| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| Useful Fools Report Moslem Scholars’ Denials of Beheadings in Koran |
| 2004-07-02 |
| From Slate, an article by Lee Smith .... "Beheadings are not mentioned in the Koran at all," Imam Muhammad Adam El-Sheikh, co-founder and chief cleric at the Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va., told USA Today. Yvonne Haddad, a professor at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University agreed, telling New York Newsday, "There is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies cutting off a person’s head." If reporters bothered to open up a copy of the Quran, say, N.J. Dawood’s Penguin Classics translation, they’d find at least two relevant passages: God revealed His will to the angels, saying: "I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers." (Sura 8, Verse 12) ... it is simply wrong to say that the Quran does not mention beheadings or that there is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies decapitation. Islamic history is giddy with heads separated from their bodies, a tradition detailed in news outlets that are generally considered right-wing and on conservative Web sites, but apparently whitewashed in the mainstream press. .... We really wish the Muslims who are lending their expertise to our infidel press would tell the truth. Otherwise, this conversation between cultures isn’t going to work. We are surely destined for a very violent clash of civilizations if one dialogue partner will lie about something that is written down for anyone — even American journalists if they make the effort — to read. ... A group of American journalists has just returned from a trip to Syria and Lebanon, where they met with Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, and the one-time spiritual guide of Hezbollah, Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah. What are these Americans reporting from their travels? That Arabs like Americans but not U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Is this true? Well, it is surely in the interests of an Arab dictator and a Muslim cleric who wrote fatwas permitting suicide bombings against Israeli civilians to say it is true. If U.S. journalists are going to serve as dragomans for various sponsors and theorists of terrorism to the American public, at least they could push their interview subjects a little harder. .... One common complaint about Americans, including our press, is that we know very little about the Middle East. That may be true, but as complex as the subject is, knowledge of the Middle East is hardly gnostic wisdom available only to a few initiates. Thanks largely to the efforts of the oft-despised Orientalists, much of the history and literature of those cultures is accessible to anyone who is interested (a service, as this Muslim scholar explains, rendered to both the West and Islam). Much of it is even on the Internet. Certainly the press, when reporting on the Middle East and Islam, should question its sources at least as rigorously as it interrogates athletes suspected of steroid use, be more inclined to doubt than belief, and report fact rather than serve agendas. That is to say, whether or not beheading actually appears in the Quran is a matter of verifiable fact and not subject to the opinion of imams and professors who are apparently interested in advancing a message. If Americans have to start sorting through their news in the way that consumers of Arab media must, wondering which piece of information serves whose interests, we are inviting what would be a very ugly result of our current engagements in the Middle East: the Al-Jazeera-fication of the U.S. press. |
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #27 Part of the problem is that since much of the media has no interest in actually seeing whether the story is true or not, they simply accept what they're told - and so we end up with a Qu'ran in the West that is apparently different from the one they actually read. So they can lie about what's there, and we'll just accept it until we actually check for ourselves. But most people are too lazy to do that. So it would appear that it's not entirely our fault that we "don't understand Islam;" they've helped make it that way! |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2004-07-02 4:27:47 PM |
| #26 Islam is attractive for the same reasons that Communism used to be attractive to lefties and the intellectual elites in the 40's & 50's. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that before, but both view(ed)lying as completely acceptable and actually a sign of being clever. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-07-02 3:51:45 PM |
| #25 jawa, peggy here are some other useful websites: http://www.faithfreedom.org/ - Ex Muslims mostly denounce Islam http://www.truthbeknown.com/islamquotes.htm - some useful quotes http://www.secularislam.org/ Ibn Warraq's site criticising Islam from an agnostic point of view http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/ my favorite Canadian Lesbian Muslim Irshad Manji's site http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm- a site with some very humorous criticism of Islam (Including a proposed South Park episode where Kenny converts to Islam and becomes a suicide bomber to take out a sausage truck) |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-07-02 3:42:56 PM |
| #24 Jawa, Thanks for the links. The truth is the answer to our problems. We will win in the end if we are devoted to dicerning it and boldly speaking it. |
| Posted by: peggy 2004-07-02 2:52:55 PM |
| #23 Isn't it apparent by now that muslims have not been telling us the truth about what is and is not in the Koran? There are a number of websites and scholars that can cite specific versus and hadiths so you can see just what is condoned by islam. www.jihadwatch.org, www.islamreview.com and a number of others. |
