Islam's forgotten verses


OldSchoolContemporary: It's interesting you brought up the quotation of displaying the wounds of martyrdom as a perversion of what jihad means, or perhaps you’re saying the "human sacrifice" portion is the misinterpretation, I'll await clarification my friend. However what you’ve written about scars of jihad isn’t alien to Islam in the least, actually it comes directly from the mouth of Mohammed, who was quoted to have said: "One who meets Allah without a scar of Jihad, he shall have blisters (on his body.") Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud. Taken from an Islamic website it seems they too have totally missed what Islam is about. In another translation the body without scars of jihad is actually called deficient.


Or there's Bukhari 52:54, which features the words of Muhammad as he says: "I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred." Without being inflammatory I wonder aloud, why the love of death within so important a book of the Muslim world? This isn't a fringe piece of literature penned by infidels with an axe to grind against Muslims everywhere, instead it's something Muslims, if they're indeed worthy of the name, are meant to believe and agree over.

every new explosion, forced conversion, beheading and vitriolic passage that claims

Muslims to be people who slay and are slain, I'm given renewed reason to doubt the establishment's poorly defended rhetoric


Whereas any Muslims who don't or won't agree (as there are many) they're considered hypocrites and false Muslims by jihad fighters worldwide. They'd likely be considered fakes by Mohammed too. Or we could turn to Sahih Muslim 20:4635, Sahih meaning authentic/sound, which means we're being treated to the authentic words of Mohammed when he says: "Nobody who enters Paradise will (ever like to) return to this world even if he were offered everything on the surface of the earth (as an inducement) except the martyr who will desire to return to this world and be killed ten times for the sake of the great honour that has been bestowed upon him."


Are the words of Mohammed, the first Muslim according to Qur’an 6:163, and the most influential certainly, not worth considering when talking about what Muslim terrorists are doing today? Without taking to my soapbox (as much of what's above I intend to be proper questions,) doesn’t it seem like the media and others are in total denial with regards to what Islamic literature has between its pages?


Every other online message and media puff piece about Islam seems concerned with throwing Christians under the bus, geopolitics or some other irrelevant seeming issue. I agree that we ought to all work together, but that involves challenging political cults that blatantly incite others to beat women in my country, steal from my wallet, kill my loved ones and destroy my right to choose my own belief system! Because despite world leaders and politically correct yes men telling me over and over again that there's "No compulsion in religion" (That's Qur’an 2:256,) every new explosion, forced conversion, beheading and vitriolic passage that claims Muslims to be people who "slay and are slain," I'm given renewed reasons to doubt the establishment's poorly defended rhetoric. Qur'an 9:111:


"Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed."


Feel free to look up the verse in total to read some woefully misinformed understanding of the Gospel and Torah too. Moreover, David "call me Dave" Cameron would rather array himself in the finest hijab before Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi than risk offending the ever growing Muslim populous of Britain, and it’s that brand of secular cowardice that’s led to British-born jihad fighters spoiling the world in numbers that ought to make the western world ashamed. We need a robust (dare I say Christian) response to both Islam and the hellish enlightenment values which have left people scrambling in confusion and valuing nothing.


tonycodes: You know I just don't think the label radical is correct for this. Radical can't be a huge group of followers. I'm trying not to nit pick but this is the heart of why I posted this. I think people out there don't want to call it a cult because they sympathise with these groups.


Lyxdeslic: It can be though. If you look up the definition of cult on google, it says it’s a "system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object." and "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister."

And what we call radicals are usually a small group of people within a bigger group of people who don’t always speak for the entire group of said people. Radical feminists for example, come off as hating men. The large portion of feminists want equality for all people. Radical Islam is a small group of people within the religion that use their religion in order to harm others. The people outside of the radicals that still follow Islam, are really peaceful people. I doubt that they would behead someone, or suicide bomb anyone or anything. These people hate being compared to the radicals, and they are being made victims by the radicals.

I will call radical Islam a cult. Because I am not a hypocrite. I’ve numerous times called radical Christians part of a cult of their own. What they follow isn’t Christianity. The same goes for radical Islam. They don’t follow Islam. They follow their own skewed version of Islam or Christianity that is used to harm those that displease them. I just call it like I see it. I don’t sympathize with radicals, because they put themselves in the mess that they are in. There’s a reason why people hate radicals. But radicals are too close minded to realize that they are the problem. I do sympathize with the people they harm. I have my eyes opened wide, and I know that there is a difference between extremists/radicals and the people/group they attempt to say that they are a part of. I sympathize with the victims.

OldSchoolContemporary: Could you expand upon "They (Islamic radicals) don’t follow Islam. They follow their own skewed version of Islam," Lyxdeslic? As no matter the way I slice it what radical Muslims are doing appears to be promoted by Islamic teachings, rather it’s others who’re not living up to their Muslim duties, as the radicals (having studied radical teachings,) are acting in radical a fashion, which makes sickening sense in truth. It seems that the peaceful, loving and kind Muslims who greet and befriend me daily are incompetent, by which I don’t mean incompetent in an offensive fashion, rather I mean not competent when concerning their Islamic belief system.

