Posted by: mystic444 | March 1, 2010

Does Islam Proclaim That All Infidels Should Be Killed?

There are all sorts of false accusations against the Islamic faith being circulated these days, in order to produce fear of and hatred for this religion. One of the most common accusations is that Islam teaches that Muslims have a duty to kill all ‘infidels’ – that is, unbelievers; those who do not submit to the Islamic faith. Below is the text of an e-mail which has been forwarded all over the Internet, which is an example of such accusations:

By Rick Mathes

Last month I attended my annual training session that’s required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths who explained their belief systems. I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say.

The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked, “Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that’s the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?”

There was no disagreement with my statements and without hesitation he replied, “Non-believers!”

I responded, “So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?”

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, “Yes.”

I then stated, “Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Pat Robertson or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!”

The Imam was speechless.

I continued, “I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question! …would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and wants you to be with me?”

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.

Chuck Colson once told me something that has sustained me these 20 years of prison ministry. He said to me, “Rick, remember that the truth will prevail.”

And it will!

This was forwarded to me in December of 2009 by a friend. At that time, though I was inclined to think the author probably misunderstood Islam, I didn’t really have sufficient knowledge to say for sure. Recently though I decided to do some investigation into Islam by means of the Yahoo search engine, and I quickly discovered that indeed this e-mail presents a very distorted view of Islam and Qur’anic teaching. The idea that Muslims are exhorted to kill all ‘infidels’ is so easily disproven, that I had to wonder whether the e-mail was a fake. I simply couldn’t imagine a Muslim Imam being unable to demolish the accusatory questions of Mr. Mathes. So I did a Yahoo search on Rick Mathes, to give him the benefit of the doubt, and found out the text of the e-mail is legitimate. Rick Mathes did publish that as a supposedly true account. I found, though, that Snopes checked into the story, and came up with a somewhat different account of what happened at the training session which Mr. Mathes wrote about. At the very least, the Muslim representative was not an Imam (as I had suspected), but was a prisoner who was Muslim but apparently considerably ignorant of the Qur’an and Islamic faith. There is some question about whether or not any such questions and answers as Rick Mathes relates actually took place. The Snopes article gives a very interesting recast of the text of the e-mail, in the form of a Muslim questioning a Christian minister, to make the point that it’s very easy to attack a religion when one rips verses out of their context and time frame. It’s well worth reading!

At his web site, though, [beginning about 1/3 of the way down the page] Mr. Mathes sticks by his story, maintaining everything happened just as he said it did, and that he was certainly under the impression that the Muslim man was an Imam. At his own website, he made clear that he realizes not all Muslims believe they are called to kill all infidels. But that should have been stated in the e-mail; as it stands, the clear intention of the e-mail was to give the impression that all Muslims do believe that is the command of Allah in the Qur’an, and so it would be easy to contrast the love of Jesus with the (supposed) viciousness of Allah. In other words, by failing to acknowledge in the e-mail that the supposed ‘Imam’ was ignorant of his own scriptures, he was able to build a straw man which was easy to demolish.

[Note on 11/13/2011: apparently Rick Mathes has taken down the above linked site, or at least that page on the site.}

As to the supposed ‘deafening silence’ of the good Muslims who oppose violence against unbelievers, Mr. Mathes just needs to take the ear plugs out of his ears. With one brief Yahoo search, I was able to find many Muslim sites which outspokenly oppose the violence and terrorism committed by impostors ‘in the name of’ Allah. These Muslims’ protests don’t get much attention in the mainstream media, but they are easily located. (See this site for instance).

Regardless of how accurately the e-mail presents the story, the Muslim representative was clearly not an Imam, and was just as clearly rather ignorant of the teachings of the Qur’an. To show this, I’ll refer to a few passages in the Qur’an. I am using an English interpretation of the message of the Qur’an (found here).  You can refer to it to verify what I say, and see the immediate contexts. (There are also plenty of footnotes at the end of each Sura [or chapter] to help in understanding the text).

First of all, Sura (chapter) 2, verse 256 speaks clearly and unequivocally: There shall be no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error: hence, he who rejects the powers of evil and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing.” The ways of truth and error are clear and distinct; there is a clear choice to be made. But there must be no compulsion in that choice. In the same way, chapter 18 verse 29 says: “And say: The truth [has now come] from your Sustainer: let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it.” The verse goes on to speak of a horrific retribution which Allah has in store for those who reject the ‘truth’; but it is clear that the retribution is in the hands of God in the Afterlife – it is not man’s right to inflict any retribution for such unbelief. Consider also chapter 10, verses 99 and 100: “[10:99] And [thus it is:] had thy Sustainer so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained to faith, all of them: dost thou, then, think that thou couldst compel people to believe, [10:100] notwithstanding that no human being can ever attain to faith otherwise than by God’s leave, and [that] it is He who lays the loathsome evil [of disbelief] upon those who will not use their reason?” In keeping with this, an article at The American Muslim (number 7 in a series of articles on Muhammad, peace be to him) contains this instance from Muhammad’s life: “In the Qur’anic commentaries it is written that an Ansar Companion came to the Prophet (S). Before accepting Islam, he was a polytheist. He had two sons who had become Christians. He asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What can I do to these two sons of mine that have become Christians? Do you give me permission to force them to leave their religion and become Muslims?” The Prophet (S) said: “No! There is no compulsion in religion.” [Jihad by Morteza Mutahhari, translated by Mohammad Salman Tawheedi]”

