Go Burn With Muhammad  does not draw many comments, so when a moderation notice is received, I take due notice. This blog post is my response to a comment by Carlisticeday. The post he commented on has been viewed 320 times since October 20, ‘07.

The post begins with a quotation from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9. The post continues with a brief explanation of the quotes and an outline of the nature of Islam, with links to its foundation in scripture and tradition.

Carlisticeday’s comment is reproduced here in block quote style & Ariel font; my responses to his points are interspersed in normal column width and Times Roman font. Unlike Akhter, Carlisticeday has written his own comment, I do not find any evidence of plagiarism in it.

What You Need to Know About Islam

Carlisticeday

Submitted on 2009/07/03 at 5:50pm

First of all, “Islam” doesn’t say or do anything – Muslims do. Ditto for Christianity.

Organized religions are fictional legal persons, governed by fallible men, who speak and act for them. Islam and Christianity have fundamental doctrines which define them and are codified in their respective canons of scripture. The doctrines of Islam, expressed in the Qur’an and exemplified in hadith are the subject of What You Need to Know About Islam.

Who in history made it a policy, indeed, a religious requirement to force people to believe as they believed or die horrible deaths by burning at the stake, torture, drowning, disembowelment and so on? Not Muslims, Christians.

Religions should be judged by their orthodox doctrines & practices, not by deviations therefrom. The Inquisition was a deviation from fundamental Christianity, not the standard.

In fact, the Qur’an explicitly forbids forced conversion, and it has been understood as such for centuries. Where is that in the Bible?

Moe revealed the Qur’an piece by piece between 610 and 622. It contains obvious situational scripture and conflicting ayat which are resolved by the science of naskh. Later revelations abrogate[2:102,16:101] earlier revelations with which they conflict. Al-Baqarah was #87 in sequence of revelation.

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

Surah Yunus was #51 in sequence of revelation.

10:99. And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad ) then compel mankind, until they become believers.

Surah Al-Anfal was #88 in sequence of revelation, therefore it is nasikh and 2:256 & 10:99 are mansukh: the more tolerant ayat have been abrogated.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

Fight them until…and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone….  Allah told Moe to fight pagans until all resistance ceased and only Allah was worshiped. How did Moe interpret that?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”

Ordered to fight until…then he is a Muslim…  Got a clue yet? For the interminably recalcitrant, I offer confirmation from Shari’ah: Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraph 9.

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi’ (y21), 6.48-49) ).

Islamic scripture, tradition & jurisprudence form a congruent pattern; they confirm and reinforce each other. Unfortunately, the terminally recalcitrant are blind to that pattern. Can you perceive it?  Unlike Moe, Jesus did neither preached nor practiced warfare.  Instead, he taught his disciples to use persuasion.

9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

9:4 And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.

9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

(King James Bible, Luke)

Contrast that with the orders Moe gave to his generals in the field: Sahih Muslim  Book 019, Number 4294.

Prior to 1900, did Muslims living under Christian rule enjoy anything like the freedoms and protections of life and property that Christians did under Islamic rule in the Middle Ages? No, not by a long shot.

Let us examine Shari’ah to discover the freedoms and protections enjoyed by Christians under Islamic rule.

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum”;

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

Do the Christian (or Jewish) scriptures provide in any way for these protections? No, on the contrary. Does the Qur’an? Yes, in fact it does.

At-Taubah 29 commands Muslims to make war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and submit to annual extortion.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

At-Taubah 123 commands Muslims to fight the nearby Christians and treat them harshly.

9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious – see V.2:2).

Furthermore, if “Islam” is such a violent religion, tell me, who has been responsible for the most death, mayhem, oppression, suffering and injustice in history, Muslims or Christians? There is simply no comparison: all the deaths in wars by Islamic states don’t come close to the deaths in WWII alone – a war essentially precipitated by and led on both sides by Christians…and we haven’t even begun to talk about the colonial period.

The wars of the 20^th century were political and economic, not religious. Islam has a 1400 year track record, with 270 million victims.

Who depopulated North America so that they could own it all themselves? Not Muslims, Christians. Who enslaved millions in Central and South America for profit, and forced them to convert, to boot? Same answer.

Were the Conquistadors acting in accord with the teaching and example of Jesus Christ? Show me the Book, Chapter & Verse citations for Christ’s commands  to engage in conquest.

Who went around the world gobbling up everyone else’s resources and labor in the name of God and country? Who now refuses to take responsibility for any of the chaos, injustice and political unrest that has resulted from that?

Islam! These maps illustrate Islam’s spread by the sword.

• first 25 years
• 750
• various Caliphates
  

Who supports the colonizer Zionist state at all costs and at the expense of the people who were displaced by it, and who refuses even to acknowledge the daily humiliation that state pours on those displaced people? Not Muslims, Christians.

That assertion inverts history, justice & morality in excellent form. Jews & Christians were living in the Roman Province of Syria in the 7^th century. Surah At-Taubah deals with the ghazwat against Tabuk, complaining of those Muslims who refused to join it. When asked which campaign a Muslim should join, Moe had a very significant answer.