They’re unequipped so that they don’t understand how to interpret their Qur’an, for which they merely read and remember the portions they like while ignoring notions as damaging as the doctrine of abrogation, Mohammed’s status of Al-Insan al-Kamil and many many more unattractive notions that radical Muslims accept without fail.

Muslims (even ones who’ve memorized their Qur’an front to back) often times are without any understanding when asked what certain passages mean, or what they’re leading to when followed to their logical conclusion, and that’s not even beginning with secondary literature like Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ibn Kathir and the biographies of Mohammed, many of which Muslims haven’t even heard of! One of the ignored notions found in the Qur’an happens to be the doctrine of abrogation, which rather than writing of myself I’ll outline through another Muslim source so to have the most sympathetic understanding possible.

"Naskh (abrogation) in Arabic means lifting and removing. In Islamic terminology it means lifting a ruling indicated by a shar‘i text, on the basis of evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah. The concept of abrogation is based on the Qur’an and Sunnah, and on the consensus (ijmaa‘) of Ahl as-Sunnah, and there is great wisdom behind it. In most cases the abrogation was for the purpose of making things easier for the Muslims or increasing the rewards.” The writer continues: 'And He (Allah) tells us that whoever rejects abrogation has rejected His sovereignty and might, as He says: "Know you not that Allah is able to do all things? Know you not that it is Allah to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth?"


So, according to Muslim sources, whoever rejects abrogation isn’t an actual Muslim, although there’s another more practical reason that the orthodox are in desperate need for abrogation to be sound and binding upon every page of the Qur’an, that’s because incomprehensible is how most would describe the best of the Qur’anic verses, true believers therefore (as well as everyone else) cannot understand the Qur’an without understanding abrogation, it’s utterly without sense to it. Hereafter you’ll find where people draw the doctrine from, that being Qur’an 2:106: "We (Allah) do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?"


We’re told therefore that whenever two verses seemingly contradict one another we’re to ignore whichever came earlier and settle upon following the later revelation. It’s the idea of abrogation that informs any Muslim worthy of the name, and if you’re interested here’s just what the doctrine of abrogation destroyed over the course of time. Although I’m not hoping to overwhelm you or anyone with information, instead I’m curious if you can fashion something peaceful out of Islam while preserving its teachings, since Islamic radicals appear to have preserved them in all their gruesomeness.


Qur’an 2:190: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." Abrogated thanks to Qur’an Surah (chapter) 9, which is infamous for its violent content.


Qur’an 2:256: "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing." Same as the above.


Qur’an 2:62: "Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." Abrogated through Surah 3:85.


Qur’an 5:99: "The duty of the messenger is only to convey (the message). Allah knoweth what ye proclaim and what ye hide." Once again Qur’an Surah 9 abrogated this.


Qur’an: 6:104: "Proofs have come unto you from your Lord, so whoso seeth, it is for his own good, and whoso is blind is blind to his own hurt. And I am not a keeper over you." Qur’an Surah 9:5 does away with the above passage.


Qur’an 109:6: "To you be your religion, and to me mine." An awesome teaching again destroyed through Qur’an Surah 9:5.
After having taken abrogation into account what’s left for the peaceful Muslim to believe and defend, here’s what the Qur’an teaches Muslims who’re driven in their studies nowadays.


Qur’an 8:65: "O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence."


Qur’an 4:34: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."


Qur’an 61:4: "Lo! Allah loveth them who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure."


With abrogation (abrogation as defined by orthodox Muslims) thoroughly understood, I’m tempted simply to leave Mohammed’s final marching orders to Muslims everywhere. "Expel the Jews of the Hijaaz and Najraan from the Arabian Peninsula, and know that the most evil of people are those who took the graves of their Prophets as places of worship." Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4463; Muslim, 2444. Beneath you’ll find some Muslim commentary from regarding Mohammed’s viewpoint on the subject.
"The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded that the Jews be expelled from the Arabian Peninsula, and said that no two religions should co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula. This is a shar’i ruling. It is not permissible for any mushrik to remain there."


In addition, it seems to me that Mother Teresa was fanatical in her love of Christ and Christianity, yet what bad did the beloved woman’s fanaticism lead to? Being passionate or consumed by an idea or faith does no damage if that faith is what the world and its people need, and we certainly need more of that force for good.

Ridhya: In the same way that Christians who invaded Iraq to shoot brown people aren't Christians. Christ was against violence and in the end he chose to die rather than fight back against his killers. Extremist muslims dont follow their own sacred texts. It explicitly prohibits killing “people of the book” meaning the bible, meaning muslims, christians, and jews. And who have been the primary victims of terrorism? Other muslims.


