Amillennialist

Not "reviling Muslims," just pointing out the commands of Allah and the example of his apostle

In Beliefnet.com, Defending jihad, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, moral equivalence, moral relativism, Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword on October 4, 2007 at 1:33 PM

From here (at least for a while):

PM,

“Iago, you’re off-base.”

Let’s see . . . .

“The religions ‘of the book'”

This is a false Islamic construct used by Mohammed and his followers to try to persuade Jews and Christians to “revert” to Islam. That it also misleads those ignorant of the religions’ authoritative texts into believing that Islam and Christianity are morally equivalent is amply demonstrated here.

“have a conundrum because ‘the book’ (no matter which one you’re using) is riddled with contradictory statements, layers of history and dubious authorship.”

A demonstration of that false moral equivalence just noted. Only the ignorant and the deceitful can make such a claim.

What statements from the Bible are contradictory? On what basis do you characterize either religion has having “dubious authorship”? What does the phrase “layers of history” mean?

“The b-i-b-l-e is so full of violent calls to holy war it’s astounding. . . . Ephesians 6:10 – 13 . . . A close reading of this text will reveal that this is spiritual warfare . . . .”

As you admit, this is no call to “holy war,” so you’ve already contradicted yourself and failed to support your charge.

Neither does this text require “a close reading” to understand it is speaking of spiritual matters, since it plainly says it!

More importantly (and to the point), do you have any Biblical passage that actually commands offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew? Christian?

No.

I’ve shared a few from Qur’an and Hadith. Unless you can produce the equivalent from Holy Writ, it must be concluded you’re just making things up.

“Well… since the crusades, I guess.”

Another false equivalence built on a foundation of historical illiteracy.

The essential difference between the Crusades and jihad is that the first Crusade was called in response to a desperate plea for help by eastern Christians under attack by . . . Islam.

“The same is true of the Quran. A close reading of the Arabic, in context, reveals the spiritual nature of the quotes you pulled (a reading neither you nor I are qualified to make, imho).”

So, you are not qualified to make such a call, yet you make the call.

Demonstrate from the texts where I’ve misrepresented any of them.

“Moreover, those statements are directly contradicted in other sections of the Quran. It is up to the devout to understand which excerpt to apply when, and to what extent.”

And the devout resolving such contradictions would end up with what? Do you know?

The doctrine of Naskh, or Abrogation. Islam has traditionally interpreted the later revelations for offensive jihad to have abrogated the earlier verses speaking of cooperation and peace.

“The fact is that religious and philosophical communities are inspired and directed by flesh and blood leaders in real-time.”

That is true. And any person or community of people may or may not accurately represent their religion. This is exactly why a person must go to a religion’s founder and sacred texts if they want to have an accurate portrait of that faith.

“And in our current historical context, there are two men who can be “thanked” for the fundamentalism prevalent in both western and muslim society. . . For Islam there was Sayyid Qutb.”

From where did Qutb derive his doctrines? How is it possible to call his ideology “fundamentalism” unless those teachings are “fundamentals” of Islam?

“The statement that this is a conspiracy theory not worthy for this board is ridiculous. The notion that Shiite and Sunnis have spilled more blood than Protestants and Catholics is… childish and unreal and blind to the facts.”

Speaking of childish, unreal, and blind . . . for how long have Sunni and Shia slaughtered each other? Catholics and Protestants? From where do the sources of such conflict derive?

The split in Islam occurred after Mohammed’s death over 1300 years ago. There was no Catholic/Protestant split until the sixteenth century.

Allah commands “kill the unbeliever wherever you find them . . . ,” but Christ commands, “Love your enemies.”

“There is no ideological basis for the current conflict.”

You’ve never read Qur’an, Sira, or Hadith. How can you make such a claim? Rather than propagate your own enlightenment to receive praise from others equally unfamiliar with the texts, why not study?

Since 9/11 Muslims have carried out over 9,000 terrorist attacks around the world. For 1350 years before that event, Islam has enslaved and murdered Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, animists, and assorted other pagans throughout Arabia, the Holy Land, the Middle East, Western and Eastern Europe, North Africa, and Asia.

“There is a hyped-up fear-mongering propaganda campaign, equally enacted on both sides for the identical reason.”

You dismiss the clear word of Allah and the example of his apostle, muddy-up the clear word of Christ, and then claim “both sides” are “identical.”

“Why Revile Muslims?”

Don’t. Tell the truth about the Source and Sustenance of nearly fourteen centuries of offensive jihad to make the world Islam: the command of Allah and the words and deeds of his apostle.

“And until we get over this animalistic fight-or-flight response, we are enslaved.”

Unless we wake up to the threat posed by jihad in service of Shari’a, we will end up with the same fate as countless non-Muslim civilizations before us — enslaved or dead.

“A core tenant of post modernism (and beliefnet) is the understanding that every individual perspective (or “truth claim”) IS equivalent.”

That’s false on several counts.

First, you’re arguing that “All claims of truth are equivalent” IS equivalent to “All claims of truth are not equivalent.” Second, BeliefNet bans people for posting Islamic texts. Third, how can you have any meaningful “debate” if everyone is right?

Finally, Allah calls non-Muslims like you “accursed,” fodder for “hell-fire” (Muslim Book 37, Number 6666), and worth only a third of a Muslim (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b). If you’re a Jew, it’s even worse. In addition to all that, you’re also descended from apes and swine (Qur’an 2:65).

But, hey, everyone’s right, right?

“Accusing me of moral equivalency is therefore a compliment to my position.”

‘Nuff said.

“I find fault in your attacks on Islam.”

Stating Islamic “sacred” texts is an “attack”?

What does that say for what *you* conclude about those passages? Are you some kind of Islamophobe?

“The notion that Islam may be “defeated” or “wiped out” is a dangerous one.”

I just scanned my two previous posts. Where did I write that?