Abu Dawud 14.2477
Narrated Ibn Hawalah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: It will turn out that you will be armed troops, one is Syria, one in the Yemen and one in Iraq. Ibn Hawalah said: Choose for me, Apostle of Allah, if I reach that time. He replied: Go to Syria, for it is Allah’s chosen land, to which his best servants will be gathered but if you are unwilling, go to your Yemen, and draw water from your tanks, for Allah has on my account taken special charge of Syria and its people.

Moe sent an extortion letter to Heracleus, it is informative. It is in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4380 and LETTER TO HERACLES CAESAR.

Islam’s attitude is that all land they conquer is Islamic forever. Allah will not allow Kuffar to reconquer it and rule over Muslims. He promised victory to the Muslims, but they fought on the losing side of WW1 and lost the Levant, which Caliph Umar had conquered in 638.  Israel regained a tiny fragment of her ancient patrimony, and Muslims immediately attacked with genocidal intent. They attacked again in 1967 and lost the Gaza Strip & West Bank which they seized in 1948.   Every condition the Falestinians complain about is a consequence of their attempted genocide & policide.

I could go on, but please note that

a) none of this is meant to justify violence in the name of religion – merely to provide perspective, and

b) nowhere have I said “Christianity” here. The Bible is full of blood, injustice and crimes of all sorts, all justified by religion. Even Christ said, “I come with the sword…”, and as a result his heirs gave us the “Christian soldiers” of European fame.

The point: it’s very easy to pick out sections from text, present them out of context and then make sweeping claims about “Islam” while ignoring what Muslims actually do. Likewise it’s easy to grab legal text books and assume that they necessarily reflect actual practice, rather than an abstract ideal.

Everything must be seen in context, and you have to see these texts as Muslims have understood them at different times and in different circumstances. That’s called being fair and reasonable.

But of course, you’re not interested in THAT, are you?

Allah’s word mandates and sanctifies Jihad. 2:216 tells Muslims that Jihad is ordained for them. 8:39 commands Muslims to make perpetual war upon pagans. 9:29 commands Muslims to make perpetual war upon “people of the book”. 61:10-13 describe participation in Jihad as a “commerce” that saves Muslims from “painful torment”.  Those mandates find confirmation in hadith & Shari’ah.

How Muslims have understood those texts is illustrated by Fiqh: rulings by scholars of Islamic law. I direct doubters & dissenters to download FOMIJihad.chm and read the Jihad in Fiqh chapter. How Moe understood those texts is illustrated by the oral traditions of his excellent companions. You can read them at USC-MSI.

• Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)
• One-fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah (Khumus)
• Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi)
• The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa’l-Siyar)
• Jihad (Kitab Al-Jihad)
• Jihad

The Pakistan Observer published an article by Muhammad Munir & Aftab Hussain about interreligious dialogue. One paragraph stands out from the rest as an exemplar of al-taqeyya. I present it here in block quote format with my comments running full column width.

The peaceful resolution of inter-confessional issues is possible only during an open and friendly dialogue.

Is Jesus Christ the son of God or not? Was he crucified; did he die on the cross? Was he resurrected?  Answers from Christianity and Islam are polar opposites, no reconciliation is possible.

Reconquest of Israel, Spain, Greece & South Eastern Europe is another issue that can not be reconciled. Islam is intrinsically violent, mandated by Allah to conquer and subjugate the entire world.

Islam considers any assertion of Christ’s deity to be blasphemy. Wherever Allah’s writ runs, Christians are forbidden to build churches or repair existing churches.

In fact the religious, spiritual problems frequently are the catalyst of many negative political processes in the modern world. And here one can refer to both pure religious problems (as, for example, in the situation with caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in the western press), and misinterpretation of religious norms by various confessions (for example, religious extremist misinterpret Islam in justification of terrorism).

Islamic law forbids any criticism of Allah and his Messenger. Refer to Reliance of the Traveller, O8.7 and O11.10. The cartoons depicted Moe as a terrorist, which he was by his own admission. [Bukhari 1.7.331, 4.52.220]

“Terrorism” is used by the writers as a shibboleth to distract us from the issue of Jihad.  Jihad is ordained for Muslims, who are commanded to fight pagans until all resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped.  They are commanded to fight people with scriptural religions until they are subjugated & extorted. Jihad is the purpose of their relationship with Allah and a “commerce that will save them from a painful torment“.  Terrorism is a battle tactic sanctified by Allah in 3:151 & 8:12 and exemplified in 33:26 & 59:2. Moe bragged about being made victorious by casting terror.

Who misinterpreted the Qur’an? Moe said that he was “ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’”.

There are many hopes and aspirations attached to the third session of the congress. The international scenario is changing; people around the world have rejected fundamentalists and extremists. The elections held in different countries around the world have proven that fundamentalists and extremists have been defeated, may these be religious extremists or political fundamentalists. In such an environment it becomes very necessary for the religious leaders to play a role to fill the gap that was created by these extremists. The attempts by the president of Kazakhstan are highly appreciating and such steps should be taken around the world.

Are Hamas & Hezbollah “extremists” or “fundamentalists”?  Which elected Islamic government rejects them and their program of reconquest?  Which elected Islamic government denounces rocket & bomb attacks upon Israel and attempts to prevent their subjects from supporting those attacks financially?

From Akhter’s comment:

Muslims claim that their faith promotes justice, peace, and freedom. Critics of the faith (and some Muslims themselves) cite verses from the Qur’an that seem to promote violent, armed warfare. How can these different images be reconciled?

Answer: The entire Qur’an, taken as a complete text, gives a message of hope, faith, and peace to a faith community of one billion people. The overwhelming message is that peace is to be found through faith in God, and justice among fellow human beings.

From What does the Qur’an say about terrorism? [http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism.htm] under the byline of Huda:

Muslims claim that their faith promotes justice, peace, and freedom. Critics of the faith (and some Muslims themselves) cite verses from the Qur’an that seem to promote violent, armed warfare. How can these different images be reconciled?

Answer: The entire Qur’an, taken as a complete text, gives a message of hope, faith, and peace to a faith community of one billion people. The overwhelming message is that peace is to be found through faith in God, and justice among fellow human beings.

Our correspondent must be:

• ignorant
• incoherent
• inarticulate

or indolent. In any case, he is a plagiarist.

The entire Qur’an, consists of two types of verses: clear and ambiguous. The former are easily understood; to be believed & implemented. The latter are known only to Allah and left for him to implement. This fact becomes clear when we read 3:7 and its tafsir.

Surahs 8 & 9 contain clear, imperative verses which sanctify & mandate perpetual warfare; aggressive conquest. These two Surahs are full of rabble rousing & warmongering, but they are not the exclusive containers thereof, rabble rousing & warmongering are superintending threads woven throughout Allah’s book. Worse yet, they are exemplified in Moe’s Sunnah. Moe testified that he was ordered to fight the people until they do things his way. Click that link, read the hadith, then use the Sunnah link in the left side bar to find the index to Sahih Bukhari and read Books 52, 53 & 59. See how peaceful & benign Islam ain’t.

Islamic law, Shariah, is derived from what Allah & Moe said in the Qur’an and did on the battlefield as well as in the Mosque. It clearly states that Jihad against Kuffar in their home countries is a communal obligation binding upon Muslims in every year. [O9.1] It clearly states that the Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians, citing 9:29 as the basis of that statute. [O9.8] It clearly states that the Caliph fights all other people until they become Muslim. [O9.9]

The numbers in the paragraph above refer to the Book, Chapter & Paragraph of the cited text in Reliance of The Traveller. Use the search engine in the tool bar to find them. Read them and curse Islam.

All of which must be mis-translated, mis-interpreted or taken out of context. Yeah, right. Ibn Kathir spent his long life studying and teaching the Qur’an & Sunnah. His exegeses is widely accepted as authentic. It presents the Arabic text, English translation, relevant ayat & ahadith upon which his explanation is based. Which of these is at variance with the obvious prima facie meaning of the text?

• The Command to have Enmity towards the Disbelievers and to abandon supporting Them
• The Command to strike the Enemies’ Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom
• The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
• Allah gives Victory to the Believing Group
• Permission to fight; this is the first Ayah of Jihad
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
• The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
• The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites
• The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
• The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book
• The Good News that Islam shall prevail

Explain the use of imperative terms:

• order
• command.

Explain the triumphalism:

• Muslims will conquer
• Muslims will Dominate

Square your explanation with:

• Hilali & Khan’s footnote to 2:190
• Riyad us-Salaheen: Obligation of Jihad.

Explain

• Moe’s extortion letters
• Moe’s genocidal conquests.
  • Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
    Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
    I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

No Muslim can truthfully & accurately meet these challenges. It won’t be done because it can’t be done, because Islam is mercenary & martial, a war machine & murder cult, not a legitimate religion.

A Beliefnet article by Rabbi Brad Hirschfeld: Pope Says No to Inter-Religious Dialogue raises questions about  quotes from a recent book blurb written by Pope Benedict XVI. [See the New York Times for the details.]  I offer a few selected quotes from Rabbi Hirschfeld interspersed with my comments.

The alternative understanding of the Pope’s most recent comments is that he actually finds all other belief systems defective and their members best served by only a single outcome i.e. conversion to the Catholic faith.

He is a Catholic, isn’t he?

Can it be that he finds real inter-religious dialogue impossible because at all costs any conversation which accords full and equal dignity to other’s faith is impossible for him?

It could be, but I strongly doubt that case. In fact, it is Islam which is supremacist & intolerant, denigrating other faiths.  One commenter said that “G-d does not have a religion”.  Allah does not agree.

3:19. Truly, the religion with Allah is Islam. Those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) did not differ except, out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. And whoever disbelieves in the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah, then surely, Allah is Swift in calling to account.

Too often it is people of different faiths deciding to bracket the particulars of their faith in order to gather for a few moments of kum-ba-yah. In that sense, the Pope is on to something, but he has it exactly backwards. Real interfaith dialogue IS possible, but only when we DO Not bracket that which we believe.

Dialogue can run into a brick wall when the two sides hold diametrically opposed positions. If Christians and Muslims discuss Jesus Christ, a Jew may find himself holding their coats and spectacles while they settle the dispute with their fists.  One side declares him to be the divine son of God sent to save mankind,   the other declares him to be fully mortal, Allah’s slave & messenger.  One side claims his crucifixion, death & resurrection, the other denies them.  If Christianity’s beliefs are false, then it is all in vain. If they are true, then Islam is superfluous.  The two positions can not be reconciled.

Dialogue demands difference, but it demands difference without denigration.

There is the crux of the problem. Islam denigrates Judiasm & Christianity and declares unremitting war upon them. The current interest in inter religious dialogue got its spur from a correspondence between  138 of the Ulema and Pope Benedict. The Ulema’s missive, titled “A Common Word Between Us and You“,  A common word originates in  the Qur’an.

3:64. Say: ‘People of the Book! Come now to a word common between us and you, that we serve none but God, and that we associate not aught with Him, and do not some of us take others as Lords, apart from God.’ And if they turn their backs, say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims.’[Arberry]

Islam demands that Christians deny Christ. This is a demand that we embrace Islam; the same extortionate demand which was made in a letter dictated & dispatched by Muhammad to the Byzantine Emperor.

“In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. This letter is) from Muhammad, Apostle of Allah, to Heraclius, the sovereign of Byzantine…….. Peace be upon him who follows the Right Path. Now then, I call you to embrace Islam. Embrace Islam and you will be saved (from Allah’s Punishment); embrace Islam, and Allah will give you a double reward, but if you reject this, you will be responsible for the sins of all the people of your kingdom (Allah’s Statement):–”O the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship None but Allah….bear witness that we are Muslims.’ (3.64) [Sahih Bukhari 6.60.75][Further contextual details in 1.1.6]

What is there to discuss other than terms of surrender?

Tags: Islam, supremacist, intolerant, 3:19, 3:64, Bukhari6.60.75, Bukhari1.1.6,

akhter has made another long, target rich comment in Arch Idiot. Targets are marked with superscripts, my responses follow in an enumerated list linked to the superscripts. Click the superscript and use your Backspace key to return to the comment.

Question: Aren’t there some verses of the Qur’an that condone “killing the infidel”?¹

Answer: The Qur’an commands Muslims to stick up for themselves in a defensive battle — i.e. if an enemy army attacks, then Muslims are to fight against that army until they stop their aggression. All of the verses that speak about fighting/war in the Qur’an are in this context.²

There are some specific verses that are very often “snipped” out of context, either by those trying to malign the faith, or by misguided Muslims themselves who wish to justify their aggressive tactics.³

For example, one verse (in its snipped version) reads: “slay them wherever you catch them” (Qur’an 2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are “they” that this verse discusses? The preceding and following verses give the correct context:

“Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression” (2:190-193).⁴

It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed and prevented from practicing their faith. In these circumstances, permission is given to fight back — but even then Muslims are instructed not to transgress limits, and to cease fighting as soon as the attacker gives up. Even in these circumstances, Muslim are only to fight directly against those who are attacking them, not innocent bystanders or non-combatants.⁵

Another similar verse can be found in chapter 9, verse 5 — which in its snipped, out of context version could read: “fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” Again, the preceding and following verses give the context.

This verse was revealed during a historical period when the small Muslim community had entered into treaties with neighboring tribes (Jewish, Christian, and pagan). Several of the pagan tribes had violated the terms of their treaty, secretly aiding an enemy attack against the Muslim community. The verse directly before this one instructs the Muslims to continue to honor treaties with anyone who has not since betrayed them, because fulfilling agreements is considered a righteous action. Then the verse continues, that those who have violated the terms of the treaty have declared war, so fight them… (as quoted above).

Directly after this permission to fight, the same verse continues, “but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them… for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” The subsequent verses instruct the Muslims to grant asylum to any member of the pagan tribe/army who asks for it, and again reminds that “as long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God loves the righteous.”

Any verse that is quoted out of context misses the whole point of the message of the Qur’an. Nowhere in the Qur’an can be found support for indiscriminate slaughter, the killing of non-combatants, or murder of innocent persons in ‘payback’ for another people’s alleged crimes.⁶

The Islamic teachings on this subject can be summed up in the following verses (Qur’an 60:7-8):⁷

“It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things), and God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

God does not forbid you, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loves those who are just.”

1. Reference to the “kill them” verses, in the second list below, is a distraction tactic designed to divert attention from the generic outcome oriented imperatives to genocidal conquest. These imperatives have neither chronological nor geographic limitations. Their terminal conditions are broad and open ended: termination of resistance, worship for Allah alone, subjugation & extortion. Moe said that Jihad would continue to the last day. Examine Allah’s imperative Jihad. [Emphasis added for clarity.] Why did Ibn Kathir describe these as orders? Why did Moe say that he was ordered to fight?
   1. 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
      1. The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
   2. 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
      1. The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
   3. 9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious – see V.2:2).
      1. The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
   1. 2:191, a specific, defensive/retaliatory reference to Mekkan pagans.
      1. Fighting in the Sacred Months
   2. 4:89, a specific reference to the Mekkan pagans.
   3. 4:91, generic command to kill those who seek security from Islam.
      1. Returning the Salam, With a Better Salam
2. The assertion that the Jihad verses are entirely defensive is a prime example of al-taqeyya; absolutely false. Islamic Jihad came in three dispensations
   1. prohibited, when Moe had no army
   2. permitted, for defense, when Moe gathered forces at Medina
   3. mandated, for aggression when Moe’s army was large enough to conquer Mekkah. The three ayat quoted above are from the mandatory dispensation.
3. Notice this phrase ordered to fight in point 1 above. It is bold, blue & underlined because it is a hyperlink; click it to read a hadith in which Moe declares that he was ordered to fiight the people. Each ayat I cite is linked to the Qur’an. Most of those links display a table of ten alternative translations for comparison. These ayat are confirmed by hadith. The quotes of 8:39 & 9:29 are followed by sub points which are linked to topics in Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir. Those tafsir confirm the fact that the quoted ayat are mandates to conquer, not defensive. Another hadith details the orders Moe issued to his generals in the field. Those orders make it plain that they related to aggression, not to defense. Yet another hadith reveals the fact that Jihad is the religion of Islam. While no further confirmation is required, the congruent pattern is completed by Islamic law.
   1. O-9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
      The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians
   2. O-9.9
      The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim
   3. Al-Shafi’i (God have mercy on him) said: “The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims’ interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse.” He said: “If he did not undertake the sending of enough troops to fight, those who are absent (must) go out, and consider as an obligation that which God (who is praised) said.”
4. 2:190 is from the second dispensation, permission to fight in self defense. Examine the Hilali & Khan translation and their footnote.
   1. And fight in the Way of Allâh^[1] those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihâd, but it was supplemented by another (9:36)].
   2. (V.2:190) Al-Jihâd (holy fighting) in Allâh’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islâm and is one of its pillar (on which it stands). By Jihâd Islâm is established, Allâh’s Word is made superior, (His Word being Lâ ilaha illallâh which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and His Religion (Islâm) is propagated. By abandoning Jihâd (may Allâh protect us from that) Islâm is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihâd is an obligatory duty in Islâm on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.[...]
      1. By Jihad:
         1. Islâm is established
         2. Allâh’s Word is made superior
         3. His Religion (Islâm) is propagated
      2. Compare that definition to the definition in Sharia.
         1. O9.0 (O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.[...]
   3. 9:36 refers us to the footnote to 2:193
      1. ^[3] (A) (V.2:193) Narrated Ibn ‘Umar رضي الله عنهما: Allâh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “I have been ordered (by Allâh) to fight against the people till they testify that Lâ ilâha illallâh wa Anna Muhammad-ur-Rasûl Allâh (none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh عز وجل and that Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the Messenger of Allâh), and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) and give Zakât , so if they perform all that, then they save their lives, and properties from me except for Islâmic laws, and their reckoning (accounts) will be with (done by) Allâh.” (Sahih Al-Bukhâri, Vol.1, Hadîth No.24).
         (B) See (V.8:39) and its footnote.
         ^[2] (V.8:39)
         A) See the footnote of (V.2:193).
5. Al-Baqarah permits defensive Jihad. Al-Anfal, Al-Taubah & Al-Fath mandate offensive Jihad. In every case, the fighting is to be limited so as to preserve maximal booty. The widows & orphans of the victims are booty for Muslims; to be raped and sold into slavery. Al-Taubah was 113 in sequence of revelation; it abrogates the more tolerant & less violent Surahs

   1. O9.13

      When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.

6. The ayat which sanctify and mandate aggressive, offensive Jihad, revealed in Al-Anfal & Al-Taubah and quoted above are imperatives, to be believed and acted upon. The aggressive imperatives are confirmed by hadith, tafsir & Sharia, all of which I have linked to above. Writing about the ayat issued under the first two less aggressive dispensations only distracts from the commands to offensive Jihad; it does nothing to change objective factual reality.
7. Surah 60 was 91 in sequence of revelation. It is abrogated by Al-Anfal & Al-Taubah.

The Qur’an describes itself as Allah’s final and perfect word. 3:7 tells us that it contains commandments revealed in clear verses.

• 3:7. It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur’ân). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkâm (commandments, etc.), Al-Farâ'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allâh. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.” And none receive admonition except men of understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabarî).
• The Mutashabihat and Muhkamat Ayat
  • Allah states that in the Qur’an, there are Ayat that are Muhkamat, entirely clear and plain, and these are the foundations of the Book which are plain for everyone. And there are Ayat in the Qur’an that are Mutashabihat not entirely clear for many, or some people. So those who refer to the Muhkam Ayat to understand the Mutashabih Ayat, will have acquired the correct guidance, and vice versa. This is why Allah said, (They are the foundations of the Book), meaning, they are the basis of the Qur’an, and should be referred to for clarification, when warranted,(And others not entirely clear) as they have several meanings, some that agree with the Muhkam and some that carry other literal indications, although these meaning might not be desired.The Muhkamat are the Ayat that explain the abrogating rulings, the allowed, prohibited, laws, limits, obligations and rulings that should be believed in and implemented. As for the Mutashabihat Ayat, they include the abrogated Ayat, parables, oaths, and what should be believed in, but not implemented. [...]

Exactly what the Hell is unclear or ambiguous about this?

There can be no doubt that 9:29 is imperative; that it commands aggression against Jews & Christians. Why else would O9.8 of Reliance of the Traveller cite it as the basis for perpetual Jihad against us? Why does Ibn Kathr say that :

• Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination.

Why does Moe say that he was ordered to fight?

• “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.”
  • Our blood is not sacred to Muslims.
  • Our property is not sacred to Muslims.
• I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah,
  • You save your life from Muslims by becoming Muslim.
  • You save your property from Muslims by becoming Muslim.
• I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them.
  • Your life is unlawful to Muslims only after you become Muslim.
  • Your property is unlawful to Muslims only after you become Muslim.

Exactly what part of this is not abundantly clear?

ROPMA

The Arch Bishop of Canterbury  published his response to A Common Word Between Us and You July 14,2008.  It is titled: A Common Word for the Common Good. It is in the form of a 17 page, 124KB pdf file.

The preface offers a clue to the Arch Bishop’s attitude. [Emphasis added.]

We recognise that your letter brings together Muslim leaders from many traditions of Islam to
address Christian leaders representative of the diverse traditions within Christianity. We find in it a
hospitable and friendly spirit, expressed in its focus on love of God and love of neighbour – a focus which draws together the languages of Christianity and Islam, and of Judaism also.

Many words with little real meaning, too abstract to communicate anything but attitude, that of an ignorant fool.    Islam’s neighborhood, the neighbors whom it loves, consists of Dar ul-Islam; Dar ul-Harb is excluded. Lets see how Islam loves its ‘neighbors’.

Allah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! [9:33] Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted.[Ibn Kathir]

Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn [9:123]  Allah commands the believers to fight the disbelievers, the closest in area to the Islamic state, then the farthest. This is why the Messenger of Allah started fighting the idolators in the Arabian Peninsula. When he finished with them and Allah gave him control over Makkah, Al-Madinah, At-Ta’if, Yemen, Yamamah, Hajr, Khaybar, Hadramawt and other Arab provinces, and the various Arab tribes entered Islam in large crowds, he then started fighting the People of the Scriptures. He began preparations to fight the Romans who were the closest in area to the Arabian Peninsula, and as such, had the most right to be called to Islam, especially since they were from the People of the Scriptures.[Ibn Kathir]

Your letter could hardly be more timely, given the growing awareness that peace throughout the world is deeply entwined with the ability of all people of faith everywhere to live in peace, justice, mutual respect and love.

What ability?  Muslims are commanded by their demon to attack us, as documented above.  Here is a relevant example of Islam’s ‘mutual respect’ .

“I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.“[Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387]

Your blood & property are not sacred to Muslims until you become one of them, that’s their ‘mutual respect and love’.

In your invitation to “come to a common word” we find a helpful generosity of intention.

What  is the meaning of “a common word”?  Perhaps Allah will clue us in.

“O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: “Bear witness that we are Muslims.”
[3:64]

For a full comprehension of the concept, you need to read the subsequent context, down to and including 3:81.

And (remember) when Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets, saying: “Take whatever I gave you from the Book and Hikmah (understanding of the Laws of Allah, etc.), and afterwards there will come to you a Messenger (Muhammad ) confirming what is with you; you must, then, believe in him and help him.” Allah said: “Do you agree (to it) and will you take up My Covenant (which I conclude with you)?” They said: “We agree.” He said: “Then bear witness; and I am with you among the witnesses (for this).” [3:81]

Allah requires us, as part of the “common word” to believe in and obey Muhammad.   Follow the context to 3:85,

3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

The “common word” does not include tolerance for Judiasm & Christianity.  Lets consider carefully the final sentence in 3:64. Then, if they turn away, say: “Bear witness that we are Muslims.”  ”If they turn away” first occurs in the second Surah.

but if they turn away, then they are only in opposition. So Allah will suffice you against them. And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower. [2:137] So Allah will suffice you against them) meaning, Allah will aid the believers against them [Ibn Kathir]

To believe in an absolute religious truth is to believe that the object of our belief is not vulnerable to the contingencies of human history: God’s mind and character cannot be changed by what happens here in the world. Thus an apparent defeat in the world for our belief cannot be definitive; God does not fail just because we fail to persuade others or because our communities fail to win some kind of power. If we were to believe that our failure is a failure or defeat for God, then the temptation will be to seek for any means possible to avoid such an outcome. But that way lies terrorism and religious war and persecution. The idea that any action, however extreme or disruptive or even murderous, is justified if it averts failure or defeat for a particular belief or a particular religious group is not really consistent with the conviction that our failure does not mean God’s failure. Indeed, it reveals a fundamental lack of conviction in the eternity and sufficiency of the object of faith.

War? Persecution? Terrorism? Where in Hell do they originate?  And why leave out genocide?

• 2:216
• 8:39
• 8:60
• 8:65
  
• 9:29
• 9:123
• 3:151
• 8:12
• 33:26
• 8:67
• 47:4

In the end, the Arch Bishop hopes for dialogue  and understanding. He says the two faiths need to learn about each other.

First, there is an urgent need in both our traditions for education about one another. We are all
influenced by prejudices and misunderstandings inherited from the past — and often renewed
in the present through the power of media stereotyping. Teaching and learning about the
reality and diversity of Islam as Muslims practise their faith should be a priority as important
to Christians as understanding of actual Christianity should be to Muslims.

Perhaps he could begin by reading Islam’s canon of scripture & tradition to learn Allah’s nature, his commandments and how Muhammad exemplified their execution.

Christianity and Islam share monotheism and prophets. Big deal. Christianity preceded Islam by 600 years. Muhammad plagiarized Christian and Hebrew apocrypha. He twisted nomenclature and chronology. Islam declares itself superior and final. Islam denies central tenets of Christianity and curses us. Islam declared war upon us. Islam declared open season on our blood and property.  Islam demands that we abandon our beliefs and adopt its beliefs & practices.  Anyone who thinks with his brain, not his anal sphincter need only read the Islamic texts cited above to understand these fatal facts.

How do you compromise with literalism, supremacism & triumphalism?  How do you find common ground with a sworn enemy who demands your conversion or death?

Concerned Reader has commented on A Common Word Between Us and You: Deception! at Go Burn With Muhammad. Due to the length of the comment and the issues raised therein, which make it a target rich environment, I am responding to the comment in this post. The comment is block quoted paragraph by paragraph with my comments and supporting evidence between the paragraphs.

This is an interesting perspective. I definitely did not get the same picture from the Common Word document that you did.

I read claims by Muslims in the light of Islam's canon of scripture,
 tradition, law & commentary.

I actually saw it as laying a foundation for dialog between people of the two faiths. The document was actually showing that Christianity has as its roots, monotheism, even if some within Christianity have erred into bi or tri-theism.

Islam has a monologue, not a dialog. Since Islam declares itself
 to be superior, the only true religion, and denigrates all others,
 it only speaks, it does not listen except for whimpers of surrender.

I also saw within the document, the most hopeful part I might add, an statement to the effect that Christians and Jews who remain within monotheism and obey the two Commandments–love God and love your neighbor do not need to convert to Islam to be of the faithful.

Both Judaism & Christianity are monotheistic. Educated Christians
know that the trinity is three manifestations of one deity, not
three deities.  Muslims play selective word games against us.

• 2:62. Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . [The Meaning of Mu'min, or Believer]
• 3:119. Lo! You are the ones who love them but they love you not, and you believe in all the Scriptures [i.e. you believe in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), while they disbelieve in your Book, the Qur'an]. And when they meet you, they say, “We believe”. But when they are alone, they bite the tips of their fingers at you in rage. Say: “Perish in your rage. Certainly, Allah knows what is in the breasts (all the secrets).”
• 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
• 9:30. And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

Read Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir of 2:62, linked after the verse above. That tafsir quotes 3:85, an extremely lucid expression of Islam’s intolerance. Allah cursed us and declared perpetual war upon us, which is reflected in Sharia.

The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 – By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK O: JUSTICE >> Chapter O-9.0: Jihad

O-9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o-11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9.29)…

A genuine, sincerely professed peace overture would violate Allah’s ordinance, subjecting the Ulema to eternal damnation.

I would say that this is highly significant. This is actually setting a precedent for monotheistic pluralism. Although, yes, Christians and Muslims have much to talk about in regards to our understanding of Jesus and his nature. True biblical faith Christians should have no doubts about their monotheism and thus, we can move forward in sharing from the Scriptures about some of our differences in understanding regarding other shared terms, such as the Gospel (Injil), the Word of God (Kalimatullah), and Messiah (al-Masih).

Islam's 'understanding' of Jesus is documented in
The Defamation of Jesus Christ. The Qur'an claims that it
confirms the earlier scriptures. Allah also asserts that Satan
corrupted Christ's teaching by throwing in falsehood.

Lastly, Islam and its use of Jihad found in the Qur’an is purely of a defensive nature, similar to Augustine’s just war. Many of the Scriptures being used by jihadis are taken out of their historical and even Qur’anic context. One ayat or verse is used, but all you have to do is read one verse before or after and you will discover that there are conditions being drawn both for when you are allowed to attack and when you are compelled to cease fighting.

Purely defensive?

• 2:190. And fight in the Way of Allâh those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors.
• 2:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
• 22:39. Permission to fight is given to those (i.e. believers against disbelievers), who are fighting them, (and) because they (believers) have been wronged, and surely, Allâh is Able to give them (believers) victory

Those three ayat are obviously related to defensive warfare, but 9:29, quoted above and cited in Sharia as the basis for annual military expeditions against Kuffar, is clearly aggressive in nature. Why take my word for this? See what Ibn Kathir wrote about it.

• The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
• This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah’s religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims’ control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination

That ain’t defensive warfare! Moe himself confirms this fact.

• Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
  Narrated Anas bin Malik:
  Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”

Moe was ordered to fight until his victims recite Shehada and do things his way. When they comply their blood and property is sacred to Muslims. That means that until we submit to Islam, its open season on us.! By submitting, we protect ourselves from Moe, saving our lives & property.

Lets look a little deeper into Reliance of the Traveler.

@O9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad…

As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year.

The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).

The first listed condition, when we are in our own countries, is clearly offensive, not defensive. Note that it must be performed annually. This quote from the Hidaya, cited in a Swedish forum, confirms the blindingly obvious.

The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect. [...] When the Muslims enter the enemy’s country and besiege the cities or strongholds of the infidels, it is necessary to invite them to embrace the faith, because Ibn Abbas relates of the Prophet that he never destroyed any without previously inviting them to embrace the faith. If, therefore, they embrace the faith, it is unnecessary to war with them, because that which was the design of the war is then obtained without war. [...] If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them [...]

“Those passages in the traditions” are fully documented with commentary in Riyud-us-Saliheen, Book 11, Chapter 234.

I wonder if part of the Common Word document mentioning war and defense has to do with the fact that our own president has used very religious vocabulary, even using the word “crusade”, in my opinion rather flippantly, esp. in this day and age. Considering some of the religious Right’s vocabulary on top of this, and what seems like a War on Terror becomes a war against Muslims, i.e. the statement by a Christian religious leader that Muhammad (saw) was a terrorist. If Muhammad (saw) was a terrorist, then would not those who follow the religion of Islam be the recipients of Bush’ war against terror?

Was World War II war against Panzers & Kamikazis or was it fought
against National Socialists & Imperial Japan?  Terrorism is a
tactic, not an enemy.  The enemy is an institution whose canon of
scripture & tradition sanctifies & mandates casting terror as a
battle tactic.
	President Bush's vocabulary  has been lacking in truth,
moral clarity & consistency. War on Muslims? No, it is a war by
Islam against Kuffar. Moe was a terrorist, and bragged about it.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331
…Allah made me victorious by
awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’sjourney. …

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing
the widest meanings, and I have been made
victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), …

I don’t really want to argue politics, but I think the Common Word Document is not seeking Christians converting to Islam. The document actually is encouraging Christians to return (if they’ve left) to monotheism. Secondly, that monotheistic Christians and Jews actually do not have to accept Islam, but can remain faithful within their own religions. I think this is highly significant–I guess it’s a glass half empty vs. half full kinda thing eh?
Blessings, Concerned Reader

The Ulema’s missive is obviously an example of dawa, a summons to submission, which is a condition precedent to mounting an attack. Its tone is condescending and its content is deceptive, as I clearly documented in A Common Word Between Us and You: Deception! The claim that we can remain faithful to Christianity and be accepted by Islam is demonstrably false, as I proved by ample evidence above. We are accused of Kufr in the form of Shirk: associating partners with Allah. Christianity and Islam are clearly contradictory and incompatible. Islam is clearly the sworn enemy of Jews & Christians.

Jamie Glazov  of Front Page Magazine interviewed Bill Warner of  the Center for the Study of Political Islam resulting in revelations of fact and logic that are essentially necessary for the preservation of civilization.  I have reproduced a few quotations below to whet your interest.  I want you to click the link above to FP and read the entire article and book mark it for future reference.  Thanks to Dean for tipping me off through this blog post: The Two Kinds of Dhimmis.

We don’t teach this shameful and humiliating history of the deaths of Tears of Jihad for another reason. If we understand the past, then we understand that it is happening today. We don’t want to know it because that would mean we have to do something. We are like the man who suspects that his wife is cheating on him, but doesn’t want to know, because if he knew he would have to act. Ignorance is a good enough reason to do nothing.

But we must teach the apologist dhimmis the history of the subjugated dhimmis. The brutality of dhimmitude is too much to dismiss. The deaths of 270 million are too many to ignore. And what is worse, 210 million of these dead kafirs are “people of color”. Even your uber-liberal dhimmis can get upset at the suffering of “people of color”.

Christians are ignorant about Islam and don’t know how to use Mohammed for their benefit. If you know the life of Mohammed, you can use his brutality, enslavement of kafirs, deceit, and bigotry to attack Islam. The best strategy is to use the knowledge about Mohammed and the Koran to first cause the Muslim to become an apostate and leave Islam. Then they can convert the apostate to Christianity.

It is time for Christians to learn the truth about political Islam’s history and doctrine. Protestant Christianity invented universal education. They must repeat this. This time they must educate themselves about the factual truth aboutIslam.

When you are ready to learn the truth about Islam, CSPI offers several useful books.  If you seek a less expensive (free) and less exhaustive source, my 14 part series of blog posts: Know Thine Enemy includes the essential elements, with links to source documents for further exploration. The Know Thine Enemy series is placed in the public domain for non-commercial use. You may copy those posts and paste them into emails. You may download  the complete html source code from Crusader’s Armory and post it on your own web site.  An outline of the essentials complete with links to the source documents is posted in What You Need to Know About Islam which includes a link to the complete text in a 13KB pdf file you can use as an email attachment to distribute to your friends.

Gulf News

Riyadh: A resolution calling for the enactment of an international pact to forbid religions from being defamed or insulted as well as their symbols, leaders and prophets has been voted out by the Saudi Shoura (Consultative Council).

“the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall work in coordination with Arab and Islamic groups and others at the United Nations to draft an international pact for respecting religions, their symbols and leaders, and prohibit insulting them in any way.”

The vote  was  77:33. Why? Because it would involve reciprocity.

“Some consider Buddhism, Qadianism and Baha’ism as religions. Can we make it obligatory for Muslims to respect these faiths and avoid criticising them?” 

Loyal readers of my blog posts will recall  Tolerance Must Be Reciprocal. Those who have not read it should take this opportunity to do so. If you read it but don’t remember much, a refresher course is in order.

Now comes King Abdullah, extending the hand of false friendship. He is calling for a dialogue.
From  Associated Press

“The idea is to ask representatives of all monotheistic religions to sit together with their brothers in faith and sincerity to all religions as we all believe in the same God,” the king told delegates to a seminar titled “Culture and the Respect of Religions.”

International agreement to enforce traditional family structure & morality?  Yeah, right.  Respect of religions? As in 9:30?

And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

If I owned an ass, I would not let the King kiss it.