Second, chapter 2 verses 190-194 give instructions concerning those whom Muslims were allowed to fight. “[2:190] AND FIGHT in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression – for, verily, God does not love aggressors. [2:191] And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away – for oppression is even worse than killing. And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth. [2:192] But if they desist – behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. [2:193] Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone; but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [willfully] do wrong. [2:194] Fight during the sacred months if you are attacked: for a violation of sanctity is [subject to the law of] just retribution. Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you – but remain conscious of God, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him.” Here, it is emphatically stated that those who submit to God (which is the meaning of the word “Islam”, by the way – submission to God) must not commit acts of aggression.  They must fight only when attacked, and cease fighting when their enemies cease and leave the Muslims alone to worship the One God in peace.

Third, in chapter 4, verses 89-91, there is another statement about those whom Muslims may and may not fight: “[4:89] They would love to see you deny the truth even as they have denied it, so that you should be like them. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies until they forsake the domain of evil for the sake of God; and if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever you may find them. And do not take any of them for your ally or giver of succour, [4:90] unless it be such [of them] as have ties with people to whom you yourselves are bound by a covenant, or such as come unto you because their hearts shrink from [the thought of] making war either on you or on their own folk – although, if God had willed to make them stronger than you, they would certainly have made war on you. Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them. [4:91] You will find [that there are] others who would like to be safe from you as well as safe from their own folk, [but who,] whenever they are faced anew with temptation to evil, plunge into it headlong. Hence, if they do not let you be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them: for it is against these that We have clearly empowered you [to make war].” Once again, so long as the unbelievers do not take hostile action against the Muslims, the Muslims must not take any hostile action against them. There is to be no ‘preemptive warfare’!

Fourth, in chapter 8, verses 56-61, reference is again made to warfare: “[8:56] AS FOR THOSE with whom thou hast made a covenant, and who thereupon break their covenant on every occasion, not being conscious of God – [8:57] if thou find them at war [with you], make of them a fearsome example for those who follow them, so that they might take it to heart; [8:58] or, if thou hast reason to fear treachery from people [with whom thou hast made a covenant], cast it back at them in an equitable manner: for, verily, God does not love the treacherous! [8:59] And let them not think – those who are bent on denying the truth – that they shall escape [God]: behold, they can never frustrate [His purpose]. [8:60] Hence, make ready against them whatever force and war mounts you are able to muster, so that you might deter thereby the enemies of God, who are your enemies as well, and others besides them of whom you may be unaware, [but] of whom God is aware; and whatever you may expend in God’s cause shall be repaid to you in full, and you shall not be wronged. [8:61]BUT IF THEY INCLINE TO PEACE, INCLINE THOU TO IT AS WELL, and place thy trust in God: verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing!” Here, the Prophet (peace to him) spoke of unbelievers with whom the Muslims had a covenant of peace. So long as the unbelievers maintain the peace, so should the Muslims. If there is some reason to fear treachery from the unbelievers, the Muslims are told to “cast it [the covenant] back at them in an equitable manner”. This means that the unbelievers should be reminded of the terms of the covenant into which they willingly entered, and given time to reflect and repudiate the intended treachery. If the unbelievers break the covenant and actively attack the Muslims, then the Muslims themselves are no longer bound by the terms of the covenant and should fight back. If the unbelievers are inclined toward peace, the Muslims must also resume the peace. Muslims are never to break the covenant themselves, or undertake a war of aggression.

Finally, there’s a verse in chapter 9 which is popularly quoted to prove that the Qur’an requires believers to kill the unbelievers (verse 5): “And so, when the sacred months are over, slay those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place. Yet if they repent, and take to prayer, and render the purifying dues, let them go their way: for, behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.” That sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it? Kill them unless they convert! For the sake of space, I won’t actually quote the entire context – I’ll just ask you to check it out to confirm what I am about to say. This verse is in a context that fits in with the preceding section in chapter 8 to which I just referred. These are unbelievers who had a covenant of peace with the believers, but who had either violated the covenant or had given reason to believe that they were intending to violate it. 4 months were given to the unbelievers to reconsider and resume the covenant. If, after the end of those 4 months they were still hostile and violent, then the Muslims were commanded to counter attack in self defense. But verse 6 makes clear that if any of the idolaters who did not wish to fight sought the protection of the Muslims, the Muslims were to grant them protection and conduct them to a place of safety (where they wouldn’t be endangered by the fighting). That way they would have further opportunity to hear the ‘truth’ of God, because perhaps they only sinned against God out of ignorance. Such noncombatants were not to be harmed, but were rather to be protected. And remember, that verse in 8:61 applies here:BUT IF THEY INCLINE TO PEACE, INCLINE THOU TO IT AS WELL”. Concerning repenting, taking to prayer, and rendering the purifying dues: that would be the desired result of ceasing hostilities and resuming the covenant, but it is not required. The Muslims would be expected to keep in mind other parts of the Qur’anic ‘revelation’ which forbid compulsion in matters of faith.