| Posted by: jawa 2004-07-02 2:23:36 PM |
| #22 Zenster, You are certainly right about the parallel with Nazism. The parallels between both communism and fascism and Islam are stunning when you really think about it. There is a uniform, a uniform method of address, a whole universal culture intended to replace all other culture with one uber-culture etc. But I think I may have mis-spoke when I said that Islam is the new communism. In fact, it is rather the mother and father of all utopian pipe dreams which has invaded the West. Its the original and because it comes iron clad in religion, it is by far the greater challenge for us than any other ism we have ever dealt with before. The fact that most people are scared to confront anothers religion is only one aspect that Isalm's religious deimension poses for us. The most dangerous thing is how seductive its combination of religion and utopian scheme can be. You have Westerners, who are fully aware of the abuses of other ism, converting to it because they fall prey to the argument that the problem with past utopian schemes was their lack of a religious foundation. These people become convinced that the religious dimension foolproofs the Islamic system from the outcomes of other ism's. Can you imagine the frame of mind of the utopian type of personality who stumbles upon what seems to be a divinely inspired utopian plan? Its pretty damn scary. Its scary because, unlike "godless" amoral communism, Islam is far better at attracting people and far better at keeping the kind of well-intentioned person who would have been repelled by the other isms. While there are certainly those who are deliberately schemeing to make Islam supreme no matter the means, there are many more who really do fall for the argument that there is a clean division between the "real" Islam which is a wholly benign utopian vision for human life and the false Islam which has nothing to do with Islam even though it looks exactly like the horrific outcome of all past utopian schemes. These folks truly believe that a truly Islamic system cannot result in the deaths of millions and the oprression of everyone else who is either to stubborn, or stupid or rebellious to know what is best for them when such a result is the inevitable outcome of any such scheme as evidenced by the Islam throught out history as well as Stalinist Russia and Hitler's Germany. These folks are forced to gloss over the factual connections as much as the deliberate Islamist liars. We are going to have to find some way to contain these people, the true believers in our midst as well as the schemers and do so without betraying our treasured values. See what I mean when I say its the greatest challenge the West has EVER faced? Sorry for the long post, y'all. |
| Posted by: peggy 2004-07-02 2:07:20 PM |
| #21 I know its been said plenty of times already, but Islam in the West IS the new and improved communism particularly as Western converts envision it. By adding religion to it, it is even more seductive and dangerous than before and its also practically untouchable due to most peoples squeamishness about criticizing another persons religion. Its practically iron clad. Its definitely a trojan horse in our midst and we have to find the balls to see it for what it really is. Good writing, peggy. I'd tend to argue that Islam has more in common with Nazism, but communism is good enough. The West's current fascination with religion is making it far too easy to blur the lines that separate church and state. This same overemphasis upon religiosity has come back to haunt us in our inability to strip away the veneer of Islam's proclaimed faith and expose its political agenda. This needs to be done very soon or else there will be little hope of adequately identifying terrorism's true agenda of global cultural genocide. It is the genocide factor which makes comparison with the Nazis resonate more for me. Other than that, much of the elitism, endemic corruption and need for blind faith in Islam closely parallels communism. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-07-02 11:48:57 AM |
| #20 Excellent, peggy! The real enemy, the one that can drain our will and resolve, is definitely amongst us -- and using our open system against us. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-02 11:34:24 AM |
| #19 You know I've been aware of the way in which Muslims in the West often lie about Islam to Westerners for some time now. I used to wonder what was the attraction and why were they so willing to overlook all the evidence of fatal flaws in their belief system. Now, I am more and more convinced that for many Western converts apologists, Islam is attractive for the same reasons that Communism used to be attractive to lefties and the intellectual elites in the 40's & 50's. Like those people back then, they seem well aware of the drawbacks of the system they are espousing but seem more than willing to lie and obscure the facts because for them the end, in this case some silver bullet for all the world's problems, justifies the means. They feel that they know better than anyone else what is best for everyone and they aren't above any tactic to see the eventual triumph of their utopian vision. These folks are well aware of what they are doing and they can be trusted no further than the old communists could be. They are essentially the same type of people separated only by historical circumstances. I know its been said plenty of times already, but Islam in the West IS the new and improved communism particularly as Western converts envision it. By adding religion to it, it is even more seductive and dangerous than before and its also practically untouchable due to most peoples squeamishness about criticizing another persons religion. Its practically iron clad. Its definitely a trojan horse in our midst and we have to find the balls to see it for what it really is. |
