http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
Ibn Warraq on How to Debate a Muslim, Part II
The fearless and erudite ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq today continues his
evisceration of common apologetic feints used by Islamic and jihadist
apologists today with a discussion of the "You are quoting that verse out of
context" defense. Part I is here.
Out of context
Let us now turn to another argument or defensive tactic used by Muslims:
the "you have quoted out of context" defense. What do they mean by "You have
quoted out of context"? This could mean two things: first, the historical
context to which the various verses refer, or second, the textual context,
the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from.
The historical context argument is not available in fact to Muslims, since
the Koran is the eternal word of God and true and valid for always. Thus for
Muslims themselves there is no historical context. Of course, non-Muslims
can legitimately and do avail themselves of the historical or cultural
context to argue, for instance, that Islamic culture as a whole is
anti-woman. Muslims did contradict themselves when they introduced the
notion of abrogation, when a historically earlier verse was cancelled by a
later one. This idea of abrogation was concocted to deal with the many
contradictions in the Koran. What is more, it certainly backfires for those
liberal Muslims who wish to give a moderate interpretation to the Koran
since all the verses advocating tolerance (there are some but not many) have
been abrogated by the verses of the sword.
Out of Context Argument Used Against Muslims Themselves:
Now for the textual context. First, of course, this argument could be
turned against Muslims themselves. When they produce a verse preaching
tolerance, we could also say that they have quoted out of context, or more
pertinently (1) that such a verse has been cancelled by a more belligerent
and intolerant one, (2) that in the overall context of the Koran and the
whole theological construct that we call Islam (i.e. in the widest possible
context), the tolerant verses are anomalous, or have no meaning, since
Muslim theologians ignored them completely in developing Islamic Law, or
that (3) the verses do not say what they seem to say.
For instance, after September 11, 2001, many Muslims and apologists of
Islam glibly came out with the following Koranic quote to show that Islam
and the Koran disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32: "Whoever
killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all
mankind ".
Unfortunately, these wonderful sounding words are being quoted out of
context. Here is the entire quote: V.32: "That was why We laid it down for
the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for
murder or other villainy in the land, shall be looked upon as though he had
killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as
though he had saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs:
yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land.
Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be
put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate
sides, or be banished from the country."
The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. Behave or
else is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively
point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified,
mutilated and banished!
Behind the textual context argument is thus the legitimate suspicion
that by quoting only a short passage from the Koran I have somehow distorted
its real meaning. I have, so the accusation goes, lifted the offending quote
from the chapter in which it was embedded, and hence, somehow altered its
true sense. What does "context" mean here? Do I have to quote the sentence
before the offending passage, and the sentence after? Perhaps two sentences
before and after? The whole chapter? Ultimately, of course, the entire Koran
is the context.
The context, far from helping Muslims get out of difficulties only makes
the barbaric principle apparent in the offending quote more obvious, as we
have seen from Sura V.32 just quoted. Let us take some other examples. Does
the Koran say that men have the right to physically beat their wives or not?
I say yes, and quote the following verses to prove my point:
Sura IV.34:"As for those [women] from whom you fear rebellion, admonish
them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [or beat] them "
This translation comes from a Muslim. Have I somehow distorted the
meaning of these lines? Let us have a wider textual context:
Sura IV.34: "Men have authority over women because God has made the one
superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them.
Good women are obedient. As for those from whom you fear disobedience,
admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey
you, take no further action against them. God is high, supreme."
If anything, the wider textual context makes things worse for those
apologists of Islam who wish to minimize the misogyny of the Koran. The
oppression of women has divine sanction, women must obey God and their men,
who have divine authorization to scourge them. One Muslim translator, Yusuf
Ali, clearly disturbed by this verse adds the word "lightly "in brackets
after "beat "even though there is no "lightly "in the original Arabic. An
objective reading of the entire Koran (that is the total context) makes grim
reading as far as the position of women is concerned. There are at least
forty passages in the Koran that are misogynistic in character.
Finally, of course, many of the verses that we shall quote later
advocating killing of unbelievers were taken by Muslims themselves to
develop the theory of Jihad. Muslim scholars themselves referred to sura
VIII.67, VIII.39, and Sura II.216 to justify Holy War. Again the context
makes it clear that it is the battle field that is being referred to, and
not some absurd moral struggle; these early Muslims were warriors after
booty, land and women not some existential heroes from the pages of Albert
Camus or Jean-Paul Sartre.
