We know by now that the primary Islamic texts, the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, as well as their interpretation by the vast majority of Islamic scholars today promote hatred and violent jihad against both less devout Muslims as well as non-Muslim infidels.
Also, anyone who does any internet research is also aware that Muslims and their apologists (Muslim and non-Muslim) have numerous websites that go to great lengths to attempt to discredit the current interpretation of very clear verses in Islamic texts that promote such violent supremacism.
One such verse among dozens of others that say basically the same thing, is this:
“Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them…”
What follows is a demonstration of how one apologist for Islam attempts to make us believe that Islam is something other than what Muslims believe it is.
Here is the introduction of an article by that very title:
Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them
The phrase “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” appears more than once in the Qur'an. Many critics of Islam, and a few Muslim extremists, taking this phrase out of context, conclude that the Qur'an encourages Muslim violence towards non-Muslims. The following explanation of the true interpretation of the phrase is taken from the introduction to the English translation of the Qur'an by M.A.S Abdul Haleem.
David Fincham devotes four typewritten pages to explain the “true” interpretation of the phase. His thesis is that the expression is taken out of context and has very narrow application that does not apply to Christians and Jews and applies ONLY to situations where Muslims feel threatened by forces they believe are opposed to Islam.
I did not include his entire four page analysis here, but if you are curious it is located HERE. He goes by the name of “Walk Tall, Hang Loose” on his blog.
He concludes with this…
Therefore, it is not permissible to quote a verse, or part of a verse, without thoroughly considering and comprehending everything that the Qur’an and Hadith relate about that point.
He basically asserts that we can’t believe what we read in Islamic texts – that doing so is careless and mean-spirited.
Gosh! It’s too bad Muslims and their leaders and scholars don’t listen to David.
David, like many other apologists for Islam, attempt to apply the type of exegesis and interpretation methodology to Islamic texts as Christians would to Christian texts. It doesn’t work that way.
He asserts the “context” of the statement “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” is crucial. He IGNORES the fact that the traditional order of Qur’anic verses is from longest to shortest. Some later translations were put in supposed chronological order.
How can “context” be important when the order is arbitrarily “longest to shortest?”
In addition to that glaring faux pas, I responded by email to David pointing out a number of other problems with his wishful thinking…
My initial response
Muslims kill other Muslims and non-Muslims in great numbers - in the name of Islam - and for the sake of Allah - every day. Jihad is Islam. No contrived "moral equivalency" please. There is none. The Ummah of Islam, its predominant leaders and a great majority of its adherents favor jihad against the infidel based on orthodox Islamic doctrine. The naïve attempt to gloss over these facts.
Here is “Walk Tall, Hang Loose’s” (WTHL) reply:
Mr. Abdul Haleem whose English translation of the Quran I quote above is a professor of Islamic studies at the University of London. He knows more about orthodox Islam than you do. I have lived in a Muslim country and have had many Muslim friends and colleagues. I know far more about what the great majority of Muslims favor than you do, and I assure you they are not thinking about 'jihad against the infidel'. By the way, the 'unbelievers' in the Quran are the polytheistic religious leaders who persecuted Mohammad and his followers. Christians and Jews are not 'infidels'.
You have been confused by thinking that the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia is 'orthodox Islam'. It is not, it is an extreme intolerant and violent sect which is behind the 9/11 attacks, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Isis, the Saudi Arabian bombing of the Shia Muslims in Yemen, and the terrorist attacks in Europe by local Muslims who have been radicalized in mosques funded by Saudi Arabia and by their Saudi Arabian Imams.
Point 1: Muslims try to follow the example of Muhammad. If Muhammad were alive today, he would be the perfect Wahhabi, or worse (or "better" from Islamic perspective.) Islamic doctrine teaches that Muhammad was the most perfect human. Go figure.
Point 2: You've known "many Muslim friends and colleagues." Great. Many "Muslim friends next door" or "at work" who were thought to be your "typical 'moderate' Muslims" have proven themselves to be anything but. Many atrocities, aka "jihad attacks" were carried out by the "nice Muslim next door" or "at work."
Point 3: A significant Islamic doctrine is taqiyya. Being as well versed as you claim, I'm sure you know all about that.
Point 4: Islamic doctrine also promotes the idea of not making friends with the infidel. Be a friend outwardly but not inwardly. They avoid true assimilation. I'm sure you know all about that as well, but fail to acknowledge it to yourself.
Point: 5: Of course there are apostate Muslims who disbelieve or do not practice the mainstream doctrines I mentioned above. But I must ask myself why they persist in identifying as "Muslim" if they 1) do not wish to emulate the life of Muhammad, or even believe in the actions he lived by and promoted, 2) why they don't believe in the other widely believed in and practiced orthodox doctrines I described.
Point 6: Zuhdi Jasser in the US is a perfect example of a self-proclaimed "devout Muslim" who interprets NONE of the Islamic trilogy as being anti-freedom, anti-jihad, anti-woman, anti-gay, or anti-infidel. But for some perhaps "strange to you" reasons, none of the mosques in the US endorse his apostate version of Islam.