| Posted by: peggy 2004-07-02 11:27:32 AM |
| #18 Shoulda worn one of those bow-tie cameras, lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-02 11:15:02 AM |
| #17 as if I, an infidel, wasn't there...well they knew I was there and gave what appeared to be a really nice--let's get along, blah, blah, blah--sermon. Must have been my cameras. |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2004-07-02 11:02:21 AM |
| #16 DF - No sweat, lol! I've always wanted to be allowed once, just once, to hear (in English, of course) a Friday sermon at one of the big-time moskkks with content and delivery unchanged - i.e. as if I, an infidel, wasn't there. Reading the transcripts, after translation in particular, loses so much of the impact - especially the gestures and volume and emphasis. How can we truly "know our enemy" in such a secretive game? |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-02 10:53:11 AM |
| #15 what the Slate writer didn't say is that Islam gives a pretty broad permission for lying (way broader than Christianity or Judaism). see: http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml# |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-07-02 10:52:13 AM |
| #14 sorry .com ...misread your last post(#12) ...I need a Clue Bat upside my head. |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2004-07-02 10:43:05 AM |
| #13 .com 1. Not sure how to answer without revealing personal information. 2. It's not that difficult (I have also been here as well). |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2004-07-02 8:46:44 AM |
| #12 DF - Inside? I was never allowed entry to a moskkk - did you tell the local yokel you were interested in peace, love, and exploding? Rap - I think it's You're God Damned Right, but not certain, heh. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-02 8:37:38 AM |
| #11 So that there no confussion, Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church was tied to two of the Saudi hijackers. I have been to, and inside this mosque. My sense is it is not last we have read about this place. |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2004-07-02 7:43:29 AM |
| #10 5295...that be me. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-07-02 7:40:38 AM |
| #9 "Arabs like Americans but not U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Is this true? " Kinda doubtfull,there sure seem to be an awfull lot of American civilians getting by people who"like Americans"for this to be an accurate statement. YGDR...AP? |
| Posted by: Anonymous5295 2004-07-02 7:26:37 AM |
| #8 Anybody have some cigerettes? |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-07-02 4:11:47 AM |
| #7 "Nothing like the bottom of page one, heh Abu". "Oh Lucky you salty cad. My mother would laugh, and she's covered head to toe!" |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-07-02 4:03:18 AM |
| #6 Rantburg U! |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-07-02 3:53:04 AM |
| #5 .com---YGDR! |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-07-02 1:52:10 AM |
| #4 SOT - Main Stream Media - sorry, bro, we're all so acro-crazy! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-02 1:33:34 AM |
| #3 enlighten me--what is msm? |
| Posted by: SON OF TOLUI 2004-07-02 1:24:02 AM |
| #2 IF Americans have to start sorting through their news like some Soviet or Third World or Arab consumer of media? As .com said, it's not a question of if -- and not just on terrorism. Ironic the reporter should put it that way -- I am one of several people I know who have been using precisely that comparison for a long time. One difference is that people in the former Soviet republics I spent quite a bit of time in had always been well aware of the garbage they were being fed, and had in their own fashion learned to think for themselves. By contrast it's hard to find Americans -- at least "educated" and "sophisticated" ones -- who have even considered that much of the MSM feeds them a factually-challenged and often grossly distored idea of what's going on in the world. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-07-02 12:59:05 AM |
| #1 "If Americans have to start sorting through their news in the way that consumers of Arab media must, wondering which piece of information serves whose interests, we are inviting what would be a very ugly result of our current engagements in the Middle East: the Al-Jazeera-fication of the U.S. press." It's nice to hear someone in the semi-MSM (Slate's a weird blend of idiocy and brilliance) say it - but the bloggers are so far ahead of this curve it makes him look silly. Yet to the non-blogging populace, this is prolly earth-shattering / frightening. Get it past it folks - it's even worse that he's admitting! 'Tis best to read the sources the True Believers themselves read. There are many and English translations are commonly available - for the recruitment effort, of course. Many even have handy-dandy search engines, but I've discovered that these are as reliable as the Imam and the apologist professor in the story - there is obviously a list of search terms (which grows, I'm sure) which the engine "conveniently" fails to locate, though manual searches show the terms are there in the text. Reporters are lazy, just like everyone else, unless their hearts are in it. And, of course, the editorial / staff cleaning service will get the last shot. Simple rule is find out for yourself. Use their tools and sites. Then, no matter what sort of reporter or agenda machine is cranking out the MSM, you actually know. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-02 12:16:43 AM |