« Democrat Senate candidate films ad in church |
Blog Home Page
| The Pope knows what he is doing »
September 18, 2006
What matters now is not press reports about pieces of a German lecture by Benedict or the Musllim reaction. If we must answer "yes" to all, or any, of the following 23 questions about Islam, are we entitled, nay bound, to be very concerned indeed ?
1. Does Islam claim that every single word in the 6,234 verses of its Quran was not merely divinely inspired, or authorised, but actually dictated, in Arabic, directly by Allah Himself, and revealed over 22 years from 610 CE, and so is uncorrupted and unalterable ? It descended [nuzila] ready—made and complete from heaven.
2. Does Islam hold the "Principle of Abrogation" — Nasikh — [Quran 2:106] whereby later verses always over—ride and replace or cancel the earlier ?
3. Are the 14 later [Medina] chapters and over 1,600 verses in the Quran, from 622 CE to 632 CE, thus supreme and unchallengeable when they contradict the earlier Mecca ones ?
4. Are there some 164 later Medina verses [from 24 Surah, between Surah 2 and 76] favouring violent Jihad, Jihad Bis Saif, by the sword, or Holy War [Qital Fi Sabilillah], not merely Jihad—e—nafs or struggle against desires ? See list, and full texts, on answering—islam.org.uk, including 9:5 "slay the idolaters whereever you find them and take them captive". And see www.quranbrowser.com/ for 10 different English translations of any verse.
5. Are there many later Medina verses like 5:82 ["the most implacable in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews"] teaching utter hatred for Jews, as 24 Surah and nearly 90 verses translated into English on the Jewishvirtuallibrary web—site, or 20 references in the Fatwa Database from Sheik As—Salam Alaykum on the Islam On—line site, indicate?
6. Does the Quran allow, or even command, the killing of Apostates who leave Islam, like Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali ?
7. Likewise for Blasphemers — like Salman Rushdie?
8. And of Infidels in extending, or restoring, the rule of Islam?
9. And of Gays?
10. Does the Quran provide for hand amputation for thieves, as in 5:38 ?
11. For flogging?
12. For public beheading?
13. For beating wives, as in 4:34?
14. And are there many Hadith which show the Prophet ordered stonings [introduced under the Second Caliph, 634—644 CE, 'Umar, a Companion of the Prophet']?
15. Does the Quran demand the eventual Global Rule of Islam, with no secular realm, whereas Judaism is about waiting for their Messiah, and Christianity offers salvation to persons everywhere?
16. Does the Quran demand the ultimate enforcement of Sharia Law everywhere, even on us Infidels?
17. Does the Quran severely restrict Freedom of Worship to all faiths?
18. Or Free Speech?
19. Or the Right of Free Organisation?
20. Does it treat women as inferiors not only regarding inheritance, but as witnesses?
21. Does the Quran command Muslims to never surrender any land once held by them, such as Spain, or Western Palestine/Israel?
22. Did their "Prophet" order or lead 74 raids or wars during his Medina decade from 622 CE to his 632 CE death?
23. Were 600—900 male Jewish prisoners beheaded in March 627 CE [see Surah 33:25—26]?
If the clear honest answer is "yes" to all, or even to any, of these 23 questions, how can Islam [as distinct from other Faiths] be compatibile with either the 1945 UN Declaration of Human Rights, or the US Constitution? And how can we democrats not fear both any such system, and any who seriously adhere to it, and their increasing number in our midst?
We do not [yet] live in Dar al—Islam, the Realm of Submission, which is exactly what the word "Islam" means, that territory where the population have either become 'submitters' [muslimun] or else 'dhimmis', submitting by paying the Jizya tax, and accepting Muslim Rule. We by contrast, still live in Dar al—Harb, the Realm of War, the territory where all, or most, of the population have not yet submitted, and who must be made to, by force.
Those who argue that Islam was not spread by the Sword because conversion was not encouraged in the early period, totally miss the point that the territory had been captured by force and the population made 'dhimmis'.
Are we now to condemn "Western Imperialism" but are not allowed to even mention Islamic Imperialism?
Let us have precise answers to such vital questions of principle, not emotive denounciations and abuse. What is the real answer to each of those 23 points ? And what reasonable person or society should tolerate, or surrender under, any "Dont call us violent, or we'll kill you" threats, from any quarter?
Tom Carew, Dublin, Ireland 9 18 06