That this is the meaning of this passage in chapter 9 is made clear in verses 12 and 13: “[9:12] But if they break their solemn pledges after having concluded a covenant, and revile your religion, then fight against these archetypes of faithlessness who, behold, have no [regard for their own] pledges, so that they might desist [from aggression]. [9:13] Would you, perchance, fail to fight against people who have broken their solemn pledges, and have done all that they could to drive the Apostle away, AND HAVE BEEN FIRST TO ATTACK YOU? Do you hold them in awe? Nay, it is God alone of whom you ought to stand in awe, if you are [truly] believers!”

Muhammad (on whom be peace) is himself an example of these teachings. For 13 years after his initial ‘revelation’ from the Angel Gabriel, he and those who followed him in Mecca were severely persecuted, tortured, and many were killed. When he and his remaining followers were finally granted a safe haven in Medina, the Meccans continued to harass them in every way possible. Finally, after 8 years in Medina, Muhammad and 10,000 followers marched to Mecca. The Meccans, realizing they were no match for the 10,000 Muslims, surrendered without a fight. The Meccan leaders, knowing very well how they would have treated the Muslims if the Muslims had surrendered to them, were in fear for their lives (knowing they deserved it after the way they had treated the Muslims all of those years). But Muhammad informed them that he would treat them as the Old Testament Joseph had treated his brothers in Egypt: he let them go in peace, without even requiring them to ‘convert’. The Meccans were so overwhelmed by this generosity that they voluntarily converted to the worship of the One God!

In later years, after the death of Muhammad, when Muslim armies defeated other towns and nations (and I haven’t yet figured out how they reconciled such aggressive warfare with the Qur’an), they proved their warfare was not religious in nature by the fact that the conquered peoples were allowed to continue their own religious practices unhindered. For quite a long time, the Muslim conquerors did not even live together with the natives in their cities. Instead, they built their own forts outside of the towns, and did not even encourage the natives to convert to Islam, much less compel them! The natives were considered to be under the protection of the Muslims, and their ‘rights’ were respected. They only had to pay a protection ‘tax’ to their new governors. Other than that, they were left alone to live just as they had lived previously.

What then can we conclude about those today who, in the name of Islam and Allah, aggressively attack ‘infidels’ and commit terrorist atrocities? They are not Muslims at all! They are impostors, false prophets, and ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’! In keeping with the concepts of Islam, Muhammad himself, his companions, and all true believers, will condemn such impostors in the presence of Allah on the Day of Judgment! THAT is how the Qur’an and true Islamic believers view such people. The condemnation of such men will be exactly the same as what Jesus (peace be upon him) is reported to have said concerning those who call him “Lord” but refused to do the things he taught: they would be condemned in the Day of Judgment. Let those who ignorantly believe that Osama bin Laden and those like him represent Islam be aware of this. Islam is very truly a religion of peace, justice, and equity. I myself am not Muslim, as I believe I have both a right and obligation to discern what is true in the Qur’an from what is false (if I choose to read it at all – and I have so chosen). But I have come to have a great deal of respect for that religion, as I see so much truth in it; and I cannot any longer sit quietly when it is misrepresented and ‘blasphemed’ – particularly when I imagine such misrepresentation is done out of ignorance.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Would you comment on this editorial written by Adnan Hussein in the Iraqi newspaper al-Madi on the need for Muslims to accept responsibility for what ISIL and its ilk are doing?
    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8860.htm
    Here is an extract, but the entire article is worth reading:

    “In religion and history classes in elementary school, junior high, high school and later [even] in the university, they insisted on teaching us that we are the chosen [people], the best and most glorious of nations, that our religion is the true religion and that we are the right group that will be saved [from hell],[2] whereas others are people of falsehood, infidels who belong in hell and are doomed to hellfire, whose killing is permissible and whose property and wives are ours for the taking. In these classes they presented us with examples, such as Koranic verses and Prophetic hadiths that had been taken out of their historical context, so that we got the impression that the ruling was absolute and must be applied in every place and every time until the Day of Judgement… ”

    Salaam

    • @ Paul Johnson – I have never been in any Muslim schools or universities, so I can’t really comment on what is taught in them. I have no doubt that there are indeed some that would teach such ridiculous sectarian nonsense as this author ascribes to them.

      However I sincerely doubt that he is correct in saying that most if not all Muslim schools teach such extremism – for the simple reason that the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide (including leaders and teachers) abhor and denounce it. It seems to me highly unlikely that if the majority of Muslims were taught the kind of vicious teaching he ascribes to their schools, colleges, mosques, etc., they would come out totally rejecting such teaching.

      I have only personally attended one Muslim mosque, and it was Shia. I know for a fact that the extremist and terrorist teachings of ISIS and other ‘al-Qaeda’ affiliates/offshoots were vociferously denounced in that mosque. They were very open and welcoming, and would not partake in any reviling of Sunnis, Christians, or other religious groups. They certainly disagree with some of the teachings of other groups, but they follow the Qur’anic teaching that God (Allah) has given each ‘community’ its own laws and practices which they ought to follow, and they leave it to God (Allah) to clear up the differences in ‘the Last Day’.

      I have read the testimonies of a number of ‘converts’ to Islam; and one of the things that has so impressed them – and which contributed to their conversion – is the friendliness and kindness displayed by Muslims with whom they communicated. The well known Muslim ‘translator’ of the Qur’an, Muhammad Assad, was Jewish by birth – although it was a fairly ‘secular’ Jewish family. His job as a newspaper correspondent and writer led him to travel widely, including in Arabia and other primarily Muslim countries. He was greatly influenced by the generosity and hospitality of the Muslim people, and the teaching of such ‘graces’ in the Qur’an; this was one of the large contributing factors to his embracing of Islam.

      This seems hard to fit in with the idea that Muslims are taught in their schools, colleges, mosques, etc. to be so sectarian and hateful. Therefore I have to reject what the author of this article says – and I deny that Muslims in general share any responsibility for the evils of ISIS and al-Nusra.

      For a better perspective of Muslim belief and teaching, you should perhaps check out such Muslim sites as The American Muslim ( http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php ), Ascertain the Truth ( http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/ ), and Common Word, Common Lord ( http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/ ).

      I need to make one other comment about the article. It appears in the MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), which is a Jewish/Zionist dominated group. With such members of the “Board of Directoros” and “Advisors” as Steve Emerson, Michael Mukasey, Eli Wiesel, Donald Rumsfeld and Alan Dershowitz (as well as many other ‘neo-conservatives’, Jews, and other Zionists), anything they publish is ‘suspect’ (to put it mildly) – at least in my estimation. Did the article actually originally appear in an Iraqi newspaper? Perhaps; but the content is suspiciously highly filled with the type of Jewish/Zionist propaganda that one would find in other ‘big-name’ propagandists and ‘Islamophobes’ like Pam Geller and Robert Spencer.

      At least the article does acknowledge that the extremist, hateful, terrorist teachings are distortions of the meaning of the Qur’an and hadith, though. And it is the Qur’an (and hadith secondarily) which give the ‘official’ and true teachings of Islam.

      All-in-all, I reject what the article says. It sounds to me like Jewish lying propaganda, espoused by Jews and other Zionists.

  2. A very interesting blog. Thank you for writing it. A friend just sent me the Rick Mathes story you include above. I decided to verify it before sharing it and this blog came up in the search results. (I didn’t realize this was all so old)

    After reading your blog I will be sharing the link to it instead of forwarding the email all over the place. The trick will be telling my friend about this blog without offending him.

    I am so impressed with your writing that I will likely end up spending more hours than I should perusing your blog.

    Thank you,

    recklessmaverick

    • Don Wilcox – Thanks for your note. Yeah, Rick Mathes’ story has been around for a while. I believe it had been circulating for some time before I wrote this article (in 2010), and it is apparently still making the rounds.

      I wish you well in communicating with your friend who sent you the Mathes e-mail. I know from experience that many people will not take kindly to having their notions about the ‘evil’ of Islam challenged.

  3. you tried doing a good job. yet you missed it because you failed to appreciate the difference between the demonic nature of the unregenerate man and the character of God.

    the bible says that the heart of man is desperately wicked and every inclination of man is to do evil. so Christianity refused to give any room for violence against anyone no matter the disposition of such ones. in fact Christianity say LOVE YOUR ENEMIES AND THOSE WHO PERSECUTE YOU.

    Now compare this position of Christ with all the rhetorics you have been putting forth. It becomes clear which religion is the religion of peace.

    Christianity say HELL FIRE waits you if you kill anyone including those who persecute you. But Islam says you please Allah if you kill those who persecute you.

    Of these two, which one leaves room for the kind of terrorism we are experiencing today? Islam has left too much room for the fake in their midst to give a bad name to a dog just to hang it. this where the problem is. all the genuine Imams in their midst need to clear this up not just in writings but in practice.

    • Thank you for taking the time to reply to the article. However, it seems to me that you have missed the point of my article. I was not seeking to compare and contrast the Bible and the Qur’an, or the complete nonviolence of Jesus Christ versus the nonaggression of Islam. My sole point was that Islam (the Qur’an) does NOT teach the killing of ‘infidels’ because of that infidelity. In that I believe I was successful. Islam does NOT teach that which so many people say it teaches!

      You ask: “Of these two, which one leaves room for the kind of terrorism we are experiencing today?” I reply, neither of them allows for terrorism. The Qur’an repudiates the killing of innocent civilians (noncombatants). The nation of Iran, following Qur’anic principles, repudiates nuclear weaponry (despite the lying propaganda of ‘Western’ governments) for the very reason that by their very nature such weapons cannot be directed against combatants only. They are ‘non-discriminatory’ by nature.