So they like to pick and choose scripture to justify whatever particular endeavour they happen to be on at the time, the same way dominionist christians pick and choose bible scripture to justify their killing of brown people, and the same way zionist jews use scripture from the torah and talmud to justify killing non-jews. Violent people are violent no matter their faith or lack of faith. Religion NEVER causes violence, people do. Religion is an excuse. Like guns, guns dont choose to murder people. But people use them and they get blamed in the media.

OldSchoolContemporary: Having gone to painstaking lengths to outline why radical Muslims are obeying their prophet and holy book by committing acts of terror I’m honestly surprised, quoting terminology like people of the book appears to prove you’re acquainted with Islamic literature, yet you quote no surah nor an ayat, you’re obviously passionate and believe what you’re writing, nevertheless your message is nothing bar someone’s strong assertion, that and nothing more. Where is the coherent interpretation of Islam that makes it a non-violent, non-cultish movement?

Furthermore when you write: 'It (the Qur’an) explicitly prohibits killing "people of the book," that’s just not the case, simply reading surah 9:29 disproves what you’ve written. Read with me: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”"


Fight those who were given the Scripture, fight until they pay the non-believer tax and feel themselves humbled. However you may be dissatisfied by my interpretation of the Islamic writings, for which we have Muslim writers who’re thoroughly pleased to interpret the passages for you and I. Here’s Tafsir Ibn Kathir, one of the greatest Muslim commentaries ever to be written, which goes into explaining surah 9 of the Qur’an:


(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term." Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir."

Every agreement of peace abrogated, no idolater has promise of safety, the above you’ll find is the Islamic state, it’s al qaeda, it’s boko haram, it’s everything we’re told Islam isn’t. Returning again to Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—"Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious."


Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated. It is obvious, Ridhya. I hope you’re open to changing your mind on the subject. Although you’re totally right when you write religion is no excuse, yet it is justification to Muslim fighters everywhere, though such men shouldn’t be called radicals, as they’re doing exactly what the Qur’an teaches, they ought to be called complete Muslims, whereas Muslims who won’t slay are incomplete (or hypocrite) Muslims.


That leads into your point about Muslims murdering others supposedly professing the same faith, it’s the complete believer in Islam who’s killing who they’d call hypocrites and apostates of the faith. Moreover, as for the sake of clarity this deserves saying, you standing up to Islamic doctrine isn’t an attack upon Muslims, you’re yet rational and clear of head when challenging what appears to be an evil ideology. In football it’s called playing the ball and not the man.


"Christ was against violence and in the end he chose to die rather than fight back against his killers." Which Christ The King most certainly could have done according to the biography of Matthew: "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels." Yet he did no such thing, instead the Messiah went to the cross and an ignominious death so that you and I may be arrayed in righteousness. That my good friend is what Christianity looks like, not whatever military skirmish America may or may not be involved in.


Together we’ve outlined both Islam and Christianity therefore, with one being centered around love, self-sacrifice and an awesome King who so loved his ungrateful subjects that he died for them. Then there’s Islam, the paedophilic throwback that demands the death of ex-Muslims (Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17,) allows Muslim men to marry prepubescent girls (Qur’an 33:49,) taxes non-Muslims (surah 9:29,) and refuses you the right to play certain musical instruments (Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/451,) draw pictures (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 5609,) and even wear yellow clothes! (Sahih Muslim 5173.) This is how cults operate, it’s about control.


Red herrings suchlike America’s war history and Christian beliefs are the excuse that just won’t save Islam any more, moreover whatever apologists say regarding Islam (if they’re attempting to say it’s peaceful) routinely goes against the message of the Qur’an, Mohammed and every Muslim commentator that’s there to be read. So who’s speaking for Islam, a frothy mocha latte drinking student at Starbucks who’s most in depth knowledge of Islam is gained from conversations with their equally vacuous friends, or Mohammed (the self-confessed terrorist) who said: "….I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)…."?


(Bukhari: 4 Volume 52 Hadith 220.)
Not that I’m calling you a frothy mocha latte drinking student! After reading everything that’s been written you’ve neither challenged nor corrected anything I’ve posted, which can only lead me to believe it’s accurate, fair? Think further how Muslims are expected to slay and be slain, they’re expected to fight and behave like killers. (Qur’an 9:111.) Having also left Mohammed’s deathbed command untouched I’m curious to ask, how do you assume Muslims have historically waxed in number and driven the hated Jews away? Surely not through heated debate. It was by the sword, and in total obedience to Mohammed’s hateful words.


In case any of us are still in doubt as to what sort of morality the Qur’an teaches, here’s how the greatest figure of Islam treated the people of the book. As read in the earliest Muslim biography of Mohammed, written by Ibn Ishaq. Here’s how authentic Muslims deal with people who’ve surrendered apparently.


Then [the Banu Qurayza tribe] surrendered, and the apostle [Muhammad] confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them.

― Tyrone Cormack