label violent religions as “terroristic organizations.”
The designation of “terroristic organization” applies not only to Islam, but also to Christian churches that became violent during certain periods of the history. For example, during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church became a formidable “terroristic organization” that organized crusades to exterminate Muslims, Jews, and so-called “heretics.” The Catholic church terrorized people in Western Europe, especially through the inquisition. The latter was a travelling court that went from town to town seeking out for “heretics” to interrogate, torture, and execute if they did not abandon their beliefs.
Recently the Pope apologized for the unspeakable atrocities committed by the Catholic church when it became a terroristic organization committed to subdue Muslims, Jews, religious dissidents, and Greek Orthodox Christians. We only wish that Muslims religious leaders would follow the example of the Pope by apologizing for the countless number of innocent people they massacred during their millennium of territorial expansion. If they truly believe that Islam is a peace-loving religion, then they have a moral obligation to show their heartfelt sorrow for slaughtering millions of innocent people who refused to submit to the Islam faith and rule. They also should apologize for the daily terroristic acts committed by Muslim suicide-bombers. They should condemn these acts of violence as a betrayal of Islam. But this is wishful thinking, because there are no indications that such an apology and condemnation is forthcoming from Muslim religious leaders.
On May 28, 2002, a Fox News reporter said that during the long months she has spent in the Middle East reporting the current conflict, she has never heard a Muslim religious leader condemning the killing of innocent people by suicide bombers. She found it hard to comprehend why Muslim religious leaders do not speak up, especially when suicide bombers kill mothers strolling their your children on the street.
Why are Muslim religious leaders silent? Simply because they believe that suicide bombers are “martyrs” who are acting in accordance with the example and teachings of their prophet, Muhammad. After all, he called upon his followers to “ fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” (Sura 9:5).
Muhammad practiced what he preached. He waged war against his enemies as soon as he consolidated his power in Medina. He used the sword to force people to accept his religious and political system. For Mohammed fighting was a way of practice his religion: “My livelihood is under the shade of my spear, and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya [tribute]” (Hadith 4:162b). A religion that uses violence to promote its beliefs and practices, can hardly be considered as a peace-loving religion.
Christianity is a Peace-Loving Religion
By contrast, Christianity is a peace-loving religion because it is inspired by its founder, Jesus Christ, who did not force people to submit to anything. He called upon people to voluntary accept the Good News of His substitutionary death for penitent sinner and the power of His transforming grace. He taught His followers to “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good” (Matt 5:44-45).
Christ is rightly called “THE PRINCE OF PEACE” (Is 9:6), because he offers us PEACE WITH GOD by bearing the penalty of our sins, PEACE WITH OURSELVES b y offering us the power to overcome sin in our life, and PEACE WITH PEOPLE by granting us the capacity to love even those who hate us.
At Jesus’ birth, the angels sang: “Glory to God in the highest and on earth PEACE, GOOD WILL toward men (Luke 2:14). Thirty three years later while dying He prayed for those who mocked and crucified Him: “Father forgive them for they know not what the do!” (Luke 13:34). And to all who trust in Him and accept His gracious provision of salvation, Christ promises: “My PEACE I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:27).
The peace that Christ offers is not territorial, but internal. It is achieved not b y making the whole world Muslim through territorial expansion, but by experiencing the restful assurance of divine forgiveness, protection, and salvation. It is an internal peace that enables us to live in a trouble world without letting our hearts be troubled or afraid. Ultimately, this is the peace that every human being needs. The is the peace that can help Muslims to live at peace with God, themselves, and others.
Don't forget to slaughter a sheep !!
"I would never deny somebody their religious freedom, but I'd damn sure hold the mainstream Muslim accountable for their comparative silence on the acts of those who worship at the same altar."
You seriously cannot believe that all Muslims have been complacent and silent about terrorism. I know of a great many Muslim who find terrorist acts deplorable and irreprehensible and are QUITE vocal about it.
Don't count on the corporate-run mass media to allow such people a voice, though.
So in other words, you agree, the actual true Islam is the code of the Islamists, and there is no difference.
This is the troll who just signed up today and posted an article calling Bush a fascist.
No, it's Wahabi madrassas and mosques the Saudis are funding in America and elsewhere.
LOL... yes, we're playing word games here.
If one would want to take a more "Daniel Pipes" approach, to know thy enemy, exploit its divisions, to divide and conquer... it helps to play PC word games a times to target the "true believers" first, and to keep the ummah divided and infighting. Its one of their weaknesses that we can use to our advantage.
But, yes.. we essentially agree here. ;o)
Let's hear your opinion of the Jersey City murders last week.
No, Christianity has no faults; some of the people who practice Christianity do.
Let's put it this way:
On a scale of 1-10 -- from good-worse -- Christianity comes in at around "2", while the "Religion of Peace Death" comes in at about "11".
"So in other words, you agree, the actual true Islam is the code of the Islamists, and there is no difference."
No, I actually maintain that the opposite is the case.
He's not a troll...he's a Muslim!
"No, Christianity has no faults"
I can think of at least one.
I am not suggesting that there haven't been Muslims truly incenced and enraged by the behavior of the criminal death cult within...I AM suggesting that they are the exception which proves the rule.
These people operate because Islamic teachings allow loopholes for this sort of behavior. The Ayatollahs and Mullahs are in a position to close these loopholes, yet they do not.
And even your most afluent and successful U.S. citizen Muslim hails to these leaders in Saudi Arabia and Iran for guidance...Just like Catholics look to the Pope as their final mortal arbiter.
At least the Pope weighs in on world and political issues...Hell, sometimes more than he probably should. When a Cardinal bucks the poobah, he gets recalled.
Probably say they were justified. "Praise be to BeelzAllah!
I'm right on board with you in that, and I have no problem with dissimulating to this enemy - after all, turnabout is fair play. No point in misleading FReepers though that Islam is anything but through and through a death sentence for anyone over whom it gains power.
I'm not a Muslim or a Christian, actually. I've been an Atheist for about as long as I can remember.
FYI - I'm not a 'He'
Then you are either completely ignorant of Islam or are deliberately lying. Which is it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.