Let us take another example: Sura IX. Here I have tried to use where
possible translations by Muslims or Arabophone scholars, to avoid the
accusation of using infidel translations. However, many Muslim translators
have a tendency to soften down the harshness of the original Arabic,
particularly in translating the Arabic word jahada, e.g. Sura IX verse 73.
Maulana Muhammad Ali, of the Ahmadiyyah sect, translates this passage as: "O
Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm
against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." In a
footnote of an apologetic nature, Muhammad Ali rules out the meaning
"fighting" for jahada. However, the Iraqi non-Muslim scholar Dawood in his
Penguin translation renders this passage as: "Prophet, make war on the
unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be
their home: an evil fate."
How do we settle the meaning of this verse? The whole context of Sura IX
indeed makes it clear that "make war "in the literal and not some
metaphorical sense is meant. Let us take another verse from this Sura, Sura
IX.5: "Then, when the sacred months have passed away, kill the idolaters
wherever you find them ." These words are usually cited to show what fate
awaits idolaters. Well, what of the context? The words immediately after
these just quoted say, "and seize them, besiege them and lie in ambush
everywhere for them." Ah, you might say, you have deliberately left out the
words that come after those. Let us quote them then, "If they repent and
take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is
forgiving and merciful." Surely these are words of tolerance, you plead.
Hardly: they are saying that if they become Muslims then they will be left
in peace. In fact, the whole sura, which has 129 verses (approximately 14
pages in the Penguin translation by Dawood), in other words, the whole
context, is totally intolerant; and is indeed the source of many
totalitarian Islamic laws and principles, such as the concepts of Jihad and
dhimmis, the latter proclaiming the inferior status of Christians and Jews
in an Islamic state. All our quotes from the Arabic sources in Part One
also, of course, provide the historical context of raids, massacres, booty,
and assassinations, which make it crystal clear that real bloody fighting is
being advocated.
First the idolaters, how can you trust them? Most of them are evildoers
(IX. 8); fight them (IX. 12, 14); they must not visit mosques (IX. 18); they
are unclean (IX. 28); you may fight the idolaters even during the sacred
months (IX. 36). "It is not for the Prophet, and those who believe, to pray
for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after
it has become clear they are people of hell-fire." (IX.113) So much for
forgiveness! Even your parents are to be shunned if they do not embrace
Islam: IX. 23 "O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren
for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of
you takes them for friends, such are wrong-doers." In other words if you are
friendly with your parents who are not Muslims, you are being immoral.
The theory of Jihad is derived from verses 5 and 6 already quoted but
also from the following verses:
IX. 38 - 39: Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: 'March in
the cause of God ', you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with
this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of
this life, compared to those of the life to come. If you do not fight, He
will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men.
IX. 41: Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the
cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons.
IX. 73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal
harshly with them.
The word that I have translated as fight is jahid. Some translators
translate it as go forth or strive. Dawood translates it as fight, as does
Penrice in his Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, where it is defined as:
To strive, contend with, fight -especially against the enemies of Islam.
While Hans Wehr in his celebrated Arabic dictionary translates it as
"endeavour, strive; to fight; to wage holy war against the infidels."
As for the intolerance against Jews and Christians, and their inferior
status as dhimmis, we have IX verses 29 -35:
"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as
believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His
apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay
tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.
"The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the
Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate
the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!
"They make of their clerics and their monks, and of the Messiah, the son
of Mary, Lords besides God; though they were ordered to serve one God only.
There is no god but Him. Exalted be He above those whom they deify besides
Him!..
"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true
Faith to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters
may dislike it
"O you who believe ! Lo! Many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian
monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar men from the way of
Allah; They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of
Allah, unto them give tidings of painful doom ."
The moral of all the above is clear: Islam is the only true religion,
Jews and Christians are devious and money-grubbing, who are not to be
trusted, and even have to pay a tax in the most humiliating way. I do not
think I need quote any more from Sura IX, although it goes on in this vein
verse after verse.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/TySplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