      If you want to talk of teachings which ‘leave themselves open’ to being abused, the very doctrine of ‘hellfire’ (which I emphatically repudiate, whether it’s the Bible, the Qur’an, or any other ‘Scripture’ which teaches it) is such a teaching. Consider how both the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches used that vile doctrine to support the torturing and killing of ‘heretics’. The ‘Inquisition’ was instituted supposedly to try to save the souls of ‘heretics’ by bodily torture; and if those souls couldn’t be saved, at least they could be prevented (by killing them) from ‘murdering’ other souls by teaching their ‘heresy’.

      Does the ‘New Testament’ actually teach such nonsense? No it does not. Does it ‘leave itself open’ to abuse of its teachings about ‘hell’? Neither more not LESS than Qur’an’s teaching of fighting in self defense – and for the defense of others against oppression – leaves itself open to the abuse of terrorism.

      ‘Pacifists’ and ‘nonaggressionists’ can argue with each other as much as they please as to which is the better philosophy. But that was not the point of this article.

  4. Since they would be subjected to persecution, I can now somewhat understand why the many Muslim residents in our community and in other communities are afraid to speak out against the inhumane Shariah laws and the atrocities that are occuring in the countries where many, many Christians are being killed today. How can they be expected to assimilate respectedly into American life and not protest the masochistic and deadly actions that are being performed by their Muslim brothers?. Is it any wonder why civilized countries can’t figure out why Muslims want to reside in them. One thought is that one day they will become aligned with the large scale attacks on Western life. It is obvious they won’t be up to protecting us Christians when the time comes. Trust goes out the window on that note. Being very familiar with the “Lackawanna Six” and their neighborhood, a number of us saw reveling going on at the time of 9/11 and one doesn’t forget that no matter how you pretty it up…

  5. And to those evangelist of Lies out there. False testimonies and Testimonies of Lies are inspired by the devil. If you think these stories are pleasing to God, you are mistaking. False sacrifices are not pleasing to him.

    Win souls for God in Truth and Stop the lies n malicious testimonies. God loves Truth. Repent.

  6. Thanks for your post.

    The Holy Quran teaches Allah is all Mercyful n Graceful. and [Muslims] submit to Allah.

    Why then shud Allah ask us to slay only those who oppose us or make voilence with the Violent? And make peace wit dos who show peace to u.

    Those who already love us deserve no mercy…. it’s offenders who deserve Mercy frm us. And Allah shows mercy to transgressors….. so must we show mercy for those who transgress Islam. As a believer all Allah grants u is more of his abounding Grace. The mention of Mercy only appears when u make yourself an Enemy to Allah. What happends if Allah treats u as u treat other unbelievers?

    Slain dos who dos who dont make peace wit u anywer u find dem. HOW???

    God is Love. n Islam shud be love always. Not only for our favorites but also for Enemies. Thats what makes de difference between the love of unbelievers n the love of believers.

  7. It is difficult for non-believers in islamic states to agree with u completely. Becos the majority of the believers give u reason to believe. U quoted a passage in koran about coercion, how come sharia law everywhere justifies killing of someone who has turned away? Isn’t tht coercion? I want more than u to find out tht islam doesn’t teach killing of infidels but we’ve had to many reasons to believe otherwise. I hv muslim friends, good ones who I care about and I know care about me but once there is a looming crises I never consider them friends. I just avoid them for my safety cos we hv seen pple just change in attitude whenever there is a line between being muslim or not. When everything is calm, we return to our friendship. It’s difficult not to believe they simply want u dead. It’s just difficult.

    • Thank you, “edy”, for your comment. I’m glad to read that you “want more than [me] to find out that Islam doesn’t teach killing of infidels” – although I have to be a bit skeptical that you could possibly want this more than me! 🙂 It is in fact true, though, that the Qur’an is specific that killing of anyone is permitted only in self defense against physical attack, or as just punishment for crimes of violence such as murder. Killing for any other reason is outright prohibited! Any ‘extremist’ who practices ‘terroristic’ killing of the innocent (innocent of violent attacks or murder) is in complete violation of the teaching of Muhammad (peace to him and his family), and has denied his “Islam” in doing so.

      It is true, however, that there are Muslim leaders and governments who – though otherwise agreeing with what I have said above – nevertheless believe that killing ‘apostates’ is indeed part of the “Shariah”. This is indeed a shame and an outrage; but an ‘apostate’ is not the same as an ‘infidel’. An ‘infidel’ is simply an ‘unbeliever’ (or disbeliever) – someone who does not accept the teachings of Islam and who never has done so. An ‘apostate’ is someone who was a ‘believer’ but who has ‘left the faith’.

      Many Muslims have come up with some reason to believe that killing ‘apostates’ is legitimate for the simple reason of leaving the faith; while killing ‘infidels’ is legitimate only when the ‘infidels’ attack the ‘believers’. Wherever such Muslims find their justification for this, it is certainly not in the Qur’an. Here are 3 statements from the Qur’an about those who leave the faith. In each you will see that the Qur’anic position is the same as evangelical Christians’ views about those who abandon the Christian faith: punishment from God (in “hell”) awaits them, but there is no call for human punishment.

      “2:217 – … If any of you revoke your faith and die as disbelievers, your deeds will come to nothing in this world and the Hereafter, and you will be inhabitants of the Fire, there to remain.”

      “4:137 – As for those who believe, then reject the faith, then believe again, then reject the faith again and become increasingly defiant, God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them on any path. [Prophet], tell such hypocrites that an agonizing torment awaits them.”

      “16:106, 109 – With the exception of those who are forced to say they do not believe, although their hearts remain firm in faith, those who reject God after believing in Him and open their hearts to disbelief will have the wrath of God upon them and a grievous punishment awaiting them…. and there is no doubt that they will be the losers in the Hereafter.” (All 3 quotations are from the Abdel Haleem version of the Qur’an.)

      Notice that 4:137 allows for repeated periods of belief and disbelief, followed at last by “increasing defiance”. Such vacillation followed by increasing hardness of heart would not be possible if apostasy was punished by execution. Also note that the Prophet is told to announce that an “agonizing torment awaits them”; but he was not told to do the tormenting.

      Belief in death for apostasy must come, then, from ‘hadith’ (non-Qur’anic statements attributed to the Prophet) and Sunnah (traditions about the practice of the Prophet in various situations). This a very shaky foundation, particularly when there is no support in the Qur’an for the supposed saying or practice. It is widely recognized among Muslim scholars that something like 99% of all extant ‘hadith’/’Sunnah’ are false; some liar falsely attributed the statement or practice to the Prophet. Those which are generally accepted as legitimate are subject to interpretation.

      I really have no knowledge about the ‘hadith’ and ‘Sunnah’; but I have read statements of Muslims who believe the ‘hadith’ are legitimate which supposedly support ‘death for apostasy’ , but believe they have been misinterpreted. They say that the ‘apostasy’ in question is not simple renunciation of faith; rather it is treason against the Muslim community. When a person not only renounced Islam, but consequently joined with the enemies of Islam in attacking the Muslim community, this was punishable by death – just as most countries would deal with people who committed treason. I can neither prove nor disprove this interpretation of those ‘hadith’ – but it makes sense to me, and would not be in conflict with the Qur’anic teaching. Death for simply abandoning the Muslim faith would definitely be contrary to the Qur’an; but not death for treasonously helping the enemy in battle against the Muslim community.

      With regard to your feelings of distrust toward all Muslims when “there is a looming crisis”, I can’t really say anything, because it is in fact a personal matter for you. If you feel justified in such distrust, then of course you must continue on that course unless or until you change your mind. All I can do is reaffirm that what you fear in Muslims is not in fact “Islam”, and it does not appear to me that most Muslims deserve such distrust.

  8. As a Christian, it is not my personal opinions that count, but what the Bible has to say. If I Say that I believe the Bible, and find out that what I believe (personal opinion) is different from what the Bible as to say, then I am wrong not the Bible, then I will adjust my beliefs to co-inside with the teaching of the Bible, not the other way around. So it is with the Koran. The Koran make it very clear about killing Jews, Christians, let’s just say infidels (those who do not believe in Islam). So to say that not all Muslims believe in killing infidels, is to say that these Muslims do not believe of what the Koran teaches. Same as with the Bible, so it is with the Koran. You do not change either one of them to make them agree with your on personal opinions . In short, you do not have the option to pick and choose which parts you will accept or reject. When it come to the Bible or the Koran, it is what it is, and not what I want it to be, being based on my personal opinion.

    • Well, “Mastervantastic”, you are certainly correct in saying that a ‘Bible-believing’ Christian will want to be sure to make his personal opinions about Christianity match up with what the Bible says; and a ‘Qur’an-believing’ Muslim will also want to be sure his personal opinions about Islam match up with what the Qur’an teaches.

      However, I would also think that since you are a ‘Bible-believing’ Christian and are no doubt aware that many nonsensical claims are made about what the Bible teaches, you would be willing to verify claims made against the Qur’an just as you would wish others to be willing to verify claims made against the Bible.

      I did go directly to the source (the Qur’an itself) to verify or disprove the wild accusations that the Qur’an “is very clear” about killing all those who don’t accept its teachings; and as I have shown in this article – as well as a number of others which I have posted since – I found that the Qur’an very clearly and emphatically does NOT teach such a thing. The only killing allowed is defensive – when being physically attacked by others, or defending others who are oppressed by tyrants – or as just punishment for crimes such as murder. I have to wonder if you bothered to read the article before commenting.

      The ‘Muslims’ who need to adjust their thinking to meet the clear and plain teaching of the Qur’an (Koran) are those who believe they should kill non-believers (just because they’re non-believers) – not those who deny that Islam teaches the killing of all ‘infidels’. How about checking an online English version of the Qur’an such as Muhammad Assad’s or Yusuf Ali’s (actually reading it, not just a few cherry picked quotations taken out of their contexts) to find out what the Qur’an really teaches? And actually read this article and others I have written on the subject of Islam (in the ‘categories’ section on the right side of the blog page). I am not myself an ‘official’ Muslim – neither am I an ‘official’ Christian; but I have done enough reading and thinking about the Qur’an to be confident about its teachings on fighting and peace – and I have done enough reading of Muslim sites to find out that my conclusions are very much in keeping with the understanding of ‘mainstream’ Islam (both Sunni and Shia). Please be willing to show the same consideration and integrity toward Islam and the Qur’an which you would expect of others concerning Christianity and the Bible. 🙂

  9. My only question to you is: How do you explain the dancing and celebrating in the streets after 911?

    • Thank you, “Skiwheels234”, for your question. The question is easily answered, though, by pointing out that the only genuine “dancing and celebrating in the streets” was done by the “5 dancing Israelis” across the river in New Jersey. They were set up in advance of the Twin Towers attack, and were filming it. They were the ones celebrating the attack. After they were arrested and eventually deported to Israel, they admitted in a live TV interview that they were there specifically to record the event. In other words, they had prior knowledge of what was to happen, and they were dancing with joy when it actually occurred. They – or some of them – were Mossad agents. How do you explain that?

      The ‘celebrating Muslims’ film was in fact a lie and deception. The film was taken much earlier of a celebration of another event – a wedding, if I recall correctly – and had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/2001. This is very typical of the deceptive and lying propaganda produced by “the Beast” (the USA) and “the Great Whore” which rides on “the Beast’s” back (Israel/the Jewish lobby). The deception was obvious on the face of it, in that the celebrating shown in the films was being done in the daytime (supposedly shortly after the actual 9/11 event); whereas due to the difference in time zones, it was actually night time – when the 9/11 attack occurred – in the part of the world where the film was taken.

      Even Osama Bin Laden, who as leader of ‘Al Qaeda’ was supposedly the planner and organizer of 9/11, explicitly denied (in a TV interview a couple of weeks after the event) that he had anything to do with the events – and for the very reasons I gave in my article: such atrocious actions are completely contrary to the Qur’an and the ‘Sunnah’ of the Prophet. When else has Bin Laden or ‘Al Qaeda’ denied any of their actions? They don’t tend to be ashamed of their actions or want to hide them.

      The “bin Laden” videos produced later – after December, 2001, when bin Laden died or at least ‘disappeared’ – were obvious fakes. Experts from all over the world denounced them as forgeries (except for the ‘experts’ in the CIA who produced the forgeries, of course).

      And even if some Muslims were happy about those attacks, their supposed celebration had nothing at all to do with any Qur’anic command or obligation to ‘kill all infidels’. It would have been a rejoicing that the USA “got what it deserved” as payback for its actions in invading Iraq and other Muslim countries in the 1990s, as well as the sanctions against Iraq which produced the deaths of many thousands of Iraqis (including especially young children); and for its unceasing and unapologetic support for the Israelis’ atrocities committed against the Palestinians.

      Now my question to you is: how do you explain what I have shown in this article (and a number of others in the “Islam” and “Islamophobia” categories on the right side of the page)? And how do you explain all of the official and unofficial condemnations of the 9/11 atrocity coming from Muslims all over the world? Even Saddam Hussein publicly expressed his condolences to the USA for the attack – though he somewhat ruined the effect of that expression of sorrow by saying perhaps the USA would see the event as a wake up call to repentance for its actions. But perhaps you were unaware of the high volume of condemnation of the attack coming from Muslim nations and individuals, because you weren’t interested in that. People are frequently blind to what they don’t want to see.

      The fact stands that Islam does not either command or condone the killing of people simply because they don’t accept the religion known as Islam; in Islam, killing is only permitted as either judicial punishment for serious crimes such as murder, or in defensive actions. Killing of non-combatants – and especially women and children – is prohibited.

      In my estimation, the evidence is overwhelming that 9/11 was not planned and carried out by Muslims at all; rather it was the work of the Israeli Mossad and the US Government/FBI/CIA. And even if some Muslims did participate, it was not because of a supposed command to ‘kill all infidels’ (rather it would have been retaliation for atrocities committed against Muslim people by the USA); and it was in fact completely contrary to the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him and his family). The overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout the world agree that such actions are contrary to the teachings of Islam.

      • Good to point out the positives. I received the Mathes email and then found your site. I’m confused on something you said; can you please clarify what you mean by, “In my estimation, the evidence is overwhelming that 9/11 was not planned and carried out by Muslims at all; rather it was the work of the Israeli Mossad and the US Government/FBI/CIA. And even if some Muslims did participate…” ?

        It sound like you’re saying that the US Government paid or coerced some non-Muslim people to attack the US and kill its own citizens. I’d like to read the overwhelming evidence you mention. Do you have links to the evidence?

        From my American perspective, it sounds insane to hear that in your estimation, the evidence is overwhelming that 9/11 was planned and carried out by the US Government/FBI/CIA. I am unaware of evidence linking these groups to the plane attacks on the US. That idea seems less rational when it is followed with “And even if some Muslims did participate,” since I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Christians/Taoists/Buddhists/Agnostics/Atheists/etc that flew the planes into the Twin Towers killing thousands of American citizens. What am I missing?

        • “STT” – That the “official story” of 9/11 is a lie, deliberately concocted by Government agencies and agents, is obvious. A couple of ‘smoking guns’ which prove this are: (1) – The collapse of the towers straight down into their own ‘footprints’ at near free-fall speed is a clear and irrefutable proof that they were controlled demolitions. Explosives of some sort were necessary to take out the support beams in order to remove all hindrances which would slow down the collapse; and those explosives had to be precisely placed to produce the straight down collapse. Those explosives were obviously not placed by Osama bin Laden from his hideout in Afghanistan, nor by the supposed Muslim terrorists who allegedly hijacked the planes.

          (2)- There was a third tower (building 7) which collapsed on 9!!, without having been hit by an airplane and with only minor fires within the building. It collapsed around 5:20 PM when the building owner (Larry Silverstein) gave the order to “pull it” – and in fact about 20 to 25 minutes AFTER the BBC announced that building 7 had collapsed!

          Why did the Government feel the need to concoct their ridiculous fabrications? What did they need to cover up and hide from the public?

          For links that document the evidence showing CIA and Mossad involvement in the 9/11 false-flag events, I’ll give you a couple of sites that could help you begin your research if you are interested and have time to pursue it. You will be able to find many other links from those sites.

          Ascertain the Truth On the left side of the home page, under the title “Most Popular”, there are several articles about 9/11. Also, at the top of the page (just below the blog title “Ascertain the Truth” in big letters) there is a tab labeled “9/11 and False Flag Operations”. Clicking that tab will lead to a number of articles on the subject.

          Another site you might wish to check out is Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. You will find articles and videos available here on the scientific evidence that the “official story” of the events is a lie, and is in fact impossible in many respects (contrary to the known laws of physics).

    • And another possible explanation is that people are sometimes hypocrites or don’t follow their own religion very well. That goes for people of all faiths.

  10. Blessings!
    Love this article. I was also forwarded the same email and in my search for the truth on this matter I came across your web site. I referred the person who had forwarded it to come here and read what you had written. You have made a difference and continue to do so. Thank you for stepping up to the plate and into the place of Love and Respect for people of all Faiths. I appreciate YOU.
    Peace Out
    Christine

    • Christine – Peace and blessings from the Kind and Merciful One. Thank you so much for your comment; it has “made my day”. As Arabic speakers would say. “alhamdulillah” (“praise be to God”). Most of the comments come from those who are already Muslim and recognize the misinformation in such e-mails as Rick’s – and I certainly appreciate them. But it’s even more pleasant to hear from someone who is not Muslim that He Who Alone Guides to the Truth has been pleased to use what I have written to at least enable them to see that the accusations are indeed false – Islam is not the vile and evil religion it is frequently portrayed to be.

      Over the approximately 2.5 years I’ve been ‘investigating’ Islam, I have become more Muslim than not; in fact I presently refer to myself as ‘muslim in spirit, if not in letter’. But at the same time I still also refer to myself as ‘Christian-Jewish-Muslim-Buddhist-Hindu’ because I recognize that there is a common thread in all the great religions with which I can identify – even though over the years that ‘thread’ may have become encrusted with a lot of corruption.

      May your path be pleasant as God guides you on “the straight way”.

  11. I want to start a weblog written by a fictitious character commenting on politics, current events, news etc..How?.

    • Since it’s been a little more than 2 years since I started this blog, I don’t remember the details about how I set it up. But you can go to the “WordPress.org” link on the right side of my blog (under “Blogroll”) and click on it. From there, you can click the button near the top of the page labeled “Download WordPress 3.2.1.”, and then follow instructions for setting up a blog. I know you’ll have to provide information about yourself (address, e-mail address, etc.), decide on the name you want to use for your blog, and choose from among color options and themes (such as the picture at the top of my blog). I wish you well in your efforts. (This WordPress blog is free, though they do offer other options which would incur a charge.)

  12. Hi there, You have done an incredible job. I will definitely digg it and personally suggest to my friends. I’m sure they will be benefited from this website.

  13. Thank you for an enlightening article. May God inspire you to find the truth. Muslims can learn an important lesson from your post. Refuting the many outlandish lies against Islam in a calm, intelligent manner is definitely more appealing than to respond with a torrent of senseless abuse and slogans such as ‘may you burn in hell!’ etc. 🙂

  14. This was wonderful. Thank you for sharing.

    • And in return, thank you for reading it, and commenting. I’m certainly happy when people are helped or encouraged by what I write – or if they simply agree with and enjoy the article. I also appreciate when people offer corrections to misstatements I unfortunately sometimes make. So any comments are welcome.

  15. Thank you for this article Stephen! And I also particularly enjoyed the article that dealt with people’s rights. I must visit this place more often…. 🙂

    • I’m blushing! But thanks for the kind words. Any constructive criticisms will be appreciated – especially since I’m not by any means an expert on Islam. If you read any of my articles on the Bible, Christianity, and Reincarnation, criticism is also welcome there. I’m not at all sure that my views fit in with any ‘school’ of Islam, so you may find some of my views objectionable there. I hope they won’t be offensive though – especially not offensive enough to drive you away.

  16. The Straight Path in this world now, is the Path of Islam. Free Backlinks


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: