Five Lessons from Egypt and the Arab Spring

koran-egypt1. Don’t Believe Anything You Hear

Egyptian liberals allied with the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow Mubarak and challenge the military. In those heady Tahrir Square days, they ridiculed the idea that Mubarak’s overthrow would benefit the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now those same liberals have teamed up with the military to take down a Muslim Brotherhood government that they told us would never come to power. But don’t be surprised if a year from now, after the military develops too crushing a grip on power, they don’t run back to the Muslim Brotherhood and Tahrir Square repeats itself a third time with the banners and fireworks and chants about the will of the people.

And when it does happen, neither the liberals nor the Muslim Brotherhood will ever remember the time when they were deadly enemies. Instead they will pretend it never happened, the way that Egyptian liberals once pretended that the Muslim Brotherhood wasn’t part of the protests.

Middle Eastern politics is reality-selective. It’s conspiratorial and it’s based around shaky alliances between mortal enemies to achieve short term victories. That’s why the Muslim Brotherhood has done so well; it’s one of the few factions to practice long-term thinking.

Everyone else just thinks as far as winning the next battle, getting to power and then letting the unambiguous genius of their vision and the adoration of the people carry them to their destiny.

And then it all falls apart. Again.

 

2.  It’s Not Democracy, It’s Permanent Chaos

Democracy in the Middle East is just another means of political change. It’s not any different than mob action, a coup or an invasion. It’s just a way that one government replaces another.

The voting booth depends on a sense of law and order. It carries very little weight in lawless societies.

In Egypt, mass protests really are as legitimate a means of political change as the ballot box. Probably better. It’s harder to rig rallies of millions of people than it is to fake millions of votes.

The Arab Spring represented political chaos in a lawless society, not social change or cultural enlightenment.

Whoever runs Egypt will still leave it a corrupt place where family connections matter more than merit, where the poor struggle to get by, where everyone resents everyone else, where political alliances fall apart in the blink of an eye and everyone waits around for a tyrant to take matters into his hands and usher in some stability.

 

3. Everyone Will Always Hate America

The one thing that everyone in Egypt can agree on is that they hate America. And this time around they almost have a valid reason.

Obama did help overthrow the Mubarak government, but both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian liberals wanted him to do it. They were happy to have him tamper with their politics to remove Mubarak. Now the Egyptian liberals blame him for aiding Morsi, but they were the ones who opened the door.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which has been the beneficiary of unprecedented American support, is also denouncing America, even though the White House and the State Department are working to rush through new elections and free Brotherhood detainees.

The Egyptian liberals and the Muslim Brotherhood, the two factions who benefited the most from the fall of Mubarak, hated us all along. They hated us before we helped them overthrow Mubarak. They hate us now. They will go on hating us, whether we oppose them or help them, give them money or bomb them.

 

4. Fanatics and Democracy Don’t Mix

One of the fondest myths of democracy promotion is that bringing terrorists into the political process moderates them. It doesn’t.

Fanatics don’t compromise because their goals require purity. They feint compromise only long enough to get to power. And then they turn on their former allies.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s goals were obvious from its motto. “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Nothing about that provides any room for compromise. It doesn’t conclude with political change. Instead, like most fanatical creeds, its great ambition is to demonstrate its commitment to total ideological purity through the death of the fanatic.

The political process did not moderate the Nazis or the Communists. There was even less hope that it would moderate the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization whose spokesmen have a talent for pitching its message to Western audiences, but which is utterly committed to the absolute tyranny of its objectives.

 

5.  The Muslim World Has No New Ideas

The Muslim Brotherhood has a lot of modern polish, but underneath is the same old message that Mohammed came roaring out of the desert to deliver.

Despite the social media and memes, the Arab Spring unrest was part of a familiar cycle that begins when empires, whether it’s Rome or Great Britain, withdraw from the area leaving the local fanatics, intellectuals and military men squabbling over how to put their perfect society into place.

There’s no progress being made. All the new things that were injected into the process come from outside and are used to serve ancient goals. The election machine and the social media account are new tools being used to settle old scores.

And the outcome of the struggle is a reversion to the old familiar patterns of a broken society.

A society with no healthy old ideas and no new ideas is doomed to reenact the same drama on new stages. Western experts became excited by the innovative staging and forgot to read the script or they might have realized that it’s the same old dialogue in a new production.

There may be skyscrapers, nuclear plants, social media feeds and a thousand other modern elements in the mix, but they are all the set design for an old script and for all the old wars.

The three options are still military rule, strongman or theocracy. The Arab Spring tilted the rule of strongmen and soldiers toward theocracy. That outcome was as modern as the Caliphate. Now the military has once again stepped in. Eventually there will be a strongman. Or a theocracy. Or a junta. And they will go on overthrowing each other.

Where there are no healthy ideas, there can be no positive outcomes. Democracy is not a new idea. Nor are constitutional guarantees of human rights. Those are processes by which a society implements healthy ideas about sharing power or the rights of others.

The Muslim world cannot use processes from more advanced societies until it accepts the social and moral premises behind them. Elections are only a process. Their outcome depends on the society. Laws are also a process. They can either be the implementation of deeply felt beliefs or just words on paper.

The Arab Spring pretended that introducing new processes into societies that lack new ideas would fill the cultural gaps and humanize them. That plan failed. Reforms don’t begin with processes. They begin with moral and intellectual struggles. Only once a consensus has formed, can the process be introduced to implement that consensus.

Without new ideas, new processes are doomed to fall into the old cycles and patterns. That is how the Arab Spring became the Islamist Winter and the Army Summer.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • alyssa651

    what Jean responded I am dazzled that anyone can earn $6316 in four weeks on the internet. did you see this web link w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

    • StanleyT

      Request to all – please flag this troll’s constant spamming as inappropriate. Click on the down arrow to the right of her name.

  • truebearing

    “Democracy” is a means to and end for Muslims, and the end has nothing to do with freedom or a representative government. Real democracy requires an essentially moral majority to succeed, which gives water lilies in the Sahara a better chance at surviving than democracy in the Middle East.
    Obama has as little respect for democracy, or the culture necessary for it to thrive, as the Muslims in the Middle East. There is NO evidence of Obama ever taking action to support a truly democratic movement.

  • Poupic

    Democracy is called “A Crusader’s idea” in the Arab universe. Succession is either from father to son or by a bloody coup. The ruler usually rule with the consent of the mosque. That’s it! That is the political system of Arab lands explained while standing on one foot. Barack Hussein and his valets have been involved in promoting Islamists from the Brotherhood to Turkey’s Erdogan. They now have turned to un elected, of course, Abbas the behind the scene PLO leader of the massacre of the Israeli athletes in the Munich Olympic. It is time to look at Barack Hussein as an Islamists’ plant in The White House and impeach him for it.

    • hpe reader

      Poupic, it seems possible that Obama had a plan, beginning with his bowing apology tour of the Middle East. He gave Islamic leaders a wink and a nod, and gave our long time allies the shaft. Obama’s plan failed because he thought that the Islam would be patient enough to let their take over go through a legal process. Silly boy, seems he is just a piker when it comes to real radical strategy.

      • Poupic

        Barack Hussein is nothing less than a Islamists plant in The White House. He should be impeach as soon as possible. The man is dangerous to the USA, US allies and he screwed up most of the Middle east already.

  • Gabriel Zriek

    A damn redicuols assessment of the whole thing, and with your narrow outlook, volunteering to explain thing to you would futile.
    It seems that either you know and comprehend the truth, but you intentiauly twist it, or you just skim the surface of the situation, and never want to go deep enough.

    • Demetrius Minneapolis

      What’s “redicuols” is that you can barely spell and understand the English language, yet feel fit to ridicule the article.
      So “genius”, what was misrepresented in the article, I am awaiting your response with great anticipation.

    • edlancey

      Go on then Gabby, help us all out with the benefit of your wisdom.

    • DrMIke

      Can you spell Caliphate Gabriel?

    • mtnhikerdude

      Gabriel , go deep and put on a burka.

  • Pat English

    Great article by Greenfield. When will the US ever learn. Democracy is 180 degrees from the Muslim philosophy.

  • mtnhikerdude

    The umbilical cord to the 7th century will never be severed.

    • hpe reader

      MT, they will have to “move up” just to reach 7th century levels.

      • mtnhikerdude

        LOL

      • craig

        In the 7th century, much of the Middle East was Christian, advanced, and cosmopolitan. Then Mohammed happened, and they have been devolving ever since. The so-called ‘Golden Age’ of Islamic culture was nothing more than the residual fruits of the subjugated peoples’ civilization.

        • hpe reader

          Craig, that would certainly explain things in the Middle East today, eh?.

  • Omar

    On the third lesson, the reason why they hate America (and the West) is because the Brotherhood and the so-called “liberals”(they are not liberals, they are leftists, true liberals believe in the philosophy of great men like John Locke and George Washington) in Egypt are financed by Russia and China, two rogue Marxist regimes in the contemporary world that cause chaos and support despotism in hopes of destroying the United States. Russia (or the Soviet Union as it was known before 1991) has been causing hell in the world (as well as inside its borders since 1917, when Lenin forcibly overthrew a provisional government that was trying to lead Russia on the way to democracy. Lenin’s Bolsheviks then proceeded to murder the Czar’s entire royal family, including the Czar’s son, who had hemophilia (the boy’s only so-called “crime” was that his father was the Czar, something that the boy himself could not help). Since 1917, the Soviet Union (and later Russia) has tried to implement Communist totalitarianism in the many countries of the world through its policy of imperialism. Far from being so-called “anti-imperialists”, the Communists were one of the largest perpetrators of imperialism in history. The Soviets/Russians have established client states all over the world, most notably in China where since 1949, that country’s Communist dictatorship (founded by the infamous Soviet/Russian puppet Mao Zedong, the greatest mass murderer in history) has been causing hell as well, including invading and occupying a sovereign country, Tibet, and forcing that country’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, to exile in India. The only time Russia was pro-Western was during the presidency of Boris Yeltsin, but today in 2013, under Putin, Russia has gone back to its old Communist despotic way. The reality is that every enemy of America is a friend of Communist Russia and Communist China and it is time to defeat them both and demand regime change.

  • Joseph

    Another ‘lesson’ to be learned is that if your President has a ring on his hand that is inscribed with ‘allahu akbar’ then you should pay more attention to his underlying motives because his words are there only to deceive you…..Also, a year from now, if without Obama’s intervention, a democracy will be established in Egypt by the military there….What the military knows for sure is they are expendable and the Muslim Brotherhood was certainly going to transfer all their assets and command structure to the ‘Army of Islam’…..Obama and the complicit Congress of the USA is doing that right now…our generals will have their heads at the guillotine when Obama has done with them…

  • DebRollin

    The most powerful nation the United States has a leader that has Promoted Islamic Radicals. Imagine a world where Saudi Arabia couldn’t spend billions of dollars every year funding mosques and madrassas around the world, exporting materials and imams that espouse radical islamist ideology. Every nation should start Fracking and put these Radicals out of business! This would allow consumers to choose from different transportation fuels in the market place such as methane produced by abundant US natural Gas. Billionaire Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal said the Gulf Arab Kingdom needed to reduce its reliance on crude oil and diversify its revenues. Rising Shale energy supplies in the United States cut global demand for Saudi Oil! Tired of even having to do business with these people!

    • ObamaYoMoma

      There are no Islamic radicals. That’s political correct mush! There is only mainstream orthodox Muslims, as all Muslims are jihadists in one form or another, as jihad, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, is the highest pillar of Islam and a fundamental holy obligation incumbent up all Muslims in one form or another.

      • DebRollin

        Fracking will put the screws to Radicals! Nidal Hassan made excuses for his Jihad, he just didn’t feel wanted or fitted in, so he goes and kills his fellow officers. The scum should have been hung! Then lets talk about Taqiyya, muslim deception viewed as noble to dupe your enemies. Taqiyya, muslim deception used on Infidels and Jews and deemed obligatory in the Quran 3:28. “Let believers not take infidels for friends and allies instead of believers. Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam, practically every Islamic sect agrees with it and practices it..(main stream Islam.) We have studied the Koran and other sources of history on Islam, don’t try to brainwash those in the Know! The Radicals were United with Hitler too before they annihilated 11 million Jews. Take your lies and peddle them somewhere else! You are not even worth conversing with, you lack any kind of values or principles, or honor!

        • ObamaYoMoma

          I think you slightly missed my subtle message. Oh well…you’re not the first and you most certainly won’t be the last. By the way, since jihad is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another and because all Muslims are jihadists in one for or another, or otherwise blasphemous apostates that per the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed, how can you deem what are mainstream orthodox Muslims as being radicals and extremists? Indeed, this would suggest that besides your intense study of the Koran and other sources of history on Islam, you somehow were a victim nonetheless of mass media indoctrination via the so-called leftwing mass media. Oh well.

          By the way, jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law and manifests both violently and non-violently but astronomically far more non-violently relative to violently, and also in stark contrast to terrorism, which is always and only violent. Not to mention as well that Muslims only wage jihad. While terrorism, on the other hand, is the purview of all cultures and societies. But, of course, you knew that already. Yeah right.

          • KT Shamim

            [Qur'an 22:40-41] “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them —

            Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty —”

            Condition 1: Wronged
            Condition 2: Driven out from homes
            Condition 3: Because they said ‘Our Lord is Allah’

            These conditions don’t apply today as you might have guessed. No one fights Muslims ’cause they believe in Allah. People fight Muslims for oil, land, etc. So Muslims today are wrong to wage their wars and use Islam to politicize those wars.

        • A.R.Momen

          It seems that you are a Jew .Now I’ll tell you something:One of the clues which let a Christian thinker convert to Islam were two verses in the Quran , one of them tells about the uncle of Prophet Muhammed (Abu Lahab) when the Quran told that this man will be plunged in flaming fire (surat 111:1-5),the second verse is in Surat Al-Maidah “You will find the most vehement of people in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters….”5:82 .That converter discovered that in fact Abu Lahab perished without entering Islam ,and the Jews are really the most vehement enemies of Islam .i.e the Quran predictions proved to be correct. But I’ll tell you something else ; any Jew whoever converts to Islam will become a 100% Muslim . Muslims are not a race,so when a group of Jewish rabbis became Muslims in the 7th century they had been respected ,our prophet had a Jewish wife :Safieh. Muslims hate the deeds of Jews not the Jews as human beings .A lot of Islamic scholars were non Arabs by birth ,but Islam united their diversities .

          • DebRollin

            Spare me your propaganda. I am not a Jew, but I know the history of Islam and its treachery against innocent people! You cannot brainwash people who are educated on all faiths and know true history. We know all about how you try to converse with people on websites to suck them into Islamic ideologies…It isn’t working!

          • KT Shamim

            [Qur'an 18:30] “And say, ‘It is the truth from your Lord; wherefore let him who will, believe, and let him who will, disbelieve.”

            [Qur'an 6:108] “And if Allah had enforced His will, they would not have set up gods with Him. And We have not made thee a keeper over them nor art thou over them a guardian.”

            Islam doesn’t need, never needed, never wanted to spread by any force. Islam spreads by winning people’s hearts through the power of love.

          • jackdiamond

            Islam spread by the sword, except where it could spread through demographic conquest (hijrah). Your reply is a complete denial of lived history, but that is to be expected. How else could you remain a Muslim?

            “Islam has approved war so that the word of God becomes supreme…this is war for the cause of God (Holy War). Muhammad therefore, sent his ambassadors to eight kings and princes in the neighborhood of the Arab peninsula to call them to embrace Islam. They rejected his call. Thus, it became incumbent on the Muslims to fight them”–Dr. Afifi Abdul-Fattah (“The Spirit of Islamic Religion” p 382).

            Ibn Hisham “Biography of the Apostle” p 134:
            Muhammad sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the
            children of Haritha and told him “Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them… if they refuse, fight them” THEY ENTERED ISLAM BY FORCE. He brought them to Muhammad: Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet.”

            “Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah…invite
            them to accept Islam…if they refuse to accept Islam, demand for them the jizya..if they refuse to pay the tax seek Allah’s help and fight them” (Sahih Muslim
            4294).

            Abu Bakr invading Persia said “Embrace Islam or pay the poll tax or fight.” Caliph Umar invading Iraq said “Summon the people to God, those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation & lowliness, if they refuse this it is the sword without leniency.”

            This is how Islam spread and conquered the Christian Middle East and North Africa, Persia, and attempted to conquer Europe and India.

            “When the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the Chapter of Repentance (sura 9) was revealed God commanded his Prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim, whether they fought him or not.” Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya

            Encyclopedia of Islam: “the duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained..’until the end of the world.’ Peace with non Muslim nations is therefore a provisional state of affairs only”…

            “The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological & political, if not strictly military. The Jihad may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not continuous fighting.” Majid Khadduri, War & Peace in the Law of Islam 1955

          • jackdiamond

            Bad form to mention Safiyah. Why not tell the real story? It might be illuminating as to how the model of conduct for Muslims and the seal of the prophets treated Jews and women. At Khaybar Muhammad took the Jewish woman Safiyah for himself the night after he killed her father and her husband (tortured to death so he would reveal Khaybar’s hidden treasure). Forced to marry him she passed the night with him in his tent. Very romantic so far, isn’t it?

            His followers worried about her being alone with him too after what he had done. Ibn Ishaq, Sirat (p 516-17): “When the Apostle married Safiya..she having been beautified and combed and got in a fit state for the Apostle the Apostle passed the night with her in a tent of his. Abu Ayyub passed the night girt with his sword, guarding the Apostle and going round the tent until in the morning. The Apostle saw him and asked him what he meant by his action. He replied “I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her
            husband, and her people, and till recently she was in unbelief, so I was afraid for you on her account.”

            Muslims, however, will tell you how grateful Safiyah was to be chosen by her families murderer. She was booty. His share of the booty of Khaybar. A chapter of the Qur’an is called Spoils of War. Spoils include 17-year old girls.

            Ibn Hisham, p. 766:“Safiyah was captured in the Khaibar raid and was claimed by the Apostle as his share of booty.. She was then seventeen. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there”.

            The most vehement of people in hostility to the Jews are the Muslims. The most vehement of people in hostility to the Christians are the Muslims. What Muhammad practiced was a doctrine of “assumed enmity”, preemptive self-defense to justify every sort of brutality toward the Jews of Arabia (and later the Christians of the Middle East and North Africa). The enmity comes solely from Islam. From the daily prayers (Qur’an 1:7) to the final commands to war (Qur’an 9:5; 9:29) we see a foundation of hate and destruction behind the Islamic abrogation of the Jewish and Christian belief system (including their claim on the Holy Land). Not a foundation of history and reason, the Qur’an’s usurpation of the Bible, Muhammad’s of Jesus and the Jewish patriarchs, and the claim to Jerusalem and the Holy Land based on a dream of someone who never left Arabia in his life (Muhammad) is a castle made of sand (the Night Journey is appropriately called a “Mi’raaj”). Because Islam cannot bear up to close scrutiny it must either lie and lie about itself or scream and threaten with death those who do scrutinize (“defame”) it.

          • KT Shamim

            Your entire argument is based:

            1. On Hadith which suffer from the weakness of Chinese whispers (hope you played that game … it illustrates the weakness of Hadith)

            2. Qur’anic verses that present Jews and Christians (and again most not all) as examples of those who have gone astray. The Qur’an holds similar views for Athiests, and most of those who don’t ascribe to Islam. However, the Qur’an does not stereotype as it says:

            [Qur'an 2:63] “Surely, the Believers, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians — whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds — shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve.”

            And guess who else the Qur’an condemns? Certain praying Muslims!

            [107:5] So woe to those who pray,
            [107:6] But are unmindful of their Prayer.
            [107:7] They like to be seen of men,
            [107:8] And withhold legal alms.

            All that has no implication that we hate the Jews or Christians. None at all. These people are astray. If they stay astray God would punish them. We are not told to punish them for their beliefs. Rather we are told to pray for them out of sympathy, concern, and sorrow:

            [Qur'an 18:7] So haply thou wilt grieve thyself to death for sorrow after them if they believe not in this discourse.

            Moreover, specifically Muhammad was forbidden to act as a policeman over non-believers:

            [Qur'an 6:108] “And if Allah had enforced His will, they would not have set up gods with Him. And We have not made thee a keeper over them nor art thou over them a guardian.”

            How much more evidence do you want?

            You ask why go to war at all then? That is also answered … to save the very “churches, synagogues, and mosques”:

            [Qur'an 22:40-41] “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them —

            Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty —”

            Condition 1: Wronged
            Condition 2: Driven out from homes
            Condition 3: Because they said ‘Our Lord is Allah’

            How much more evidence do you want?

          • jackdiamond

            I’m not going to continue to interact with someone who does not talk to me but around me. The good Jews and Christians you mention as being rewarded, are Jews and Christians who become Muslim. The rest say “Our Lord is Allah” (according to Islam) and are cursed and hated for it. I’ve presented a weight of Qur’anic verses and explication of their meaning by the consensus of Islamic scholarship and what is enshrined in Islamic law in all the threads you follow me into. Hate and enmity is Qur’anic doctrine (Allegiance and Rejection) I have quoted innumerable ayats. They are for yesterday, today and tomorrow. Jihad, warfare against non-Muslims to impose Islamic authority, is doctrine. Until the end of the world. Fitrah, that all mankind is born Muslim, is doctrine. This makes all non-Muslims renegades and completely invalidates the beliefs of Jews & Christians. The Islamic version of monotheism, Tawheed, is inseparable from Muhammad himself as the messenger. Muhammad’s whole mission is to abrogate the Jewish and Christian belief system that came before him (as in the stories about the Night Journey where Muhammad asserts authority and supremacy over all the prophets, including Jesus, Moses, Adam). Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets and the only intercessor between Allah and mankind. 3:85 Allah recognizes no religion but Islam. You tell me, what is the Islamic claim on Jerusalem and the holy land? Why is it a Waqf?

            Allegiance to Allah (Tawheed) is demonstrated through enmity towards the enemies of Allah, an enmity that is till the Day of Judgment unless they embrace Islam. The enmity to the Jews is foundational and it drives the conflict over “Palestine” rather than a mere conflict over land borders. The enmity towards Christians is reflected in the daily body count of martyrs in Muslim-dominated countries. We can add in the Hindus and Buddhists, if you like. Millions of whom met a similar fate in the glorious march of Islam.

          • KT Shamim

            What Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. are doing today by waging their own personal wars in the name of Islam is wrong and must be condemned and must be stopped.

            Where is it written that the good Jews/Christians/Sabians being spoken of in the verse must convert? Haven’t you read the first group in the verse is “believers” so obviously the rest of the groups are other than believers because “believers” already believe in Allah.

            I have already answer that God’s curse on Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc. all is a result of their beliefs and actions. But God’s curse does not translate into Muslims hating those people. Are Muslims also instructed to hate other Muslims then? Of course not. Islam gives us the teaching of compassion for all but admiration only for few.

            Most of the verses you quote are God’s curse and you seem to infer that it translates to the enmity of Muslims while, in fact, in translates to Muslim sympathy and sorrow for those people as it was said:

            [Qur'an 18:7] “So haply thou wilt grieve thyself to death for sorrow after them if they believe not in this discourse.”

            That is how much Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) loved mankind. Why else would he grant general amnesty to the Meccans upon his victorious return to Mecca. Is there an example in history the likeness of that forgiveness?

            Does Islam teach us compassion for humans, Jews, Christians, etc.? Yes.
            Does Islam teach admiration for them? Certainly not.

            Once you differentiate between compassion and admiration you might come to understand better what Islam teaches. Until that time I hope I can be clearer as I follow you around.

          • jackdiamond

            Believers are Muslims. They are not Believers if they believe in “Judaism” and “Christianity.” (Neither is recognized as legitimate by Islam today). Only if they accept Islam. A Christian believes in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not Isa the prophet of Islam who affirms Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets. Islamic scholars confirm what verses like 2:62 really mean. Here is Ibn Kathir, whose words, believe it or not, count for more in the Muslim world than yours.

            Tafsir 2:62 ” (Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day) that Allah revealed the following Ayah afterwards, (And whoever seeks religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers) (3:85).

            “This statement by Ibn `Abbas indicates that Allah does
            not accept any deed or work from anyone, unless it conforms to the Law of Muhammad that is, after Allah sent Muhammad . Before that, every person who followed the guidance of his own Prophet was on the correct path, following the correct guidance and was saved.When Allah sent Muhammad as the Last and Final Prophet and Messenger to all of the Children of Adam, mankind was required to believe in him, obey him and refrain from what he prohibited them; those who do this are true believers. The Ummah of Muhammad was called `Mu’minin’ (believers), because of the depth of their faith and certainty, and because they believe in all of the previous Prophets and matters of the Unseen. ”

            Islam teaches it is the original monotheism of the Jews and Christians, so of course those before Muhammad can qualify as believers. The Torah & Gospels were corrupted and changed (an assertion with zero evidence). This is all not only false but deceptively false.
            It appears as tolerance by the likes of you. In truth, no Jew or Christian after Muhammad (who by definition reject Islam) is a believer and in fact falls under the judgment of enmity and rejection, curses and hellfire, guilty of shirk & polytheism. Allah commands Muslims to hate what He hates and to act upon it. This enmity is at the core of Islam because it was at the core of Muhammad. Thus fighting, jihad, “qital” (making a slaughter, killing) is commanded (even though you, the Muslim don’t like it 2:216). 9:5 Fight and kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, seize them and beleaguer them lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war…but if they repent (accept Islam) let off….” 8:38-39 “slay the unbelievers if they desist from unbelief, their past will be forgiven them but if they persist, fight and kill until there is no more tumult or dissention…” Here is the merciful Muhammad, 8:67 “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he made a great slaughter in the land.” (i.e.”exaggeration in the killing of the enemy”). When the Qurayza surrendered Muhammad presided over the beheadings of 800 bound men and boys over a ditch. The women were enslaved (and he allowed sex with captives “right hand possessions”. 8:12 “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite you above their necks and smite all their limbs.” And Allah makes it clear in 8:17 it is not you (the Muslim) who slew them, it was Allah who killed them through you.

            9:29 Fight/Qital/Kill/Slaughter those who believe not in Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam) even if they are People of the Book (Jews & Christians) until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” This is the mercy of Islam. This is the compassion of Islam. It is echoed by a commentary from Islaam.com on verse 98:6
            “any Jew or Christian who does not embrace Islam should be considered and designated as an unbeliever (kafir) as well as an enemy of Allah, of His Messenger and the Believers. Such people will be the People of the Fire (98:1,6) Those who disbelieve (in Islam) from among the People of the Scriptures and al-Mushrikun (polytheists) will abide in the Fire of Hell.”

          • jackdiamond

            Believers are Muslims. They are not Believers if they believe in “Judaism” and “Christianity.” (Neither is recognized as legitimate by Islam today). Only if they accept Islam. A Christian believes in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not Isa the prophet of Islam who affirms Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets. Islamic scholars confirm what verses like 2:62 really mean. Here is Ibn Kathir, whose words, believe it or not, count for more in the Muslim world than yours.

            Tafsir 2:62 ” (Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day) that Allah revealed the following Ayah afterwards, (And whoever seeks religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers) (3:85).

            “This statement by Ibn `Abbas indicates that Allah does
            not accept any deed or work from anyone, unless it conforms to the Law of Muhammad that is, after Allah sent Muhammad . Before that, every person who followed the guidance of his own Prophet was on the correct path, following the correct guidance and was saved.When Allah sent Muhammad as the Last and Final Prophet and Messenger to all of the Children of Adam, mankind was required to believe in him, obey him and refrain from what he prohibited them; those who do this are true believers. The Ummah of Muhammad was called `Mu’minin’ (believers), because of the depth of their faith and certainty, and because they believe in all of the previous Prophets and matters of the Unseen. ”

            Islam teaches it is the original monotheism of the Jews and Christians, so of course those before Muhammad can qualify as believers. The Torah & Gospels were corrupted and changed (an assertion with zero evidence). This is all not only false but deceptively false.

            It appears as tolerance by the likes of you. In truth, no Jew or Christian after Muhammad (who by definition reject Islam) is a believer and in fact falls under the judgment of enmity and rejection, curses and hellfire, guilty of shirk & polytheism.

          • jackdiamond

            Allah commands Muslims to hate what He hates and to act upon it. This enmity is at the core of Islam because it was at the core of Muhammad. And so, fighting, jihad, “qital” (killing, making a slaughter) is commanded (even though you Muslims don’t like it 2:216). 9:5 Fight and kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, seize them and beleaguer them lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war…but if they repent (accept Islam) let off….” 8:38-39 “slay the unbelievers if they desist from unbelief, their past will be forgiven them but if they persist, fight and kill until there is no more tumult or dissension…” Here is the merciful Muhammad 8:67 “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he made a great slaughter in the land.” (i.e. “exaggeration in the killing of the enemy”). When the Qurayza Jews surrendered Muhammad presided over the beheading of 800 bound men and boys over a ditch. The women were enslaved (and he allowed sex with captive women as “right hand possessions”. 8:12 “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite you above their necks and smite all their limbs.” And Allah makes it clear in 8:17 it is not you (the Muslim) who slew them, it was Allah who killed them through you. The language of verse 5:33 listing the most brutal, inhuman punishments and cruel death for those who make “mischief” or cause “corruption” is not that of a great humanitarian. perhaps you are following the wrong Prince of Peace.

            9:29 Fight/Qital/Kill/Slaughter those who believe not in Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam) even if they are People of the Book (Jews & Christians) until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” This is the mercy of Islam. This is the compassion of Islam. It is echoed by a commentary from Islaam.com on verse 98:6 “any Jew or Christian who does not embrace Islam should be considered and designated as an unbeliever (kafir) as well as an enemy of Allah, of His Messenger and the Believers. Such people will be the People of the Fire (98:1,6) Those who disbelieve (in Islam) from among the People of the Scriptures and al-Mushrikun (polytheists) will abide in the Fire of Hell.”

            Which is just what I’ve been saying is orthodox Islam.

          • KT Shamim

            You say things that hurt. Jews and Christians make statements that hurt. But what are we to do:

            [Qur'an 3:187] “… you shall surely hear many hurtful things from those who were given the Book before you and from those who set up equals to God. But if you show fortitude and act righteously, that indeed is a matter of strong determination.”

            So I hope to so such patience and fortitude as is required of me. If beliefs were punishable then for what purpose was this verse revealed?

            Allah hates actions and not people. So we hate actions and not people. Even hell is a reformative process which would eventually come to an end. Allah hates no one.

            Rather, Allah is:

            Ar-Rahman – The Gracious
            Who created the sun, moon, stars, and Earth to serve all humans regardless of their faith and belief. So, in the same way, Muslims should have a minimum level of compassion for all humans regardless of their faith.

            Ar-Raheem – Ever Merciful

            Who rewards those who try to come closer to him with his countless blessings and does not reward those who go astray. So, Muslims should admire those who walk the path of God.

            Admiration vs Compassion … you’d do well to understand the difference.

            Is this reasonable to quote [8:12] and other wartime verses as absolutely applicable in Islam when Islam specifically states the conditions of war (as already stated earlier in other verses of the Qur’an)? Obviously when war is raged then strategies are employed to win the wars. But to pick up those strategies out of context and present them as a condition-less order of Islam is wrong.

            Condition 1: Wronged
            Condition 2: Driven out from homes
            Condition 3: Because they said ‘Our Lord is Allah’

            These three conditions are no longer met in any of the wars fought today. Muslims are very wrong to take up their weapons in the name of Islam because they are not persecuted or fought against due to their belief in Allah. Muslims, specially Muslims scholars and leaders, should be condemned for using Islam to politicize the masses.

            As for [9:29] it refers to Muslim governments that rule over non-Muslims. And it is fair that all citizens of a country should pay its tax and be punished accordingly for evading taxes. Jizya, by the way, was less than Zakat, the obligatory tax imposed on Muslims. Foolish to convince non-Muslims to join Islam and pay a higher tax.

            As for Banu Qurayza:
            The Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza broke a treaty that they wouldn’t attack the Muslim army. Once they broke the treaty they were fought back against, overpowered and forced to surrender. They were asked to choose an arbiter to decide their punishment. They DIDN’T choose Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) but chose a Muslim who was a Jew of an allied tribe (thinking he would show them mercy). The arbiter decided to punish Jews in accordance with their own law as laid out in Deuteronomy 20:10-14.

          • KT Shamim

            You conveniently left out the last half of [8:39]

            “…But if they desist, then surely Allah is Watchful of what they do.”

            You like to use the word “enemy” a lot. Now yes Islam definitely has loads of enemies (within and without). Here is the Islam command on dealing with them:

            [Qur'an 5:9] “O ye who believe! be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do.”

            So that is the treatment of enemies. Now enemies who actually take up arms against Muslims on

            Condition 1: Wronged
            Condition 2: Driven out from homes
            Condition 3: Because they said ‘Our Lord is Allah’

            those enemies must be fought against as clarified in the first verse revealed in this regard:

            [Qur'an 22:40-41] “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them —

            Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty —”

            Read “churches and synagogues and mosques”. Does any other religion even mention fighting to protect freedom of religion?

          • jackdiamond

            Oh yes, if they desist from opposing Islam (by their beliefs) if all the religion is for Allah & his messenger (Islam, by definition 3:85;3:19) then desist from fighting them. Tafsir Ibn Kathir says “(it is) the order to eradicate Shirk & Kufr. Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (trial in religion) & the religion will be for Allah alone (so that there is no more “Kufr”, disbelief).”

            “Rebellion against God’s will is termed as ‘fitna”. Fitna
            refers us to misconduct on the part of a man who establishes his own norms & expects obedience from others, thereby usurping God’s authority, who alone is sovereign.” Since this includes all of us non-Muslims, you just prove the point. This is their “wrong.”

            Islam protects freedom of religion? You mean the great churches turned into mosques like Hagia Sofia, mosques built atop temples to assert Islamic superiority, besides the Temple Mount, the tens of thousands of Hindu temples burnt to the ground and mosques built atop them during the Islamic assault on India. You mean the rules of the Dhimma which don’t allow displays of religion or construction of new churches or repair of old ones, that humiliated non-Muslims in sundry ways to demonstrate their inferior status. You mean the freedom of religion shown in Saudi Arabia where there are no churches allowed and displaying a cross or Bible will get you arrested, yet they expect to be allowed to fund mosques all over America and the free world.

            Allegiance to Allah means hating whom Allah hates and acting upon it. This enmity is at the core of Islam because it was at the core of Muhammad. Fighting is commanded even though you (Muslims) don’t like it (2:216). “Strike terror into the hearts of the disbelievers. Smite at their necks (cut off their heads) and smite their limbs.” (8:12) And when you slew Allah’s enemies it is not you (Muslims) who slew them, it is Allah who slew them through you (8:17). Another thing, fight is “Qital” which means kill or slaughter. So 9:29 “Fight/kill/slaughter those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day nor Messenger Muhammad, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (Islam), even among the Jews & Christians, until they pay the jizya (ransom tax, the ransom for being allowed to live) and feel themselves humbled and subdued.

            This is Muhammad’s and Allah’s last word on war against the non-Muslims.

          • KT Shamim

            Let’s put things together shall we?

            Qur’an states “no compulsion in religion” and then Qur’an says stop fighting “if they desist”. Conclusion, desist refers to fighting and not actual conversion.

            I don’t understand how you can criticize Jizya (non-Muslim tax which was less than Muslim tax of Zakat) and at the same time believe that Islam only allowed stopping fighting if people converted to Islam. I mean what is the point of having Jizya at all if everything is going to be forced conversions? Unless Islam actually supported the freedom of religion. Unless your interpretations (and those of medieval scholars) are actually wrong.

            Point is either criticize Jizya or criticize coercion. Jizya means there was no coercion. And “no compulsion in religion” means the same.

            All the examples you pointed out (if they are true) belong to periods long after Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had passed away and yes Muslims and Muslim rulers did and still do very evil things … condemnable things.

            But what did Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) do. He signed the “Achtiname of Muhammad” (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). That was in Medina I think.

          • jackdiamond

            No compulsion. First, this is regarded as an abrogated Meccan verse and so understood by Islamic scholarship, abrogated by verse like 9:5 and 9:29 which assert disbelievers must become Muslim or else…or else die or accept subjugation. Of course, to Muslims even this is not compulsion so I guess you can have it both ways. If there is no compulsion why do so many verses dictate violence against non-Muslims, for their beliefs? Convert, be subjugated, or die…is a threat. A threat is coercion, force. Just not to Muslims. Living as inferior dhimmis with the threat over you of losing your “protection” if you step out of line and offend Muslims in any way, that’s no compulsion either to Muslims. They are being generous to let them live and keep (sort of) their religion. As long as they support the Islamic State with onerous taxes. The taxes, persecution, oppression were designed (on purpose) to make life miserable (to feel subdued) and many did convert to Islam as the only way to make life better (again by design). Coercion? Compulsion? Not to Muslims.

            Good grief, the ignorance or outright deception in your statements about how Islam spread. To deliberately ignore the rivers of blood. Why did Islamic armies leave Arabia to conquer land and people all over the world?
            (this brings us back to abrogation and the rulings of Sura 9. Manuals of classic Islamic law like Umdat al-Salik do not quote “no compulsion in religion” they quote 9:29 and related commands. What did Egypt do to Muhammad? Did it attack Muslims? Yet the Muslim army came and killed 4 million Egyptians in the first century of Islam. What did North Africa, Spain, Portugal, Southern Europe do to Muslims? The Qur’an commanded Muslims to rule the earth and submit mankind to Allah’s laws. Period.

          • jackdiamond

            How did the Persian general respond to Caliph Umar’s demand the Persians embrace Islam, accept the poll tax (subjugation) or face the sword.”? He said “You (Arabs) were poor and we used to provide you with plenty of food. Why do you invade us now?” Persians never thought to invade Arabs, they had only helped them. There was nothing but slaughter. Not Islam coming with love. Khalid Ibn al-Walid killed 70,000 people on the Iraq border in one battle alone. When he attacked Ayn al-Tamr in Iraq its people took shelter in a fortress. He laid siege and forced them out. He killed them all. Why? They had refused to embrace Islam. Period. The stories go on and on. Why was Egypt invaded? ‘Umru Ibn al-As to ‘Umar “Egypt’s abundance and yields are plentiful. The conquest of Egypt would gain for the Muslims a foothold in Syria and make it easier to INVADE Africa to spread Islam.” Nothing but blood, massacre, and plunder. “Allah promises you much booty (spoils) that you will capture.” 48:20 These were offensive wars. Against peaceful countries. To impose Islam. By force and seize the abundance of their lands and capture slaves. To end the poverty and hunger of the Arabs. To spread Islam and make it conquer. In Palestine, especially, to abrogate the Jewish and Christian claim on the holy land.

            The conquest of SInd (India) was commanded by Qasim with instructions to “bring destruction on the unbelievers and whoever does not submit to Islam.” Historian Will Durant said “the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history.” I’ll spare you the details, dear readers. But this apologist needs to apologize for the millions of lives sacrificed to this god Allah and his messenger Muhammad, sacrificed simply because they would not be Muslims or live like slaves under Muslims.

            No, all he mentions is Indonesia. I did say Muslim invaders didn’t only conquer by the sword but with Hijra, migration, too. Hijra is also a form of conquest doctrinally. Europe is today becoming familiar with this method to its detriment. It is based on Muhammad’s Hijra that took over Yathrib of the Jews and made it into Medina of the Muslims. Indonesia was Islamized politically, culturally, economically and militarily starting with migrations from Malaysia. That is a whole other subject but in the end no different. The goals are always the same.

          • KT Shamim

            Abrogation argument is mute as far as I’m concerned since I don’t believe in abrogation.

            The verses regarding war clearly state the conditions for war. And I already “put things together” in the previous verse so no point repeating.

            And is there a point in repeating the point (and you didn’t refute that point) that Jizya (non-Muslim tax) was less than Zakat (Muslim tax)? Doesn’t make sense how you can force a non-Muslim to convert to Islam where the tax is higher. Doesn’t make sense at all.

            True that if the tax was not paid then, obviously, there was punishment but this is to be expected of any government. It isn’t a religious issue. As far as religion was concerned wouldn’t monetary incentive alone rather convert a Muslim to non-Muslim rather than the other way around since Zakat was more than Jizya?

            Here is another reason why compulsion seems so stupid. Many verses of the Qur’an curse hypocrites. What is the point of forcing people to join religion when all it does is create hypocrites? Take the following verses (from a Chapter called The Hypocrites!):

            [63:2] When the hypocrites come to thee, they say, ‘We bear witness that thou art indeed the Messenger of Allah.’ And Allah knows that thou art indeed His Messenger, but Allah bears witness that the hypocrites are surely liars.
            [63:3] They have made their oaths a shield; thus they turn men away from the way of Allah. Evil surely is that which they have been doing.
            [63:4] That is because they first believed, then disbelieved. So a seal was set upon their hearts and consequently they understand not.
            [63:5] And when thou seest them, their figures please thee; and if they speak, thou listenest to their speech. They are as though they were blocks of wood propped up. They think that every cry is against them. They are the enemy, so beware of them. Allah’s curse be upon them! How are they being turned away!

            So what, exactly, was the point in creating more hypocrites by forced conversions and then risking them destroy the religion from the inside?

            No compulsion in religion. Qur’an hates hypocrites anyways. They try to destroy Muslims from within making rebellion all the more probably. Zakat > Jizya. And wars were all based on strict conditions. I mean how much more evidence do you want?

            Oh and yes, you didn’t get back to me on Islamic conquests in Indonesia (or the complete lack thereof). Or I think that was the other post.

          • jackdiamond

            I didn’t say forced conversion, I said compulsion. All Islam is compulsion. A threat is a compulsion. Convert or die is a compulsion. So is the jizya. It is only one element of being a dhimmi and the threat is what happens if that “protected” status is lost by not being a good inferior being. The Jizya is called a ransom, they pay a ransom for their lives. Why is a Muslim’s life, under Islamic law, worth more than a non-Muslim? Answer me that. And speaking of compulsion, why is there a threat of death over any Muslim who would leave Islam? Apostasy is a capital crime in every mainstream school of Islamic jurisprudence. Compulsion maybe?

            Muhammad’s companions followed his example after his death, they tried to finish what he began. They are the Salafi good Muslims imitate. It’s Muhammad who had his critics assassinated (included a 100 year old man and a pregnant woman); who was the beginning of the end of Jewish life in Arabia, who launched the Jihad, who established dhimmitude at Khaybar, and with verse 9:29; who presided over the beheading execution of 800 surrendered and helpless men and boys of the Qurayza Jews, bound over a ditch. Peace and blessings indeed.

            Jizya? This tax and others on dhimmis were heavy and deliberately so (yes it varied by the ruler) but here is the intention so its clearly understood and this is how it was practiced most of the time: The intent of the Jizya, set out in verse 9:29, is described in the commentary by ibn Kathir: “with willing submission in defeat and subservience and feel themselves subdued, disgraced, humiliated and belittled” (in return for letting People of the Book live); and in Jalaluddin Suyuti: “this is the basis for accepting Jizya from the People of the Book, a state of abasement. Al-Maghira told Rustam ‘I call you to Islam or else you must pay the jizya while you are in a state of abasement.’ He said ‘What does a state of abasement mean?’ He replied ‘You pay it while you are
            standing & I am sitting and the whip is hanging over your head.’ ” Ibn Kathir: “until they pay the Jizya” means that this is done if they don’t convert to Islam; “with submission” means that they are forced to pay and should be downcast…reviled, disgraced & debased…the People of the Book are despicable, lowly & rebellious.”

            Oh, the Jews & Christians are despicable, lowly & rebellious. Feel the love.

            I think the enmity and compulsion and intention of humiliation is clear. This was the practice but it was only following Muhammad’s order, 9:29. I’m sorry you don’t like “medieval scholars” though they are among the most revered in Islam. Somehow you don’t mind that the Qur’an comes from the 7th century. Islamic law is frozen a century or so thereafter. What are you complaining about?

          • KT Shamim

            Okay … so some new topics here and some old ones. All good.

            “Why is a Muslim’s life, under Islamic law, worth more than a non-Muslim? Answer me that.”

            Jizya < Zakat. You must have heard how Abu Bakr killed Muslims who didn't pay Zakat? So a Muslim has to pay more Zakat so the price of a Muslims life is more because he has to pay more? Is that your argument?

            Apostasy – glad you came to that. So there is no corporal punishment for apostasy in Islam. Again orthodox Islam has ruined the image of Islam. But who can hide the truth that is written in the Qur'an:

            [Qur'an 4:138] "Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor will He guide them to the way."

            [16:107] "Whoso disbelieves in Allah after he has believed — save him who is forced thereto while his heart finds peace in the faith — but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is Allah’s wrath; and they shall have a severe punishment."

            As you can see in both verses no corporal punishment is specified for apostasy. You can believe and disbelieve as much as you want.

            Orthodox Islam believes in Murder in the Name of Allah. But Qur'an opposes orthodox Islam.

            There were tribes of Jews with whom relations were very cordial (despite some of them being very wicked). In fact, the following verse strikes down the view that Muslims were harsh to Jews AND strikes down the view that there is a punishment for apostasy in Islam:

            [Qur'an 3:73] "And a section of the People of the Book say, ‘Believe in that which has been revealed unto the believers, in the early part of day, and disbelieve in the latter part thereof; perchance they may return;"

            If Jews were so scared and if punishments were so severe and if ties with Muslims were so weak why would they dare employ such tactics?

          • jackdiamond

            I’m not interested in your Qur’an-only, orthodox-Islam-is-not real-Islam discussion. Your endless repetition that because the Qur’an says there is “no compulsion in religion” therefore there is no compulsion, regardless of the evidence Islam is nothing but compulsion and all the Qur’anic evidence to the contrary. Go debate Muslims. I’m only interested in what the vast majority of Muslims believe, not you and your little sect. There is such a thing as the Sunnah. What Muhammad did and said. The chronology of the Qur’an. Even the pillars of Islam are only understood from the Sunnah. There is such a thing as Islamic law, Allah’s sacred law. Orthodox Islam believes in murder in the name of Allah because the Qur’an and Sunnah obligate it. You’ve found a way to deny that, at the expense of most of Islam. I’m only interested in what the Muslim World believes. Not you.

            Every school of Islamic law requires death for apostasy. Based on Muhammad saying, if a Muslim changes his religion, kill him (Sahih Bukhari). Abu Bakr killed 80,000 Muslims for trying to leave Islam. The first thing that happened in the new government in Afghanistan was a Muslim convert to Christianity was sentenced to death for leaving Islam. However little the penalty is currently applied it is always there. It can always spur mob justice and does. Muslims who leave Islam usually do so quietly. At the very least they are ostracized and may lose all their property and rights. Abdul Ala Mawdudi wrote “To everyone acquainted with Islamic law it is no secret that according to Islam the punishment for a Muslim who turns to kufr (infidelity, blasphemy) is execution. For the full 12 centuries prior (to the end of the 19th) the total Muslim community remained unanimous about it. The whole of our religious literature clearly testifies that ambiguity about the matter of apostate’s executions never existed among Muslims. God Most High declares in the Qur’an “But if they repent and worship and pay the poor tax then they are your brethren in religion and if they break their pledges after their treaty and assail your religion then fight the heads of disbelief” (9:11-12).

            4:89 “they long that you should disbelieve even as they disbelieve…if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever you find them.” (about Meccans who after accepting Islam wanted to change their minds.

            9:73-74 “O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and hypocrites and be harsh against them, their abode is Hell..they swear by Allah that they said nothing (bad) but really they said the words of disbelief and they disbelieved after accepting Islam. Allah will punish them with a painful torment in this worldly life and in the Hereafter. And there is none for them on earth as a protector or helper.”

            3:90-91 “Those who disbelieved after their Belief and then went on increasing in their disbelief, never will their repentance be accepted.”

          • jackdiamond

            Umdat al-Salik is a classic manual of Islamic law endorsed by Al-Azhar. 0.1.0pp582 Who is subject to retaliation for injurious crimes. Retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. The following are not subject to retaliation: –a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim.

            Muslims are superior to non-Muslims legally, morally, spiritually and the life of a non-Muslim is worth less than a Muslim. Also note another line in the ruling “killing an apostate from Islam is without consequence.” And another not subject to retaliation: “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” A sound basis for honor killing.

            Islam is about punishing thought-crimes. 8:39 And fight them until there is no more fitna (sedition, dissension).
            9:29 Fight(kill) those who believe not in Allah or His Messenger or acknowledge Islam as the Truth. Thought-crimes. Apostasy is a thought-crime. Blasphemy is a thought-crime. Muhammad dealt lethally with those who mocked or criticized him and Muslims follow that example. In Islam, any opposition or criticism of Islam is considered war against Islam. Rejecting the call to Islam, the invitation that precedes any attack, is considered making war on Islam. Disbelief itself is rebellion against Allah, spreading corruption, and making war on Islam. I promise this is how the scholars of Islam understand things, as incredible as it sounds to Westerners who think war and self-defense just refer to physical aggression. Thus, Islam always acts in self-defense!

            I’ll leave it to any reader to decide who speaks the truth about the treatment of Jews in Arabia, the hate Muhammad and the Qur’an express for them, the fact the Muslims eliminated them from Arabia and brutally. The reader can decide who speaks the truth about Jizya and it’s intention (to punish and humiliate) and about the many rules of dhimmitude institutionalized by Islam and still sparking the persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries today.

          • KT Shamim

            I didn’t do away with Hadith. I only said that where it stands in contradiction to the Qur’an the Hadith must be thrown away (no matter how “Sahih” scholars might have deemed it to be) because Hadith suffer from the weakness of Chinese whispers.