Point 7: The interpretation of Islamic scripture is manifest in the actions taught and promoted by the great preponderance of Islamic leaders and scholars, and faithfully carried out by untold numbers of devout Muslim believers. Today, those actions speak volumes of how Islamic scripture is interpreted.
Point 8: True, the closer a non-Muslim is to practicing Muslims, the more he will be deceived ty them. You apparently are a case in point.
What is your source for 'Islamic doctrine'? I can only think that it is a Wahhabi source. Mainstream Islamic scholars denounce Wahhabism in strong terms, as a 'vile sect', 'Satanic faith' and 'a source of global terrorism'. Wahhabis denounce other Muslims as takfir (apostates) and justify killing them. A Wahhabi would never say Muhammad was a perfect human being, because that would make him equal to God.
To find out what the preponderance of Islamic scholars say about the Wahhabi-inspired jihadi groups read their letter to Al-Baghdadi http://www.lettertobaghdadi...
Sources: Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, and most of all: ISLAMIC ACTIONS AROUND THE WORLD.
"Wahhabi would never say..." It sounds like you are equating the Islamic interpretation of Muhammad with Christian doctrine. There is no "man-God" in Islam. Islam has no "perfect" human being equivalent to Jesus Christ. No, there is NO chance of equating Muhammad with Allah. The closest Islam gets is Muhammad - not "perfect", but the "most perfect" human to be emulated in all ways. This is not the view of only Wahhabis. It is an orthodox Islamic teaching.
You continue to make assertions without backing them up with evidence. If you want to cite the Qu'ran or the hadith you have to give the exact verse, or no-one can check what you say. Since I doubt you can read classical Arabic, you also need to say which English translation you are using.
For example: you say that it is a Muslim doctrine that Muhammad is the most perfect human. I have never read or heard a Muslim saying that. What they do say is that all the prophets are of equal importance.
You say that most Muslims favor jihad against the unbelievers. That is certainly incorrect since Islam is based on the Qu'ran and as I have have explained in my post the Qu'ran clearly permits only defensive war. The only Islamic actions around the world today which promote offensive jihad against non-Muslims or Muslims of other sects are those inspired by the Wahhabis.
You say that if Muhammad were alive today he would be a Wahhabi. What do you mean by that, and how do you know?
I suspect you have never talked to a Muslim about his faith, and that what you say is picked up from some Islamophobic website, which you believe because you want to believe it - why, I have no idea.
Why do you continue to be blind to what is going on in the Islamic world? Why are you basing your view of the Qur'an as a "wishful thinker" unless you, yourself desire to promote deception as well?
Evidence of the truth of what I say is all around, with 10's of thousands of victims of Islamic jihad - millions if you count all of Islamic history, yet you continue to deny the reality.
I'm done here. A time waster.
Yes, indeed. Continuing to debate such person is a time waster. The only possible reason why the US is spending BILLIONS in defense against Muslim attacks on our homeland is that there is some, apparently elusive, common denominator to the motive behind the attacks. We do not want to and consequently FAIL to acknowledge that the common denominator is Islam, Islamic texts, and their interpretation by the great preponderance of Islamic leaders.
David Fincham (Walk Tall, Hang Loose) and other Islamic apologists ignore or gloss over the following realities:
1. Christian exegesis cannot be used to interpret Islamic texts - context is missing in most situations in Islamic texts.
2. The vast majority of Islamic scholars interpret Islamic texts in the manner they are written. The evidence of this? The widespread and nearly universal jihad engaged by Islamic nations against the West as well as the hundreds of Islamic terror groups that exist in nearly every nation around the globe.
3. Islamic texts and Islamic culture have inculcated within Muslims a predisposition to hate and to believe that other faiths are inferior; that Islam is supreme and must dominate by any and all means.
4. Many considered to be “moderate” Muslims have turned out to be anything but.
5. Moderate self-proclaimed “devout” Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser who talk and act as if they have dismissed the majority of Islamic texts and doctrines are considered by the vast majority of Islamic leaders in US Mosques as apostate. No supposed “Christian” who dismissed the majority of the Bible and Christian doctrine would in fact be anything but “apostate.”
6. The person of Muhammad is considered by Muslims as the most perfect human being. That is indisputable fact. Yet he was a child molester, warrior, assassin, and likely an addict dependent on drugs to induce his psychoses. Islamic doctrine urges followers to emulate his life in every way possible. In terms of Christian morality, Muhammad was Satanic.
Such men as Fincham likely have the ear of many of our politicians and media. They are effective deceivers on behalf of Islam. I don’t know whether Fincham is Muslim or not. But if he is, he practices their fine art of taqiyya well. If he isn’t, he is just another leftist liberal academic that is so full of his “intellect” that he ignores what is really going on in the world.