“It leads to wrong-headed avenues, hard-lined beliefs in an ultimate right and wrong. Eventually it leads to camps.”

That’s a problem with false moral equivalences. Try as you might, reality eventually leads to unavoidable questions of “ultimate right and wrong.”

(And speaking of camps, what do you know about dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb? How can such a distinction arise at all if Islam is all about “peaceful inner-struggling”?)

So, was the Holocaust right or wrong? You (and, according to you, BeliefNet) would claim of course that Hitler’s truth was just as true as the truths of those 6,000,000 innocents slaughtered by his hand.

Is the enslavement, rape, and slaughter of millions of Sudanese Christians, animists, and black Muslims by the Arab-Muslim government and its allies right or wrong? (You know what that “compliment to your position” requires you to say!)

What other sorts of crimes against humanity must you defend in order to maintain your enlightened posture of moral equivalence? Slavery? Rape? Infanticide? Pedophilia? Genocide? The Ten Commandments?

“For contradictions in the bible, just google those two words and be amazed.”

Yes, Google is the final arbiter of truth. But I thought you said all truth is true?

“For one, find out who Joseph’s father was. Matthew says one dude. Luke says another.”

Have you compared the genealogies, or is that just what someone wrote?

(Don’t you think one of those obviously deceitful, power-hungry Christians would have noticed this and fixed it sometime in the last two thousand years? And doesn’t that argue for the Church’s faithfulness in preserving the Texts?)

Are you aware that the major difference between the two genealogies to which you refer reflects their authors’ intended audiences?

Matthew was writing to a Hebrew audience. He traces Christ’s human ancestry through his step-father Joseph (His legal father) to Abraham, the father of the Hebrews. Luke, writing to a Gentile audience, traces back through Mary’s side (His blood relative) to Adam, the father of all.

Are you also aware that the genealogies are not necessarily intended to be exhaustive? Matthew’s traces 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the Babylonian Exile, and 14 from the Exile to Christ. Genealogies in the ancient world served a purpose other than just to list names.

See the 10 names in the Genesis 5 genealogy and the 72,000-year reigns of three Sumerian kings.

“For dubious authorship, tell me who wrote which book.”

Perhaps you’ve noticed that many of the New Testament documents have either the author’s name in the title (i.e., the Gospels and several of the Epistles) or in their openings and/or closings. Paul and Peter confess authorship within the first few words of all their letters (except, perhaps, Hebrews).

The only New Testament document for which a solid attribution of authorship is difficult to make is Hebrews, but even there many think Paul may have been behind it.

The New Testament’s authors (in the common order of the texts): Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Luke, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, perhaps Paul, James, Peter, Peter, John, John, John, Jude, John.

“For ‘layers of history,’ tell me when each book was written. And what was the cut-off date?”

Within the lifetimes of their authors, which would put the last, Revelation, near the end of the first century, a.D. John writes that the revelation came to him when he was in exile on the Isle of Patmos.

“And how is it that some books are lying around, with the same cast of characters, but not included in the Canon?”

Do you refer to Apocrypha or the Gnostic gospels? Neither were considered Divinely-inspired by the Early Church. The Gnostic gospels did not appear until long after the last of the New Testament texts were composed.

“It’s patently troublesome to base a belief system on a text.”

I agree that just because something is written doesn’t make it true. That doesn’t mean, however, that all texts are false. Neither does it mean that we are unable to distinguish truth from falsehood (in a text or elsewhere).

“And its patently problematic to condemn a belief system based on texts you are not familiar with.”

(Werent’ you just doing that with the Bible? I guess consistency can be difficult for someone who wants truth to be true, unless he disagrees with it.)

I agree, which is why it is curious that you would argue from a position of — as you admit regarding Qur’an and Sunnah — ignorance.

“Your profile isn’t much help, but I’m guessing you know as little about the Quran and Haditha as I do.”

(Thanks for looking. Am I blushing?)

If I were willing to lie about Qur’an and Sunnah, why wouldn’t I lie in my profile? If I wrote that I were a former Muslim with a doctorate in Islamic and Biblical studies, would you then believe me? If I were just an uneducated fisherman, would that make what I write less true?

You’re engaging in an ad hominem argument. If what I write is false, prove it. Otherwise, let us reason together.

“I will handily demonstrate your false readings of the texts. Only two, because space is limited. I snagged them from about.com:”

Actually, you’re falling on your own sword, as I am about to “handily” show. :)

“one verse (in its snipped version) reads: ‘slay them wherever you catch them’ (Qur’an 2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are ‘they’ that this verse discusses? The preceding and following verses give the correct context . . . . It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed . . . .”

The only problem is I’ve not quoted Surah 2. That verse’s context is specifically defensive (although it should be pointed out that “oppression” is often understood to include even the mere existence of non-Muslims and their unbelief).

PM added,

“Another similar verse can be found in chapter 9, verse 5 — which in its snipped, out of context version could read: ‘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).’ Again, the preceding and following verses give the context.”

What is the actual context of 9:5? Have you read it? Do you know what this verse is commonly called?

It’s called, “the Verse of the Sword.” I wonder how it got that name?

When you read Sura 9, do you understand that the clause citing “immunity” was for *only* those who kept their treaties with Mohammed? That it was an *exception* to the command for the slaughter of non-Muslims and only until the terms of those agreements expired?

Do you realize that Sura 9 (and the command for war) is understood traditionally to refer to the entire non-Muslim world, including Jews and Christians? Maududi makes the following observations regarding the historical background of Sura 9:

“…to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam,” “…to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,” “…to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites,” and “…to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non-Muslim world.”

“Now that the administration of the whole of Arabia had come in the hands of the Believers, and all the opposing powers had become helpless, it was necessary to make a clear declaration of that policy which was to be adopted to make her a perfect Dar-ul-Islam.”

“A clear declaration was made that all the treaties with the mushriks were abolished and the Muslims would be released from the treaty obligations with them after a respite of four months.”

“…In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non-Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State.”

“…The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State.”

“…In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a conflict with the whole non-Muslim world.”

“…a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim’s faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr. Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine.”

“In this portion the Muslims have been urged to fight in the Way of Allah with the mushrik Arabs, the Jews and the Christians, who were duly warned of the consequences of their mischievous and inimical behaviour.”

“In this discourse, the Muslims have been told clearly and explicitly that they will inherit the rewards promised by Allah only if they take active part in the conflict with kufr, for that is the criterion which distinguishes true Muslims from hypocrites. Therefore true Muslims should take active part in Jihad, without minding dangers, obstacles, difficulties, temptations and the like.”

Do you know that the traditional position of all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (85% of Islam), Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, and other Muslim experts say that offensive warfare against non-Muslims is the Qur’an’s final word on the subject? That 9:5, “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater”?

Again, immunity from slaughter belonged only to those who kept their part of a contract with Mohammed, and only for as long as that agreement was in effect.

Outside of that — even for the “People of the Book” — only subjugation and humiliation or war exists.

What do you do with the rest of Allah’s revelation and Mohammed’s example? Consider:

“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .'” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

PM continued,

“Who are you to tell others what the truth is?”

But you said all truth is true. Doesn’t that include my truth? Who are you to tell me what the truth is?

(Moral relativism is a double-edged sword, isn’t it?) :)

Actually, what I’ve done is cite Qur’an and Hadith, and rather than demonstrate I’ve erred in that, you’ve only demonstrated an unfamiliarity with the Biblical and Islamic texts.

“Is Catholicism wrong on all counts because of the molestation? No. Is the molestation criminal? Yes.”

A red herring. A tu quoque.

The obvious difference (sorry, obvious to those who reject Absolute Moral Relativism) is that molestation is not only illegal in Western societies, it is forbidden by Christ.

On the other hand, in Islam you’ve got Mohammed telling his favorite wife Aisha that he began raping her when she was nine because Allah ordained it (Tabari 9:131; Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140; and many others).

“Is a Muslim wrong because his text can be taken piecemeal by sociopaths and twisted into perversions?”

You’ve not demonstrated yet that any mujahideen are taking any verses out-of-context. Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Do you have any evidence that I’ve misrepresented anything?

“No. The text isn’t wrong. The sociopath is wrong.”

But I thought everyone’s truth was true?

So, there’s nothing wrong with the texts just noted?

“And the way to remedy the situation is to BE FOR SOMETHING and not AGAINST ANYONE. That something is peace, tolerance, understanding… in a word: love.”

“Love” lies about hellish commands to convert, enslave, and kill all non-Muslims to make the world Islam?

Perhaps it’s time for a new definition of the word.

“Sure there are criminal Muslims. There are criminal Jews. There are criminal Blacks. . . .”

Islam is not a race, it is an ideology.

And as for the jihadist who kills non-Muslims because Allah and his apostle say “kill non-Muslims,” who are you to call him “criminal”? Is he not just following his own equally-valid truth?

“Ask yourself: do I know who Leo Strauss is and what he stands for? Do I know who reveres his teachings and attempts to exert his world-view? Do I know who Bin Laden’s mentor is? And his mentor’s mentor?”

Instead ask yourself: Who is waging offensive warfare against those who reject their ideology in fulfillment of their deity’s “sacred” texts?

“How did this madness begin? It didn’t begin in the book. It began in the men, and the men went and found what they needed in the book.”

But I thought you said men wrote the books. And I thought you said their truth is also true.

Who are you to call their truth “madness”?

“What is your beef with moral equivalency? I really want to know. You use it like an insult and I just don’t get it? Don’t we use metaphors and historical allusions to… you know… learn and not repeat mistakes?”

True is true. False is false. We can and *should* learn from the past.

Ironically, you have been advocating ignoring jihad’s past (and present) in Qur’an and Sunnah by attributing it to madmen and sociopaths taking verses out-of-context.

“and pps I hope nobody takes down your post. I found it insightful, on topic, all that good stuff. It’s very instructive to hear the other side on this issue.”

Thanks for the kind words. I hope we can continue this discussion.

Later,

“First, a critical distinction should be made. . . . swirling around the spiritual world of truth.”

You have no evidence for that.

I agree that there is a difference between the physical and the spiritual realms, but I vigorously oppose the idea that there are different, contradictory “truths.” Objective Truth is true regardless of whether many, one, or none confess it.

When I’ve heard that particular argument before it has been used by those seeking to dismiss Christ’s claims to being the Truth.

(This is one reason that the Neo-Darwinian creation myth is both so popular and so dangerous. Either YHWH created all that exists as He says He did, or it came about by accident, disease, and death as Neo-Darwinism claims.)

“Spiritual texts are a bridge to get the physical onto a philosophical track. All the religious paths lead to the truth.”

So, those who worshiped Teutates by drowning their human sacrifices, their path led to truth?

Followers of Molech, who as part of their devotion offered their little children to a fiery death in the arms of their god, their path led to truth?

Those who wage offensive warfare against non-Muslims who refuse to convert or submit to degradation and humiliation as commanded by Mohammed (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294), their path leads to truth?

Those who believe absolutely, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him”‘” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177), their path leads to truth too?

Does this path lead to truth: “Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until . . . there prevail . . . faith in Allah altogether and everywhere . . .” (Qur’an 8:38, 39)?

What about this: “Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24). Does that lead to truth?

“In physics, this same concept was discovered by Albert Einstein. Basically, there is no favored position or perspective. All perspectives are in motion. From foot the train is going by very quickly, in a car it is actually going backward. Both perspectives are “true.” All it takes is understanding to see why one sees it this way and the other that.”

This is an odd confusion of two different categories of phenomena. You are describing two possible physical perceptions of a physical event, but this is not analogous to your “all roads lead to truth.”