            I would not defend today’s mainstream Islam in a whole bunch of things including many that you point out. But if you attack the Qur’an on the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) or his four rightly guided caliphs then it is my duty, my Jihad, to “Strive hard against the disbelievers” using my keyboard. That is today’s Jihad as declared by our Promised Messiah.

            Abu Bakr had the Musilms killed (I didn’t know the number was 80,000) because they refused to pay Zakat (tax) and they rebelled against the government and threatened to invade and had their forces stationed outside Medina for the same purpose. You think all that does not justify punishment in any secular government?

            “Whole 12 centuries Muslim community remained unanimous about it” … where do you get that from? The concept of coercion in Islam originated in the late Ummayyad dynasty and flourished during Abbaside period.

            Following is a quote from “Punishment of Apostasy in Islam” by Sir Zafarullah Khan (former President of UN General Assembly, President at ICJ, First foreign minister of Pakistan, and a prominent member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community).

            ———–Quote Starts—————
            Yet it is of interest that the Hanafi jurists at the very start were firmly of the view that simple apostacy was not subject to any secular penalty.

            The well known compilation Hedayah sets out: The Holy Prophet forbade the killing of women for apostacy, because the principle of punitive regulations is that in such cases the penalty should be left for the hereafter, as a penalty imposed in this life would contravene the purpose of apostacy being a trial the calling to account for which pertains to God alone. This can be departed from only when the object in view is to restrain the person concerned from continuing hostilities. As women, by their very nature, are not capable of fighting, a woman apostate cannot be punished in any case.

            Another well known authority on Hanafi jurisprudence sets out: The execution of an apostate is permissible only when it is designed to restrain the apostate from continuing his aggression; it is not permissible merely on account of his reversion to disbelief, for the punishment of disbelief is severer than execution and can be imposed only by God Almighty (Fatehal Kadeer, Val. IV, p.389).

            Another authority states: There is no penalty for disbelief, because the penalty for it is severer than execution and can be imposed only by God Almighty (Chalpi’s Commentary on Fatehal Kadeer, p.388).

            Again, it is said: There is no execution except in the case of fighting, for it is not permissible to execute anyone merely on the ground of disbelief (Inayah, p.390).

            The direction attributed to the Holy Prophet: Execute him who changes his faith; has been interpreted as meaning the execution of a combatant disbeliever (Fatehal Kadeer, Vol. II, p.580).

            The advocates of the death penalty for apostacy claim that their thesis is supported by a unanimous consensus of the believers and that no one has ever questioned it. Their claim is utterly untrue. We have just shown that leading jurists of the Hanafi school held to the position to which we adhere, that simple apostacy is not punishable with death. It is only a fighting apostate who is subject to that penalty on account of his rebellion or treason and not on account of his apostacy. In addition there have been outstanding scholars in Islam who have upheld the view that we maintain, among them are the great figures of Hafiz Ibn Qayyam, Ibrahim Nakhai and Sufyan Thauri, the last one a great Imam of hadees.
            ——–Quote Ends (Google the book its online)———

            So please at least stop with the “unanimous” argument?

            [9:11-12] is about pacts and treatise. Not about conversion. Read the chapter from the start.

            [4:89] is not about apostasy at all. The brackets are your own inference.

            [9:73-74] tells us to strive against disbelievers. Like I am doing right now. Nothing wrong with that.

            [3:90-91] shows there is no corporal punishment for apostasy (in fact I think I presented similar verse in my defense).

            The size of our sect should not be a cause of your disinterest. All Prophets of God started small. It took Christianity 300 years to transition from a small to a dominant religion. Your interest should be based on God’s support of our sect. Governments have clashed against us and God has dethroned them. We have never so much as raised a sword. Spreading the message of love we are growing with God’s blessing.

          • jackdiamond

            Are you serious? Are you going to argue that the 4 mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence do not mandate a death penalty for apostasy? I didn’t say they didn’t differ in whether a woman might be killed or just imprisoned (you find that better? Life imprisonment unless you reconvert? Why should anyone be punished at all for wanting to leave Islam? Compulsion in religion maybe?). Umdat al-Salik, the Shaf’i manual “the penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death. 08.0 Ridda. Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. 08.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostates from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” He is asked to repent and return to Islam, if he refuses he is immediately killed.

            “The Law of Apostasy” S.M. Zwemer Cairo 1924.
            “Islamic law is based in the first instance on the teaching of the Koran but no less on Moslem tradition becoming fixed as canon law by what is called general agreement, Ijima’a. All books on canon law include a section on the punishment due to apostasy. Generally this is grouped with those on other crimes that demand corporal punishment. Ijma’a and Qiyas (legal deductions of the learned) are based on sunnat-an-nabi, the example of the Prophet..In An-Nawawi “The Apostle of God said the blood of a fellow Muslim should never be shed except in 3 cases, that of the adulterer, the murderer, and whoever forsakes the religion of Islam.”

            One of the most famous books of Hanafi Law is called the Hedaya “as there are two modes of repelling the sin of apostasy, namely destruction or Islam..and apostate is to be imprisoned for 3 days, within which time if he returns to the faith it is well, but if not he must be slain..if a Musselman woman becomes an apostate, she is not put to death but is imprisoned until she returns to the faith. Shafei maintains that she is to be put to death. Maliki Law is also irrespective of sex, Hanafi lets her be confined.” v.2 ch9 pg225

            Why does the Egyptian government have an Apostasy Law, implemented or not? “The apostate who intentionally relinquishes Islam by explicit declaration or decisive deed must be put to death.” In response to a former President of Tunisia who said the Qur’an is full of contradictions and Muhammad wrote myths, Saudi scholars wrote “the verdict of Islam is to sentence to death anyone who (says) such things. The (president) must haste to repent.”

            Legislative Committee Al-Azhar ‘Bill of Legal Punishments’. “A person guilty of apostasy (man or woman) shall be put to death if repentance is not made within the period allowed which shall not exceed 60 days. Repentance of a person who commits apostasy twice shall not be accepted..the ordained penalty is based on the Sunnah. The Prophet said “One who changes his faith is to be killed.” (al Bukhari) It is also narrated by Al Dar Qutni that when a woman Umm-Marwan had renounced Islam the Prophet ordered that if she failed to repent she should be put to death. The Rightly Guided Caliphs continued this practiced. It is fully known that Abu Bakr fought against those who had deserted from Islam and killed many. The Gracious Companions were of the same view and a consensus emerged on this issue.”

            The message of love? While you defend the four rightly guided caliphs who launched the rivers of blood and misery I’ve described a little bit of? Who launched war against all their neighbors and far beyond? Besides slaughter and tyranny, one of them laid out the rules of dhimmitude called the Pact of Umar, which you disassociated yourself from. They also followed what you don;t believe in, a death penalty for apostates who leave Islam. Abu Bakr returned apostatized tribes to Islam by force and threats of death. That’s how Islam always kept Muslims within the fold. Ibn Hisham writes “When Muhammad died most Meccans were about to turn away from Islam and wanted to do so. Suhayl Ibn ‘Amru stood up and said ‘Anyone who relinquishes Islam, we will cut his head off.’ People changed their minds and were afraid.”

          • jackdiamond

            These punishments are facts. I didn’t say they didn’t differ in whether a woman might be killed or just imprisoned (you find that better? Life imprisonment unless you reconvert? Why should anyone be punished at all for wanting to leave Islam? Compulsion in religion maybe?). Umdat al-Salik, the Shaf’i manual “the penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer
            believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death. 08.0 Ridda. Leaving Islam is the ugliest
            form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. 08.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostates from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” He is asked to repent and return to Islam, if he refuses he is immediately killed.

            “The Law of Apostasy” S.M. Zwemer Cairo 1924.
            “Islamic law is based in the first instance on the teaching of the Koran but no less on Moslem tradition becoming fixed as canon law by what is called general agreement,
            Ijima’a. All books on canon law include a section on the punishment due to apostasy. Generally this is grouped with those on other crimes that demand corporal punishment. Ijma’a and Qiyas (legal deductions
            of the learned) are based on sunnat-an-nabi, the example of the Prophet..In An-Nawawi “The Apostle of God said the blood of a fellow Muslim should never be shed except in 3 cases, that of the adulterer, the murderer, and whoever forsakes the religion of Islam.”

            One of the most famous books of Hanafi Law is called the Hedaya “as there are two modes of repelling the sin of apostasy, namely destruction or Islam..and apostate is to be imprisoned for 3 days, within which time if he returns to the faith it is well, but if not he must be
            slain..if a Musselman woman becomes an apostate, she is not put to death but is imprisoned until she returns to the faith. Shafei maintains that she is to be put to death. Maliki Law is also irrespective of sex, Hanafi lets
            her be confined.” v.2 ch9 pg225

            Why does the Egyptian government have an Apostasy Law, implemented or not? “The apostate who intentionally relinquishes Islam by explicit declaration or decisive deed must be put to death.” In response to a
            former President of Tunisia who said the Qur’an is full of
            contradictions and Muhammad wrote myths, Saudi scholars wrote “the verdict of Islam is to sentence to death anyone who (says) such things. The (president)
            must haste to repent.” The Legislative Committee Al-Azhar ‘Bill of Legal Punishments’. “A person
            guilty of apostasy (man or woman) shall be put to death if repentance is not made within the period allowed which shall not exceed 60 days. Repentance of a person who commits apostasy twice shall not be
            accepted..the ordained penalty is based on the Sunnah. The Prophet said “One who changes his faith is to be killed.” (al Bukhari) It is also narrated by Al Dar Qutni that when a woman Umm-Marwan had renounced Islam the Prophet ordered that if she failed to repent she should be put to death. The Rightly Guided Caliphs continued this practiced. It is fully known that Abu Bakr fought against those who had deserted from Islam and
            killed many. The Gracious Companions were of the same view and a consensus emerged on this issue.”

            Ibn Hisham “When Muhammad died most Meccans were about to turn away from Islam and wanted to do so. Suhayl Ibn ‘Amru stood up and said ‘Anyone who relinquishes Islam we will cut his head off.’ People changed their minds and were afraid.”

          • jackdiamond

            These punishments are a fact. In law and history. Sure the schools may differ whether a woman should be
            killed or just imprisoned…you find that better? Life in prison unless you revert? Why should anyone be punished for wanting to leave Islam? Umdat al_Salik, the Shaf’i manual says “the penalty for a Muslim apostate is death. Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr)
            and the worst. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostates from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” He is asked to repent and return to Islam, if he refuses he is killed. S.M. Zwemer
            Cairo 1924 “The Law of Apostasy”: “Islamic law is based in the first instance on the teaching of the Koran but no less on Moslem tradition becoming fixed canon law by what is called general agreement. All books on canon law include a section on the punishment due to apostasy. .In An-Nawawi ‘The Apostle of God said the blood of a fellow Muslim should never be shed except in 3 cases, that of the adulterer, the murderer, and whoever forsakes the religion of Islam.”

            One of the most famous books of Hanafi Law is called the Hedaya: “an apostate is to be imprisoned for 3 days, within which time if he returns to the faith it is well, but if not he must be slain. If a Musselman woman becomes an apostate, she is not put to death but is imprisoned
            until she returns to the faith. Shafei maintains she is to be put to death. Maliki is also irrespective of sex. Hanafi lets her be confined.”

            Why does the Egyptian government have a 1977 Apostasy law: “The apostate who intentionally relinquishes Islam by explicit declaration or decisive deed must be put to death.” In response to a former President of Tunisia who said the Qur’an is
            full of contradictions and Muhammad wrote myths, Saudi scholars wrote “the verdict of Islam is to sentence to death anyone who (says) such things. The (president) must haste to repent.” The Legislative Committee
            Al-Azhar ‘Bill of Legal Punishments’. “A person guilty of apostasy (man or woman) shall be put to death if repentance is not made within the period allowed which shall not exceed 60 days. Repentance of a person
            who commits apostasy twice shall not be accepted..the ordained penalty is based on the Sunnah. The Prophet said “One who changes his faith is to be killed.” (al Bukhari) It is also narrated by Al Dar Qutni that
            when a woman Umm-Marwan had renounced Islam the Prophet ordered that if she failed to repent she should be put to death. The Rightly Guided Caliphs continued this practice. It is fully known that Abu Bakr fought
            against those who had deserted from Islam and killed many. The Gracious Companions were of the same view and a consensus emerged on this issue.”

            Ibn Hisham “When Muhammad died most Meccans were about to turn away from Islam and wanted to do so. Suhayl Ibn ‘Amru stood up and said ‘Anyone who relinquishes Islam we will cut his head off.’ People changed their minds and were afraid.”

          • jackdiamond

            The punishments are a fact. In law and history. Sure the schools may differ whether a woman should be killed or just imprisoned…you find that better? Life in prison unless you revert? Why should anyone be punished for wanting to leave Islam? Umdat al_Salik, the Shaf’i manual says “the penalty for a Muslim apostate is death. Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostates from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” He is asked to repent and return to Islam, if he refuses he is killed. S.M. Zwemer Cairo 1924 “The Law of Apostasy”: “Islamic law is based in the first instance on the teaching of the Koran but no less on Moslem tradition becoming fixed canon law by what is called general agreement and legal deductions of the learned. All books on canon law include a section on the punishment due to apostasy. .In An-Nawawi ‘The Apostle of God said the blood of a fellow Muslim should never be shed except in 3 cases, that of the adulterer, the murderer, and whoever forsakes the religion of Islam.”

            One of the most famous books of Hanafi Law is called the Hedaya: “an apostate is to be imprisoned for 3 days, within which time if he returns to the faith it is well, but if not he must be slain. If a Musselman woman becomes an apostate, she is not put to death but is imprisoned until she returns to the faith. Shafei maintains she is to be put to death. Maliki is also irrespective of sex. Hanafi lets her be confined. slain..if a Musselman woman becomes an apostate, she is not put to death but is imprisoned until she returns to the faith. Shafei maintains that she is to be put to death. Maliki Law is also irrespective of sex, Hanafi lets her be confined.”

            Why does the Egyptian government have a 1977 Apostasy law, implemented or not? “The apostate who intentionally relinquishes Islam by explicit declaration or decisive deed must be put to death.”

            In response to a former President of Tunisia who said the Qur’an is full of contradictions and Muhammad wrote myths, Saudi scholars wrote “the verdict of Islam is to sentence to death anyone who (says) such things. The (president) must haste to repent.” The Legislative Committee Al-Azhar ‘Bill of Legal Punishments’. “A person guilty of apostasy (man or woman) shall be put to death if repentance is not made within the period allowed which shall not exceed 60 days. Repentance of a person who commits apostasy twice shall not be accepted..the ordained penalty is based on the Sunnah. The Prophet said “One who changes his faith is to be killed.” (al Bukhari) It is also narrated by Al Dar Qutni that when a woman Umm-Marwan had renounced Islam the Prophet ordered that if she failed to repent she should be put to death. The Rightly “One who changes his faith is to be killed.” (al Bukhari) It is also narrated by Al Dar Qutni that when a woman Umm-Marwan had renounced Islam the Prophet ordered that if she failed to repent she should be put to death. The Rightly Guided Caliphs continued this practiced. It is fully known that Abu Bakr fought against those who had deserted from Islam and killed many. The Gracious Companions were of the same view and a consensus emerged on this issue.”

            Ibn Hisham “When Muhammad died most Meccans were about to turn away from Islam and wanted to do so. Suhayl Ibn ‘Amru stood up and said ‘Anyone who relinquishes Islam we will cut his head off.’ People changed their minds and were afraid.”

          • jackdiamond

            The punishments are a fact, in law and history. Sure the schools may differ whether a woman should be
            killed or just imprisoned…you find that better? Life in prison unless you revert? Why should anyone be punished for wanting to leave Islam? Umdat
            al_Salik, the Shaf’i manual says “the penalty for a Muslim apostate is death. Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily
            apostates from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” He is asked to repent and return to Islam, if he refuses he is killed. S.M. Zwemer Cairo 1924 “The Law of Apostasy”: “Islamic law is based in the first instance on the teaching of the Koran but no less on Moslem tradition becoming
            fixed canon law by what is called general agreement. All books on canon law include a section on the punishment due to apostasy. .In An-Nawawi
            ‘The Apostle of God said the blood of a fellow Muslim should never be shed except in 3 cases, that of the adulterer, the murderer, and whoever forsakes the religion of Islam.”

            One of the most famous books of Hanafi Law is called the Hedaya: “an apostate is to be imprisoned for 3 days, within which time if he returns to the faith it is well, but if not he must be slain. If a Musselman woman becomes an apostate, she is not put to death but is imprisoned
            until she returns to the faith. Shafei maintains she is to be put to death. Maliki is also irrespective of sex. Hanafi lets her be confined.”

            Why does the Egyptian government have a 1977 Apostasy law: “The apostate who intentionally relinquishes Islam by explicit declaration or decisive deed must be put to death.” In response to a former President of Tunisia who said the Qur’an is full of contradictions and Muhammad wrote myths, Saudi scholars wrote “the verdict of Islam is to sentence to death anyone who (says) such things. The (president) must haste to repent.” The Legislative Committee
            Al-Azhar ‘Bill of Legal Punishments’. “A person guilty of apostasy (man or woman) shall be put to death if repentance is not made within the period allowed which shall not exceed 60 days. ..the ordained penalty is based on the Sunnah. The Prophet said “One who changes his faith is to be killed.” (al Bukhari) It is also narrated by Al Dar Qutni that when a woman Umm-Marwan had renounced Islam the Prophet ordered that if she failed to repent she should be put to death. The Rightly Guided Caliphs continued this practice. It is fully known that Abu Bakr fought against those
            who had deserted from Islam and killed many. The Gracious Companions were of the same view and a consensus emerged on this issue.”

            Ibn Hisham “When Muhammad died most Meccans were about to turn away from Islam and wanted to do so. Suhayl Ibn ‘Amru stood up and said ‘Anyone who relinquishes Islam we will cut his head off.’ People changed their minds and were afraid.”

  • ObamaYoMoma

    One of the fondest myths of democracy promotion is that bringing terrorists into the political process moderates them. It doesn’t.

    Muslims aren’t terrorists. Instead they are jihadists in one form or another, and, of course, they hate us, as the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law. Thus, they hate us, they hate the Jews in Israel, they hate the Hindus in India, and they hate the Euroloons in Europe. Indeed, they hate all religions and all infidels around the world.

    The establishment of democracy in the Islamic world, as the incompetent GWB administration found out the hard way, is a wet dream. Indeed, Islam is not a so-called “religion of peace,” as the current political correct narrative portrays. Instead, it is a very aggressive and destructive totalitarian cult. Which is why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both premised off of the current political correct narrative, inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history. Meanwhile, we are allowing them to invade us in mass, again based off of that same political correct narrative.

  • T100C1970

    “Democracy” per se is a terrible idea (as our founders recognized). Hitler and Morsi were “democratically” elected. Without the constraints of a very difficult to amend Constitution, democracy is truly the wolves and the sheep voiting on what’s for dinner.

  • John Little, Sr.

    The question begged is why the “Arab Spring?” From where I sit it was engineered by the US government. The evidence for this posit is out now and sharp eyes should appropriate it for discussion. The reasons for this (failed) grand scheme were two fold: (1) Obama’s legacy, and (2) Hillary’s forthcoming presidency.

    The learned lesson is that the C.I.A. Has its limits.

    Cordially, John Little, Sr.

  • 1Indioviejo1

    I don’t believe nobody knew that Islam is incompatible with civilization, so why do our politicians expend so much time and effort pretending that change is coming to that failed civilization? There has to be an elterior motive that needs to be exposed. Is up to you Mr. Greenfield.

  • 1Indioviejo1

    I think they hate us because they envy our civilization warts and all, just as they have hated the Judeo-Christian civilization across the Mediterranean. These low lifes can’t stand their betters.

    • Omar

      That could also be another reason, but the most obvious reason why they hate America is because they are financed by Russia and China, two Marxist regimes who have caused more chaos in the world than even Franco’s Spain. In the case of Russia, there needs to be a coup in which Putin gets replaced by a pro-Western, Yeltsin-like leader. The owner of the Brooklyn Nets NBA team would be an excellent choice for the Russian presidency. As for China, a military invasion would be needed in order to replace the Communist Party with the Democracy Party with political prisoner Liu Xiaobo as the new head of state and government. One of the first acts of a free and democratic China is to grant Tibet its rightful independence as a sovereign country. Then, we can focus on democratizing other despotic regimes.

  • Mandi

    they don’t hate you, they just blame you, just like a spoiled brat would blame somebody else. The US isn’t blameless because for decades it supported the despot who didn’t reform education and politics and left the people helpless.

    • jackdiamond

      The U.S. supported the despot. Is there an Arab country that doesn’t have a despot? Has the Arab world ever worked any other way? The helpless people in Egypt are the Christian Copts. No matter who is in power. Why? Because it is the popular will. They do hate, it’s mother’s milk. They do scapegoat. Because they are never responsible for their own problems.

      • Mandi

        Jack. I am Coptic and I like our diversity. Egyptian Copts allowed themselves to be scared instead of addressing the problem back in the 90s and the clergy encouraged their isolation inside churches. Look at their rabid blame of the US to which they used to run for cover before! The only point I agree with you on is “because they are never responsible for their own problems.”

        • Mandi

          And let m add that the US spoiling of Israel whether Israel is wrong or right isn’t helping anyone, least of all the Israelis!

          • jackdiamond

            Of course, you have to imply that supporting Israel is the real source of the problems in the Arab world. The one democracy in a sea of despots and religious fanatics. Maybe you haven’t heard but the entire Muslim world regards the very existence of Israel as the Nakbah, the Catastrophe. Jerusalem and all of the holy land have been claimed as a “waqf” an Islamic endowment from Allah. Nothing Israel does, wrong or right, will change that. Therefore, the conflict cannot and will not end.

          • Mandi

            Jack. Calm down. UNCONDITIONAL support of Israel is a real problem for the US. Why? Because this way the US’s hands are tied. Everything is imposed on it and it keeps losing leverage and face. It keeps getting blamed and incited against and it has to stay on to protect the peace for Israel. Instead of Israel simply exercising self-restraint. If it really is the only democracy bla bla bla, it won’t be long before voices are raised in the Arab world about it. Its continuous acting irresponsibly is what’s bringing the constant anger!

          • jackdiamond

            Where is this unconditional support for Israel (other than for it’s continued existence)? From this administration? From James Baker back in the day or the Arab-loving State Department? How does anything going on in little Israel impact the enormous Arab world in any way other than for the reasons I described? The constant anger against Israel has a source that is not solvable by negotiations or giving up land or any other pragmatic, reasonable solution. Otherwise it would have been solved. You are ignoring Islam in your analysis, at the same time buying into the Muslim “explanation” to the kaffir as to why they are being attacked (they give a different explanation to each other). Finally, Egyptians are responsible for the mess they are in, not the U.S. or Israel. Same goes for Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran et al. Taking responsibility is the first step to actual change.

            The U.S. is losing more face (and lives) for it’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, by far.

          • KT Shamim

            “Taking responsibility is the first step to actual change”

            True that. Wish Muslims would start being more introspective. They should understand that bacteria only affects an unhealthy body. The body, the Muslim body is unhealthy.

            Yes, Muslim scholars of this age who, according to the Qur’an and the statements of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are like donkeys, monkeys, and pigs.

            1. Donkeys: who carry books on their backs but don’t know what they mean.
            2. Monkeys: who copy but don’t know the significance of what they copy.
            3. Pigs: who devour good and spit good into garbage.

            Mandi, you are really wrong to blame Israel without acknowledging the major faults with Muslims and their orthodox.

          • jackdiamond

            Your point of view is interesting. I wonder how you would fare preaching it say before the Grand Imam at Mecca or Medina? I wish you luck in reforming the Ummah and rendering it harmless to the kaffir but I fear you will accomplish little, any more than Mahmoud Muhammad Taha (the Sudanese scholar executed for apostasy) with your peaceful interpretation of the Qur’an and the mission of Islam. If there is no Nasikh there would have been no jihad and Muslims would not have left Arabia, at least in armies. How are you to interpret the Qur’an then? Just say the verses you don’t like are historical and limited and the ones you like best you’ll keep? What about the example of Muhammad? He founded a state, he went to war on unbelievers. What part of his example do you choose to follow or not follow? But the Qur’an says you can’t just follow some of it you like, you have to submit to it all entire.

            I understand Muslims wanting to distance themselves from these doctrines and still somehow remain Muslim.
            My concern is the threat these doctrines pose to the free world and the civilized world, in their orthodox mainstream understanding by millions of Muslims and as voiced by the leaders and spokesmen of the Muslim world today.

          • KT Shamim

            The conflict can end if both sides decide to forgo their national interests for justice. But if that happened the entire world would be at peace.

        • jackdiamond

          Being murdered, assaulted, having your churches desecrated (while the police stand by or even participate), having your girls raped or kidnapped into forced marriages could be cause for fear. The source of this persecution is Islam, the Islam of the Muslim majority. The faults within the Coptic community are beside the point, the big point.

          • KT Shamim

            Very well said. Muslims yell when victimized in US or UK (and victimization may be a relative superlative here) while they continue to persecute minorities in their own countries (belonging to their own faith or not).

            Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi, etc. … host of countries to list who fail to give justice to those who disagree with them in matters of religion.

      • KT Shamim

        They should take responsibility but I do think you are being bit harsh here calling it “mother’s milk”. Look we can’t stereotype. I always thought extremists were terrible and the problem with the moderate Muslims was that they remain silent. Too scared or lazy to act. That’s how Pakistan got ruined.

  • jackdiamond

    I don’t say anything that hurts, I simply quote your own scripture and history back to you. And that scripture and history is very hurtful (and lethal) to non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians.

    The whole point of Jizya was not just tribute but that the dhimmi be “humbled.” The Arabic is “saghirun”-to belittle, ridicule, demean. That’s fine with you? This is how Muslims were to make their defeated non-Muslim subjects feel. Dhimmis were required to pay it publicly and receive a smart smack on the forehead or neck from the collection officer. (Medieval Islamic Civilization Encyclopedia). Besides Jizya came all the other requirements-not to build or repair a church; to honor Muslims and rise from your seats when they want to sit down; not to blasphemy, criticize Islam in any way; raising a hand to a Muslim was forbidden even in self defense; could not hold any authority over Muslims etc etc. You say it amounted to nothing, the jizya. Under Caliph Marwan II “Marwan’s main concern was to amass gold and his yoke bore heavily on the people of the country (the Syrian Christians). His troops inflicted many evils on the men: blows, pillages, outrages on women in their husbands’ presence.” (Michael the Syrian). This tax could be so heavy many non-Muslims converted to avoid it. This is how the Christian populations dwindled. “over 400 Christians had become Muhammadans because they could not pay their kharaj (land tax also levied on non Musloims along with jizya), which is the tribute that the Grand Seigneur levies on Christians in his states….the following year in Baghdad, Christians “had to pay their debts or their kharaj, they were forced to sell their children to the Turks to cover it. ” (Jean-Baptiste Taverbnier,1651).

    You see the clear intention of the taxes and how devestating they often were. Intentionally.

    • jackdiamond

      The Banu Qurayza were the third Jewish tribe targeted by Muhammad. He eliminated them one by one, something planned even before he moved to Yathrib/Medina (the secret Pledge of Aqaba with the Arab Aws & Khazraj to destroy the Jews of Yathrib).

      The Qurayza had watched Muhammad’s expulsion of the Qaynuqa and Nadir Jews from Medina and began collaborating with the Quraysh Meccans. The Muhammad laid siege to them 25 days until they surrendered without a fight. Muhammad put their fate in the hands of the Muslim warrior Sa’d bin Mu’adh, a member of the Aws tribe. Sa’d said “the warriors should be killed and the children and women taken captive.” Muhammad was pleased. “O Sa’d! You have judged with the judgment of Allah..you have decided in confirmation to the judgment of Allah above the seven heavens.” This is slaughter by consent. Probably prearranged. Muhammad was in charge. He endorsed and authorized this sickening execution and participated actively “the apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for the (Qurayza males) and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” A “man” was one who had begun to grow pubic hair.

      Muhammad took the time to select a beautiful young Jewish girl whose husband was beheaded in front of her eyes, for his own sexual gratification. Rayhanna. She became his slave but refused to marry him or convert to Islam. How do you excuse this kind of behavior from a
      prophet of God? The other widows and children he gave away as slaves to his men. (Ibn Ishaq).

      And what did he do to the harmless farmer of Khaybar, to their men and to their women? He tortured and killed their leader so he would divulge the location of their treasure then took his wife to his tent that night. Really, how do you explain such things to yourself.

    • KT Shamim

      No I’m sorry but I don’t see at all. Jizya did not come with any other requirements other than “saghirun” which is subjugation to the government. Obviously you want your citizens to adhere to the rulers. Otherwise what is the point of government? Imposition of taxes and punishment of those who refuse to follow the rule of law is an internationally accepted principle of any government.

      As for other requirements (not building churches, etc.) these are not found anywhere in the Qur’an. The verse about Jizya quotes some requirements and forbidding church building is certainly not one of them. In fact, again, given verse about there being no compulsion in religion

      (would you be able to quote sources about time of revelation of that verse since you are so well-read? I found a bunch of stuff on the net (saying the verse was revealed after fighting was permitted) but then how reliable is the net? This is just to counter your argument assuming abrogation was a true concept)

      Now everyone can rue and complain about taxes all they want (maybe you are a republican leaning … from the teaparty or something) but taxes are also a part of even the most capitalist economies.

      Here are some other beautiful principles of Islamic governance:

      [Qur'an 5:9] “O ye who believe! be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do.”

      [Qur'an 4:136] “O ye who believe! be strict in observing justice, and be witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or against parents and kindred. Whether he be rich or poor, …”

      [Qur'an 2:43] “And confound not truth with falsehood nor hide the truth, knowingly.”

      [Qur'an 5:33] “… whosoever killed a person — unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land — it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso gave life to one, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind. …”