That for which you are actually arguing would be:

-From foot, the train is going by very quickly,

-From foot, the train is going by very slowly,

-From foot, the train is not moving at all,

-From foot, the train is moving backwards,

-From foot, the train is floating in the sky,

-From foot, the train fell into a chasm,

-From foot, the train ran over a pedestrian,

-From foot, — what train?

All at the same time and in the same place.

“The physical world is ruled by inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” or some wording thereof. To hinder those is a crime, and punishable as such as determined by the prevailing culture.”

That is not true. In some cultures, such “rights” are alienable. In fact, they are not recognized at all (or for only a few).

(Besides, how can you call anything a “crime” since everyone is right? And who are you to condemn someone else’s truth?)

Only one culture in the history of Man has formulated such a statement of belief, and that was the one founded on the Christian religion. Quite a few other cultures have no problem enslaving, raping, and murdering those who refuse to submit to their ideology (Communism, Nazism, and Islam, for example).

“There have always been, and will always be, corrupted and false teachers who distort spiritual and philosophical texts to justify crime.”

If, as you say all religious paths lead to truth, how can you call anyone “corrupted” or “false”? If their truth is true, how can you call what they (allegedly) do to their texts “distortion” or a “justification of crime”?

(By the way, you’ve still not demonstrated the Islamic texts I’ve cited as having been misrepresented.)

“It will always be incumbent on the world spiritual community to point out and rectify the false understandings and penalize those involved in criminal activity.”

A part of that “world spiritual community” believes it is their Allah-given duty to war against you if you refuse both the “invitation” to Islam and the demand to pay the jizya (just as Mohammed commanded. See Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

In light of this, how can there be any consensus on what “criminality” means?

And if, as you say, their path also leads to truth and is beyond criticism, how can you call their understanding “false” or their activity “criminal”?

“There is an infinite tangle of paths . . . Each and every one leads without exception to the truth.”

Really?

Does this one lead to truth: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day . . . until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29)?

How about this one: “O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Qur’an 9:123)?

Or this one: “The punishment of those who . . . strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land . . . ” (Qur’an 5:33)?

Or this: “It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67)?

How about this: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57)?

“Every human has a legitimate and personal relationship with the ineffable source.”

Really? What is your evidence for that?

“Don Miguel Ruiz puts it well . . . .”

Mr. Ruiz equates Christ and Allah. Are they really morally equivalent?

One God committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, and commanded, “Love your enemies.”

The other ordained the habitual raping of a nine-year-old child by his fifty-something-year-old prophet (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140), approved slavery, rape, theft, deceit, and murder, and commanded unending offensive warfare against all who refuse to submit to its rule (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24; etc.).

Defending the latter as “an unquestionably true path to truth” is itself a special kind of craven immorality, is it not?

Advocating obviously false moral equivalences causes those who should defend it to question whether or not the civilization that produced Shakespeare, Mozart, Michelangelo, the Moon Landing, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights is even worth defending.

It makes a Republic that defends the unalienable Rights of all human beings to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness no better than Ahmadinejad’s child-raping, stoning-rape-victims-for-adultery, “Kill-the-Jews”-chanting hell.

Still later,

“You defended the bible, but not terribly well. Mark and Luke didn’t even know Jesus.”

Thoroughly answering all your objections constitutes an inadequate defense?

The other authors of the New Testament – Matthew, John, Paul, James, Jude, and Peter – did know Him. That means you believe them, right?

Mark and Luke composed their Gospels from eyewitness accounts. Their relying on others’ firsthand testimony is insufficient reason to reject them.

(Ironically, Moral Relativism is a belief system that rejects critical thought, judgment, logic, evidence, and moral courage. It’s just a “swirling mass of unassailable spiritual truth to which all religious paths lead without exception – except, of course, for Christianity.”)

“There’s a whole forum on here called the Jesus Seminar where they break down that basically everything we think Jesus said and did he didn’t really say or do.”

So much for that “swirling mass of unquestionable truth.”

Where’s the Mohammed Seminar where “they break down that basically everything we think Mohammed said and did he didn’t really say or do”?

Isn’t that an interesting illustration of the reality of our situation? If Christ is attacked, Christians forgive, tolerate, ignore, or refute it. If Mohammed is attacked, people die and buildings burn.

Why is it that the only time Muslims protest in large numbers it’s not over their daily, global violence against non-Muslims, it’s over cartoons about Mohammed or a quote from a fifteenth century emperor whose great city was under siege by their co-religionists, to whom it fell in just a few decades?

The Jesus Seminar has been around a long time. They make claims for which they have absolutely *no* evidence. Where are the documents from which they say the Gospels are derived?

They don’t exist, yet we have several thousand ancient manuscript copies of entire and partial New Testament texts. Homer’s Iliad, the second best-attested-to text from Antiquity, has only a few hundred.

“There are basic inconsistencies like the fact that Matthew 1:16 says Joseph’s father is Jacob and Luke 3:23 says Joseph’s father is Heli.”

Addressed [above].

“These are just a few of the hundreds of apparent contradictions in the bible. I say apparent and I mean it because someone within the tradition, using the bible as the tool to truth, can maneuver and interface with the text to get to the spirituality they’re longing for.”

(“a few”? Not even one.)

Which implies they’re being dishonest.

How is approaching the Biblical texts with careful attention to the historical, cultural, and linguistic factors that help us determine the texts’ actual meanings “maneuvering”?

Do you see the bias, the hypocrisy? When Christians read their texts and find Christ, the Truth Who said, “Love your enemies,” they’re “maneuvering.” When Muslims read their texts and find jihad, they’re “distorting.”

Moral relativism is an enemy of truth.

“To an outsider, Leviticus is CRAZY. If a priest’s daughter is a whore, she has to be stoned to death. In Exodus ‘thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’”

Capital punishment under the Mosaic Covenant was administered for a number of crimes that today are glorified in pop culture and defended as Constitutional rights.

It should be noted (for all who want to equate Islam with Israel) that those punishments were only for the Hebrews of Ancient Israel living under that Covenant who broke *their own* laws.

“And I can’t count how many times in the old testament God helped the Israelites conquer other tribes through warfare.”

Sounds like someone who’s actually read the Old Testament except that, you can count them.

Forty years after being delivered from slavery in Egypt, Israel was commanded to enter the land promised to their ancestors. They were commanded to kill everything in order to remove false theology, to demonstrate to the “My god is bigger than yours” nations around them that their God really was bigger, and to carry out Divine judgment against those peoples for their great wickedness.

Israel ended up disobeying, following Canaan’s false gods, and being destroyed.

It is worth noting that, according to you, “Leviticus is CRAZY,” but “sociopaths distort Qur’an,” and, “All truth is true,” but there are “hundreds of contradictions in the bible [sic].”

Apparently, your moral relativism is only a single-edged sword. :)

“Now a well-versed Jew could explain to me why prostitutes today should not get the death penalty. There is probably a more relevant text later that supercedes the ancient Leviticus.”

“Probably”? If “probably,” how do you know a “well-versed Jew” can explain it?

(I did just a moment ago.)

“I know a Christian would say that Christ’s new message of love trumps the old laws (although that book is still included in the Christian canon).”

Only if that Christian is ignorant of the Word of Christ.

The New Testament makes very clear that the Mosaic Covenant has been replaced (fulfilled) by the New One written in Christ’s blood (an interesting, not coincidental connection between the ancient making of covenants, the sacrificial system under Moses, the our Lord’s Supper, and His sacrificial death).

Recall the adulterous woman Christ saved from stoning. After pointing out the hypocrisy of her accusers, He only told her to stop sinning.

“An irresponsible critic would say ‘The bible is false teaching!’ because it contains these lines that can be taken out of context.”

How do you know those lines are taken out of context? By reading the texts. Still you have not demonstrated that I’ve misrepresented any of Islam’s.

“To sum up, your point here and on your blog seems to be that Islam is a violent religion and worthy of revulsion.”

My point here has been, “This is what Allah commands. This is what Mohammed – described by Allah as a “beautiful pattern of conduct” — commanded, practiced, and permitted.

The point on my ‘blog has been, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” -Paul of Tarsus, 1st century a.D.

One of those is Mohammed’s blasphemy. Another is Moral Relativism.

“My argument is that this claim is based on ignorance and every instance of what appears to be textual proof of Islam’s violent nature can, when placed in context, be revealed as wisdom.”

Prove it.

Whose claim is based on ignorance? I cite sura, ayah, and hadith, but you admit knowing nothing of Qur’an and Sunnah (and demonstrate no awareness of 1400 years of jihad to make the world Islam).

Demonstrate a Biblical contradiction. Show that I’ve misrepresented any of the Islamic texts I’ve cited.

If you do not (and you can’t), then your arguments must be regarded as insubstantial as a “swirling mass of spiritual ‘truth.’”

Good luck revealing the wisdom of: “Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

More from PM:

But I’d like to respond to the Mod that my main perspective is that there is a false argument which goes, “We SHOULD revile Muslims because it says ____ here on page ___.”

It should be clear that I have actually spoken against reviling Muslims.

It would be a grievous logical error to infer that I advocate treating Muslims in any way other than the way that I would want to be treated.

There are decent, moderate Muslims. Some recognize the calls for jihad in their religious texts and tradition and work to modify Islamic understanding of them.

Islam itself, however, is not moderate, as evidenced by the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

“The problem with this argument is that you can go to ANY spiritual tradition’s text and lift lines out of context that are OUTRAGEOUS.”

That is true.

The problem with your argument is that you’ve NOT demonstrated at all that I’ve taken any Islamic texts out-of-context.

The best you’ve been able to do is make up stuff about the Bible.

Demonstrate from Qur’an and Hadith that the texts I’ve quoted do not mean what they actually say.

Show from them that Mohammed didn’t actually steal, lie, enslave, assassinate, rape, slaughter, and wage offensive war against non-Muslims (or command the faithful to do the same).

“. . . how to word a) what I think is happening (with the incorrect textual analysis) and b) what I think should happen . . . .”

In response to a): One needs to actually familiarize himself with the texts and Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history to be able to determine whether it is the “tiny minority of extremists-ists” or the “Islam is peace-ers” who distort the word of Allah and the example of his apostle.

With regard to b): Name a world Muslim leader (or school) who rejects utterly offensive jihad against non-Muslims, the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims, and the institutionalized subjugation and humiliation of non-Muslims under Shari’a.

If Allah and his prophet actually command believers to wage offensive war against non-Muslims who refuse either to convert or pay the jizya (they do), then no possible response should be rejected out-of-hand.

Admit what the Islamic texts say, what Mohammed did, and what his followers have done in obedience to him and Allah.

“Attempting to censor me from quoting the bible or any other text in this discussion isn’t helpful, imho.”

Quoting the Bible in a debate on Islam is a non sequitur, a red herring, a tu quoque argument. All are logical fallacies and therefore unbecoming someone claiming to seek truth.

“Basically Iago is saying that Islam IS worthy of revulsion on the basis of armchair textual analysis.”

Please do me the courtesy of attributing to me only what I’ve actually written.

I am saying, “This is what Qur’an and Hadith say: . . . .”

Your revulsion at “divine” commands for (and approbation of) slavery, theft, rape, murder, extortion, pedophilia, and genocide is something you must reconcile with your own “all religious paths without exception lead to truth” creed.

(By the way, for someone who’s written post after post impugning my knowledge of Qur’an and Sunnah though admitting he knows nothing of them, “armchair textual analysis” seems a little too ironic, doesn’t it?)

“Basically I’m saying that no, if you run that level of analysis on any of the powerhouse spiritual texts you’ll come up with a handful of problems.”

Really? You’ve only attacked the Bible. Not Qur’an, not Hadith. And what “handful of problems” have you found? Mark and Luke didn’t meet Jesus.

No open-ended, universal commands to war against all Gentiles to make the world Israel. Not even a suggestion of warfare from the One Who commanded, “Love your enemies,” and, “Do good to those who persecute you.”

Even “armchair textual analysis” should produce something better than that, shouldn’t it?

“The REAL reason we’re being fed the scary muslim fairy tale is . . . .

An odd, immoral equivalence between people who VOTE and those who SLAUGHTER INNOCENTS.

But everyone’s truth is true, right?

Perhaps that “scary muslim fairy tale” has something to do with nearly one and one-half millennia of the enslavement, rape, and slaughter of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Or 9/11 and over nine thousand terrorist attacks around the world since then.

“Further, their students made successful use of this strategy during the cold war with the USSR.”

Yes, the Soviets were pacifists. Unfortunately, American leaders were no more cognizant then of with whom they were dancing in the pale moonlight than they are today.

In light of Qur’an and Sunnah, who is truly the “father of Islamic fundamentalism?” Here’s a hint:

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

From PM:

“It’s obvious that Iago isn’t down with lateral thinking – he shoots down my references to apparent contradictions without connecting the dots to realize how easily a real Muslim could shoot down his.”

“Apparent contradiction” means it only appears to be a contradiction.

You’ve produced no Biblical contradictions. You’ve produced no contradictions in Islamic “sacred” texts, either.

First, if you know nothing of Qur’an and Sunnah, how do you know at all what a “real Muslim” can demonstrate? Or how �easy� it would be?

How can you even define what a �real Muslim� is?

Second, you mischaracterize my *quotations* of Islamic texts as “apparent contradictions,” but I’ve never written of contradictions. I’ve only quoted texts!

Third, you’ve not demonstrated that I’ve taken anything out-of-context.

Fourth, there are actual — not apparent — contradictions to the commands for unmerciful offensive warfare against those who refuse to convert or submit to Allah’s rule. What do you know about them?

Early in Mohammed’s prophetic career, when his movement was numerically, politically, economically, and militarily weak, the revelations he received regarding warfare consisted of cooperation and peace with non-Muslims.

Later, as he grew in power, the revelations evolved from allowing defensive warfare to *requiring* it.

Finally, at the end of his career and at the height of his power, the last of Mohammed’s revelations regarding warfare (Sura 9) demanded ruthless offensive combat against all who refuse to convert or submit to Allah.

How does Islam deal with those earlier, peaceful passages that conflict with commands like The Verse of the Sword? The doctrine of Naskh. (Look it up.)

�You chose to name yourself after St. James the Moor Slayer?! . . . I don’t know much about Catholicism. Apparently there’s another Saint who’s known as the Indian Killer, too. That’s real cool, you guys.�

But I thought �everyone’s truth is true�? Don’t �all religious paths lead without exception to truth�? Who �are you to question [my] truth�?

Be careful, your historical illiteracy is showing.

“Man, you’ve got to explain to me how that’s ok. What would you do if I called myself Paranoid the Killer of Christians? You’d hit the freakin roof! . . . James, the moor killer. We live in a funny world.”

Truthfully, you don’t know how I’d react.

Though you �don’t know much about Catholicism� and �nothing about Qur’an and Hadith,� you don’t mind hysterically objecting to my nom de plume.

Other than the English translation of his name and that he is a Catholic saint, what do you know about Santiago Matamoros?

Do you know that he was the patron saint of Spain? Do you know that he was only St. James until something happened to Spain in the 8th century? Who were the Moors? Why would Spanish Catholics care at all about them? Why would they add such a violent appellation to one of their saint’s names?

After Mohammed’s death, the followers of his new religion, in obedience to his and his god’s commands and acting in accord with his example, exploded out of Arabia and throughout the Holy Land, Middle East, North Africa, Asia, and both Western and Eastern Europe raping, enslaving, and slaughtering those who refused to convert or submit.

Spain is in Western Europe. It was one of Islam’s victims. It is one of the few Infidel states to regain its freedom from Allah. That is why you’ve heard bin Laden and other �extremists� use Al-Andalus (Andalusia) as both a lament and a call to arms.

Contrary to all the multiculturalist historical revisionism/Islamic propaganda, there was not a “Golden Age” of Islam there. The native, Christian Spaniards had to fight for over seven hundred years before finally throwing off the yoke of their Islamic oppressors.

In other words, St. James was believed to have helped the Spanish in their resistance to Islam’s tyranny.

Since we are today facing a resurgent global jihad, it seems neither �funny� nor �freakin� to choose as a nom de guerre the name of someone attributed with defending Christians against Allah.

Choosing “Santiago Matamoros” is no less reasonable, timely, or defiant in the face of tyranny than using Charles Martel, Jan III Sobieski, or Manuel II Palaeologus. ( Look them up.)

Histrionics at the name is the equivalent of objecting to someone calling himself, “Winston Churchill” or “G. Washington.”

“Now we’re getting into territory that really intrigues me! Which is: what do we do when the basis of a culture has flaws?”

Which would be off-topic.

“In a sense, every human endeavor faces this issue. Even we, the USA, have to live up to the fact that our founding documents did not count as full human beings slaves or females.”

Also off-topic.

(By the way, the Constitution made that compromise for the purposes of representation, not a qualitative evaluation of anyone’s humanity.)

“For those within the flawed culture, there are basically two positions . . . .”

Sounds pretty limited for an “all religious paths lead to a swirling mass of spiritual truth” kind of guy.

“I know you hate the moral equivalence of analogies”

Actually, I am opposed to false moral equivalences.

Analogies are just comparisons and when accurate, can be quite useful.

“but I can’t help it) What would have happened if, for instance, a foreign power had invaded the US during the Civil War . . . .?”

Americans were warring against Americans. No foreign power’s uninvited intervention would have been justified.

Which is of course, NOT analogous to Iraq or Afghanistan.

“Given that we (humanity) are moving from a generally less to a generally more enlightened state”

Only if a dog returning to its vomit can be considered “enlightened.”

What evidence do you have of our “enlightenment”?

In the twentieth century, hundreds of millions of human lives were sacrificed on the altars of Nazism, Communism, and Islam, all of which are a form of fascism and reject Christ.

Tens of millions of Americans have been exterminated over the last few decades and one of our two major political parties defends such barbarity as a Constitutional right.

The principles of human equality and God-given Rights to Life and Liberty expounded in the Declaration and codified in the Constitution have been so consistently violated that nearly all our major political parties’ leading presidential candidates espouse Socialism to one degree or another.

The institutions nominally-responsible for intellectual inquiry and governmental accountability — higher education and the media — are predominantly propaganda arms for any enemy of the American Republic crafty enough to yell “Racism!” or “First Amendment!”

And the religious tradition that led to the West’s greatness is increasingly ignored, ridiculed, and rejected by its heirs.

“basically still a message of hate.”

“Message of hate”?

Muslims kill in the name of Allah because he says, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” I point out that fact, but mine is a “message of hate”?

Such a false moral equivalence calls into question the judgment of the one making it.

“And I think holding this position closes the door on the forward motion we’re looking for in the Islamic world.”

How does lying about what Qur’an and Sunnah teach “move forward” the Islamic world? How can one reform that which one denies needs reformation?

Real progress within Islam must begin with acknowledging that which retards it.

“I’d also like to point out that jihad is an appropriated term . . . .”

A half-truth designed to deceive ignorant and gullible Infidels into believing “Islam is peace.”

Who best defines “Islam”? Who better than Allah and his apostle? I’ve already shared a significant portion of their thoughts on this whole “offensive warfare” issue.

Yes, “jihad” means “struggle.” Yes, one questionable hadith has Mohammed referring to the “greater jihad” being a struggling against oneself.

Did your Islamic expert tell you what the word for combat is? Qital.

Let’s put your new, “enlightened” definition of “jihad” into the context of Qur’an and Sunnah:

-Does, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them,” really mean, “struggle against your ego the unbelievers wherever you find them”?

-Does, “Fight against . . . the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] . . . until they pay the jizya . . . and feel themselves subdued,” really mean, “Struggle against your ego . . . until they pay . . .”?

-Does, “. . . invite them to Islam . . . If they refuse, demand the jizya.. . . If they refuse that, then fight,” really mean, “. . . If they refuse that, then struggle against your ego”?

-Does, “I have been ordered to fight against the people until all confess that no one has the right to be worshiped but Allah and Mohammed is his apostle,” really mean, “I have ordered to struggle against my ego against the people until all confess . . .”?

-Does, “. . . fight until all religion is for Allah,” really mean, “. . . struggle against your ego until all religion is for Allah”?

-Does, “they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain” really mean, “they struggle against their egos in his cause, and slay and are slain”?

-Does, “I have been made victorious with terror,” really mean, “I have been made victorious with struggling against my ego”?

There’s more. Shall I continue?

“those preaching violent jihad against “the West” are essentially snake-oil salesmen, appealing to the basest human fears in order to prop up their desire for power.”

That may be, but to what do they appeal in recruiting members of that “large majority of moderates”? Qur’an and Sunnah.

“paint Islam as a violent and dangerous religion.”

Who’s painting Islam as violent and dangerous but Muslims themselves?

Do not 3/11 (Madrid), 7/7 (London), Bali, Mumbai, Israel, Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and all the other more than nine thousand terrorist attacks since September 11th paint that picture?

Do not Allah and Mohammed paint that picture themselves?

You keep trying to blame Islamic terrorism on neo-Conservatives. That is grossly inaccurate and immoral.

“To me, a message of hate cannot be erased with an equal and opposite message of hate.”

How is reporting a message of hate itself hate? Does not such a usage make the word meaningless?

“I feel that there must be a solution which involved empowering and supporting those with more legitimate views.”

“feel”? While you’re feeling, Shari’a advances not only through terrorism, but also by demographics, litigation, da’wa, and the ballot box.

As for “legitimate,” didn’t you say that, “All religious paths without exception lead to spiritual truth”?

Those Muslims with more legitimate views find themselves at the business end of apostasy law. Mohammed said, “If anyone changes his religion, then kill him.”

“And, more than anything else, getting our act together when it comes to invasions and occupations in the Arab world.”

Finally, we get to the point you’ve danced around these many posts. President Bush’s occupation of Iraq is responsible for 9/11.

Amazing. Not only is he too dumb to be president but smart enough to deceive the entire Democratic party, he’s also powerful enough to cause global warming and retroactive mass slaughter in the name of Allah and in accord with Islamic “sacred” texts!

“It’s called “The Girls of Riyadh”

But you read it just for the articles, right?

If one wants to know about Islam’s “sacred” texts, one ought to read Islam’s “sacred” texts.

“You have no faith that this correct knowledge exists in Islam. That’s a real problem, a core pessimism that doesn’t dissolve the issues we’re facing but only exacerbates them.”

I would suggest you reread my posts. I’ve not addressed contradictions in Islamic texs, real or imagined, until one of my last posts, and that was not in the context to which you keep appealing.

“You are very intent on textual analysis of work we are not familiar with!”

Are you using the royal “we,” or are you again projecting onto me your “total ignorance of Qur’an and Sunnah?”

“You simply do not choose to hear that this is problematic from the very beginning.”

It should be clear from my replies that I’ve heard quite well everything you’ve written. :)

“I have no working knowledge whatsoever of how to approach the Islamic spiritual texts – how they are understood, which to take in what order, etc.”

Rest assured, you’ve demonstrated that!

How ’bout working next on that little “out-of-context” libel?

“I don’t know enough about its context to talk about the specific meaning. But I will throw up instead a contradictory one:”

If you don’t know its meaning, how can you offer one in contradiction?

Why not just stick with, “What does Allah say? What did Mohammed say and do?”

That would be much more intellectually honest, productive, and (literally) life-affirming.

“And dispute ye not with the People of the Book”

Perhaps you didn’t have a chance to read my earlier comments on those Qur’anic texts that are traditionally understood by Muslims to contradict the later Verses of Blood.

“So a real Muslim has a problem – which verse is true-er? And a real Muslim will have the answer, too.”

But you don’t know what that is, right? There is one. It’s called the doctrine of Naskh.

“Why will you not be honest about this yourself?”

I brought this up first in an earlier post and again in this one.

Perhaps it’s better to read what someone writes before stating something false about them (of course, you’ve been doing that even when you’ve read my comments).

You’re confusing actual Islamic contradictions (addressed in Muslim theology) with only alleged Biblical contradictions fabricated by the ignorant and the antagonistic.

“I . . . would be happily surprised to find out otherwise.”

Argumentum ad hominem, another logical fallacy.

How about we do the intellectually honest thing and look at the texts?

“In a certain sense, I have to confess it does not matter.”

I thought so. At least that’s honest.

“You ask me to show from the texts you quote that “Mohammed didn’t actually steal, lie, enslave, assassinate, rape, slaughter, and wage offensive war against non-Muslims (or command the faithful to do the same).”

“Well. No. I can’t do that. But I bet someone can.””

That’s called “wishful thinking.”

You admit you don’t know anything about Islam’s authoritative texts and then bet on the basis of that ignorance.

“Or else 1 billion people wouldn’t devote their lives to this religion.”

That is another false dichotomy (“Islam is peace or it wouldn’t have so many adherents”).

“I don’t know how else to do it, but could you prove the same for the following: “You shall devour all the peoples that the LORD your God is giving over to you . . . from Deut 7:16”

From its context, Deuteronomy 7:16 is a command for Israel to completely wipe out the peoples of Canaan.

However, it is not an open-ended command for offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew, as apologists for jihad and their useful idiots usually argue.

“I know, Mod, I know! No fair to quote the OT!”

What’s truly unfair is the false moral equivalence.

And World Citizen didn’t say it was unfair, just off-topic.

“What I’m getting from the Moor Killer is hatred of Islam on the basis of quotes pulled out of context.”

You’re getting Islamic texts, but you’ve not yet demonstrated that I’m taking any of them “out of context.”

Are you going to do the intellectually honest thing and demonstrate the truth of your assertions, or will you retract them?

To do anything else just hurts your credibility.

“the dedication to this cause that you have, Moor Killer, is disturbing.”

Telling the truth is disturbing?

“You keep mentioning the 1400 years of violent jihad. They’ve been a rough period for all humanity, indeed!”

Another immoral equivalence. That makes it not so bad, right?

“I’m sitting this very moment on the site of the largest genocide produced in the history of earth, the systematic destruction of untold millions of lives and erasure of entire civilizations, all for the slogan “God, gold and glory!”

Really, the 70 to 80 million Hindus killed by Islam?

Again, the point you’re hoping to make by this, another false moral equivalence, is that Christ is just as bad as Allah.

The essential distinction is that nominally-Christian nations engaged in imperialism had no Biblical basis for such behavior, while offensive jihad to make the world Islam is permitted by Allah and his apostle, it is a duty!

But that disintegrates your “mass of spiritual truth,” doesn’t it?

“attacking a religion you do not understand is not helping the situation.”

How is quoting from Islam’s foundational texts “attacking Islam”? What does that characterization say about YOUR opinion of those texts? Are you some kind of Islamophobe?

“If you really want to know the spiritual meaning behind any of the quotes you pulled”

If you know nothing about Qur’an and Sunnah, how can you imply I do not know what they mean?

“After all, who is this James if there is no Moor Killing to do?”

Historical illiteracy is an ugly thing. Civilizational self-loathing is even uglier.

“Islam is worthy of ____”

Telling the truth about its texts.

As for a “Sufi revival,” be careful of what you wish:

“Sufism as practiced in the Indian subcontinent was quite intolerant of Hinduism, as documented by the Indian scholar K. S. Lal:

‘The Muslim Mushaikh [Sufi spiritual leaders] were as keen on conversions as the Ulama, and contrary to general belief, in place of being kind to the Hindus as saints would, they too wished the Hindus to be accorded a second class citizenship if they were not converted. Only one instance, that of Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangoh, need be cited because he belonged to the Chishtia Silsila considered to be the most tolerant of all Sufi groups. He wrote letters to the Sultan Sikandar Lodi, Babur, and Humayun to re-invigorate the Shariat [Sharia] and reduce the Hindus to payers of land tax and jizya. To Babur he wrote, “Extend utmost patronage and protection to theologians and mystics… that they should be maintained and subsidized by the state… No non-Muslim should be given any office or employment in the Diwan of Islam… Furthermore, in conformity with the principles of the Shariat they should be subjected to all types of indignities and humiliations. They should be made to pay the jizya…They should be disallowed from donning the dress of the Muslims and should be forced to keep their Kufr [infidelity] concealed and not to perform the ceremonies of their Kufr openly and freely� They should not be allowed to consider themselves the equal to the Muslims. (The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India [1992], p. 237)

“Since that time, while researching my forthcoming book, The Legacy of Jihad, I have discovered that there are many other influential Sufis who shared, and who share today, these bigoted views. Sufi intolerance is clear from, most importantly, never-before-published translations of the great Sufi Al-Ghazali himself . . . as well as from statements by an important contemporary Shi’ite Sufi ideologue, Sultanhussein Tabandeh (Bostom).”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: