10. Islam: Nevo, Koren, Spencer 4.L. thru P
4. L. Modern historians
'Crossroads to Islam' by Yehuda D. Nevo and Judith Koren written in 2003 uses archaeology surveys from the early Islamic time period to promote his theory Mohammed most likely never lived. Islam's worship of one God he feels developed after the time period Mohammed allegedly had lived. David Cook praises the authors thorough approach and calls their conclusions 'plausible or at least arguable.' Of note is Colin Wells claim their conclusions are sometimes illogical, even resembling Holocaust denial.
Others also conclude Mohammed didn't exist such as Professor Muhammed SvenKalisch, a Muslim convert who was the first to teach Islamic theology in Germany. His claims others agree with. The Dutch scholar Hans Jansen also agrees evidence is lacking.
4.M Author Rob Spencer
Robert Spencer, a contemporary writer on Islam, wrote the book 'Did Muhammed Exist?' and he is quite thorough in his compilation of evidence against this possibility. Dallas Roark makes salient points in his review of the book and I'll mention some key ones. Spencer provides a good summation for the case against Mohammed's existence. His website is also extremely informative and addresses many questions one might have.. I don't think it appropriate to name it here but one can find it when inquiring about Mr. Spencer. Does it have a slant? Seemingly so. As we know having a slant can color all information that a person processes. Even so, I don't have the ability to prove or disprove its contentions. Again, many questions we ask ourselves are addressed and we should read the answers with some detachment and not force a final judgment either way.
Spencer states there is hardly any data on Mohammed in the Qur'ann. To quote him directly “The word “Mohammed” appears 4 times in the Qur'an. In three of the cases it could merely refer to a title, “the praised one,” or “chosen one.” Other names like Abraham appear 79 times, Moses 136 times, Pharaoh 74 times. The title “messenger of Allah” appears 300 times. Surah 33:40 is certainly a reference to a person, but it tells nothing about the life of Mohammed. Surah 48:29 also names Mohammed as a messenger of Allah.” He says “we can glean nothing from these passages about Mohammed's biography. Nor is it even certain, on the basis of the Qur'anic text alone, that these passages refer to Mohammed, or did so originally.”
He then claims the hadiths (traditions), while numerous, are not truthful and consistent because actual data on Mohammed's life was not known
As discussed in other sections the sira (biographical information) consisting of a biography by Ibn Ishaq (d. 773) written 125 years after Mohammed lived, survives in fragments from an edited version by Ibn Hisham from the early 10th century. There were more biographies but they were all written later.
The 'Doctrina Jacobi,' written by a Christian around 634 to 640, speaks of the Saracens coming with an army led by the prophet. The writer when asked by an old man about the prophet leading them answered “He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword.” Important to note is Mohammed had died already and mentioned elsewhere in the document is 'the anointed one' referring to 'the Christ to come.'
Spencer continues “there is not a single account of any kind dating from around the time the Doctrina Jacobi was written that affirms the canonical Islamic story of Mohammed and Islam's origins.'
When conquered by Umar the patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius never talks of Mohammed or the Qur'an and the Saracens were called 'godless.'
John of Nikiou, a Coptic Christian bishop, mentioned 'Muslim' for the first time in 690 AD. He talks about 'false Egyptian Christians' embracing the Muslim religion and accepting the 'detestable doctrine and Mohammed' and later fighting the Christians. However it is known only from an Ethiopic translation from the Arabic which was a translation from the original Greek or another language.
Spencer is a good concise thinker and lists what is known or not about the life of Mohammed and early Islam. No record of Mohammed's reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Mohammed, or the Qur'an. They call the conquerors “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,” “Muhajirun,” and “Hagarians” but never “Muslims.”
The Arab conquerors, in their coins and descriptions, don't mention Islam or the Qur'an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Mohammed” are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name but also as an honorific.
The Qur'an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650's. Contradicting that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabian nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention the Qur'an until the early eighth century.
During the reign of the caliph Muawiya (661-680) the Arabs constructed at least one public building whose inscriptions were headed by a cross.
We begin hearing about Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself in the 690's, during the reign of the caliph Abd-al-Malik. Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also.
Abd al-Malik claimed, in a passing remark in one hadith, to have collected the Qur'an, contradicting Islamic tradition that the collection was the work of the caliph Uthman forty years earlier.
The biographical material that emerged situates Mohammed in an area of Arabia that never was the center for trade and pilgrimages that the canonical Islamic account of Islam's origin depend on it to be.
These were some of the major highlights Spencer argues against the historicity of Mohammed.
The obvious next question is if Mohammed didn't initiate Islam how did it come about. Robert Spencer's thesis is that the Arabian empire was first established, then came the religion. In his words “The earliest Arab rulers appear to have been adherents of Hagarism, a monotheistic religion centered around Abraham and Ishmael.” As mentioned there were coins with crosses on them hinting they were not against Christianity at first. Spencer holds when they invaded cultures successfully they noticed as with the Romans a common theology helped unite all the different cultures. Later, maybe around 691 the religion became more identified with an Arabic identity.
Around this time, “the Umayyads began to speak more specifically about Islam, its prophet and eventually its book.” The Christian and Jewish scriptures could be adapted for their purposes and Mohammed even if a myth would serve as their own prophet. Jesus was no longer the 'praised one.' That went to Mohammed.
In 750 the Umayyad's no longer ruled. The Abbasids came into power and regarded the former as not observant and ambivalent concerning Islamic history. Writing of traditions flourished under the new rulers and the Umayyads responded by doing the same. As a result over 600,000 hadiths were created all not authentic. To my own mind the truth, or theories about history can have a sense of humor.
4. N. What makes Islam so different?
I had read a chapter on Spencer's site on 'Violence' awhile ago and had it in my notes to review and also took notes on it but for some reason did not reread the site until now. To note the rest of site reviews many subjects around Islam in a critical way and covers many topics. Perhaps if I chose to redo this section this site would have been a good place to start. It outlined and covered much of the information I've picked up from different sources here and there. In any event I will use it to round out the picture and give you a taste of what it has to say, much of which I mention elsewhere. You can find it on the internet if you choose to read it more thoroughly. The perspective from the site is from the present looking back.
The authors emphasize that many Muslims are peaceful and in general believe the basic tenants of Islam conform with the Judeo Christian ethic to do good. They often overlook the more violent passages or use cross reference and 'context' arguments to temper these aggressive scriptures. There are very few tolerant verses to counter the violent ones. Modern believers often bypass these sections and adapt their own personal ethics to the scriptures as their way to behave. In doing so they overlook the actual content of what is put forth. The authors do have perspective in that they conclude that it is not bad people they are condemning but bad ideology.
For the most part, what is put forth is that non-Muslims are to be battled until they submit to rule with humiliation, convert or be subject to the sword. A tremendous trail of blood has followed the path of Islam. When in the majority the minority of non-believers are persecuted harshly as in Pakistan. When in the minority as in Europe they threaten with chaos and upheaval. Terrorism follows both. Please note the moderate Muslims are not being referred to, but rather the fundamentalists.
The writers make a comparison of the Qur'an to the Torah, calling many of the Qur'an verses 'open ended' or not placed in a proper historical setting and surroundings. Of course many Muslims would disagree. 109 verses in the Qur'an deal with war with non-believers. Chopping off heads and fingers and killing them wherever they escape is often sited. The Muslims that don't join in such actions will be sent to hell by Allah. Nice.
All the violent passages from the Qur'an are listed in this section. I'll quote a few.
Qur'an (8:67) It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an (9:29) "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Qur'an (9:30) "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Qur'an (47:3-4) "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."
Okay this is just a sample of the 109 verses. Some of the Muslim exploits consist of eliminating tens of millions of Hindus starting around 1000 AD for 5 centuries thereafter. Mahmud of Ghazni and Tamerlane killed multitudes who were fighting for their temples. Buddhism nearly was annihilated off of the continent. According to the writers, Judaism and Christianity followed a similar path albeit more gradually under conquered territories as per the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Europe and Turkey. Many religions were almost wiped out such as the Persian Zoroastrianism. They claim on this site that violence is an integral part of Islam and they war all the time, with themselves as well as other religions.
I will let the authors speak for themselves in the next paragraph. They say “Mohammed was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if the did not. Mohammed allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.” Somewhat of a brutal description. Some say the verses just describe war in general, but these wars were started by the Muslims.
A Sunni contemporary theologian al-Qaradawi feels terror attacks are justified because in war times civilian populations are still the enemy. The Qurayza Jews were totally wiped out five years after Mohammed came to Medina. By demand from their leader they stayed neutral when Meccans invaded and peacefully gave in to Muslim demands after the Meccans were turned back. Still, every male was beheaded from the Qurayza, women and children enslaved, and he even raped a captive himself humorously called :same day marriage.”
The well regarded modern scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi defends aggressive Jihad saying “in the Jihad you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him......Islam has the right to take initiative....this is God's religion and it is for the whole world......it attacks various institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences,.......” Powerful stuff.
A Dr. Salah al-Sawy, chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, says “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time,” hinting it does and will when they do have the strength
4. O. Succession
Perpetual war followed after Mohammed's death with no orderly succession. First there were the 'Apostasy wars,' keeping far away tribes true to Islam. The infighting followed. Those who traveled with Mohammed to Mecca fought those from Mecca. A struggle ensued between his wife and daughter, foretelling the Shias and Sunnis conflict.
The writers claim Muslims show little inclination for self-evaluation and honesty and dialogue. The standards by which the West judges itself when applied to Islam is subpar. Slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression and warfare are grist for the mill. The violent verses of the Qur'an are taken as the word of God. Every twelfth verse in this book talks of some kind of hostility towards non-believers. Moderate Muslims seem to ignore this and use their personal ethics to guide them, but many take them literally. There exist few non-violent verses. Many believe Islam is basically like Christianity, honoring peace, love and tolerance. They are often ignorant of what actually is in the Qur'an. Ibn Khaldun, a revered Islam scholar, sees”the holy war as a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.
At Cairo's al-Azhar university ISIS has never been castigated because the university's Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayeb explained: 'Al Azhar cannot accuse any Muslim of being a kafir (infidel), as long as he believes in Allah and the Last Day-even if he commits every atrocity.”
The authors see political correctness taken too far by accepting a broad based universalism between all religions while Islam maintains its own agenda.
I'm presenting all this as information to be absorbed and as data to be collected. At this time my own opinion or conviction is not part of the conversation.
4. P. Peaceful Verses
Often it is said there are numerous peaceful verses in the Qur'an. The authors find that while there are verses that seem tolerant towards others and speak to brotherhood, when delved into the circumstances around such utterances serve an underlying motive. Often they are not the majority when talking about peaceful notions or in some way are vulnerable themselves to outside forces. Mohammed preached peace while he was building to a point where he could then subjugate.
For example Qur'an (109:6) To you be your religion, and to me be mine.
This originated when Mohammed had little power in Mecca, if at all. Later, with power, he destroyed all the idols the people prayed to.
Qur'an (8:61) But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it...
Taken in an isolated setting which it often is, it appears tolerant. The actions of Mohammed's warriors never reflected this, instead doing the exact opposite.
Taken in context the text that follows it states :”make ready against them all you can................... including steeds of war to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom you may not know but whom Allah does know.”
Numerous examples are listed.
4. L. Modern historians
'Crossroads to Islam' by Yehuda D. Nevo and Judith Koren written in 2003 uses archaeology surveys from the early Islamic time period to promote his theory Mohammed most likely never lived. Islam's worship of one God he feels developed after the time period Mohammed allegedly had lived. David Cook praises the authors thorough approach and calls their conclusions 'plausible or at least arguable.' Of note is Colin Wells claim their conclusions are sometimes illogical, even resembling Holocaust denial.
Others also conclude Mohammed didn't exist such as Professor Muhammed SvenKalisch, a Muslim convert who was the first to teach Islamic theology in Germany. His claims others agree with. The Dutch scholar Hans Jansen also agrees evidence is lacking.
4.M Author Rob Spencer
Robert Spencer, a contemporary writer on Islam, wrote the book 'Did Muhammed Exist?' and he is quite thorough in his compilation of evidence against this possibility. Dallas Roark makes salient points in his review of the book and I'll mention some key ones. Spencer provides a good summation for the case against Mohammed's existence. His website is also extremely informative and addresses many questions one might have.. I don't think it appropriate to name it here but one can find it when inquiring about Mr. Spencer. Does it have a slant? Seemingly so. As we know having a slant can color all information that a person processes. Even so, I don't have the ability to prove or disprove its contentions. Again, many questions we ask ourselves are addressed and we should read the answers with some detachment and not force a final judgment either way.
Spencer states there is hardly any data on Mohammed in the Qur'ann. To quote him directly “The word “Mohammed” appears 4 times in the Qur'an. In three of the cases it could merely refer to a title, “the praised one,” or “chosen one.” Other names like Abraham appear 79 times, Moses 136 times, Pharaoh 74 times. The title “messenger of Allah” appears 300 times. Surah 33:40 is certainly a reference to a person, but it tells nothing about the life of Mohammed. Surah 48:29 also names Mohammed as a messenger of Allah.” He says “we can glean nothing from these passages about Mohammed's biography. Nor is it even certain, on the basis of the Qur'anic text alone, that these passages refer to Mohammed, or did so originally.”
He then claims the hadiths (traditions), while numerous, are not truthful and consistent because actual data on Mohammed's life was not known
As discussed in other sections the sira (biographical information) consisting of a biography by Ibn Ishaq (d. 773) written 125 years after Mohammed lived, survives in fragments from an edited version by Ibn Hisham from the early 10th century. There were more biographies but they were all written later.
The 'Doctrina Jacobi,' written by a Christian around 634 to 640, speaks of the Saracens coming with an army led by the prophet. The writer when asked by an old man about the prophet leading them answered “He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword.” Important to note is Mohammed had died already and mentioned elsewhere in the document is 'the anointed one' referring to 'the Christ to come.'
Spencer continues “there is not a single account of any kind dating from around the time the Doctrina Jacobi was written that affirms the canonical Islamic story of Mohammed and Islam's origins.'
When conquered by Umar the patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius never talks of Mohammed or the Qur'an and the Saracens were called 'godless.'
John of Nikiou, a Coptic Christian bishop, mentioned 'Muslim' for the first time in 690 AD. He talks about 'false Egyptian Christians' embracing the Muslim religion and accepting the 'detestable doctrine and Mohammed' and later fighting the Christians. However it is known only from an Ethiopic translation from the Arabic which was a translation from the original Greek or another language.
Spencer is a good concise thinker and lists what is known or not about the life of Mohammed and early Islam. No record of Mohammed's reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Mohammed, or the Qur'an. They call the conquerors “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,” “Muhajirun,” and “Hagarians” but never “Muslims.”
The Arab conquerors, in their coins and descriptions, don't mention Islam or the Qur'an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Mohammed” are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name but also as an honorific.
The Qur'an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650's. Contradicting that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabian nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention the Qur'an until the early eighth century.
During the reign of the caliph Muawiya (661-680) the Arabs constructed at least one public building whose inscriptions were headed by a cross.
We begin hearing about Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself in the 690's, during the reign of the caliph Abd-al-Malik. Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also.
Abd al-Malik claimed, in a passing remark in one hadith, to have collected the Qur'an, contradicting Islamic tradition that the collection was the work of the caliph Uthman forty years earlier.
The biographical material that emerged situates Mohammed in an area of Arabia that never was the center for trade and pilgrimages that the canonical Islamic account of Islam's origin depend on it to be.
These were some of the major highlights Spencer argues against the historicity of Mohammed.
The obvious next question is if Mohammed didn't initiate Islam how did it come about. Robert Spencer's thesis is that the Arabian empire was first established, then came the religion. In his words “The earliest Arab rulers appear to have been adherents of Hagarism, a monotheistic religion centered around Abraham and Ishmael.” As mentioned there were coins with crosses on them hinting they were not against Christianity at first. Spencer holds when they invaded cultures successfully they noticed as with the Romans a common theology helped unite all the different cultures. Later, maybe around 691 the religion became more identified with an Arabic identity.
Around this time, “the Umayyads began to speak more specifically about Islam, its prophet and eventually its book.” The Christian and Jewish scriptures could be adapted for their purposes and Mohammed even if a myth would serve as their own prophet. Jesus was no longer the 'praised one.' That went to Mohammed.
In 750 the Umayyad's no longer ruled. The Abbasids came into power and regarded the former as not observant and ambivalent concerning Islamic history. Writing of traditions flourished under the new rulers and the Umayyads responded by doing the same. As a result over 600,000 hadiths were created all not authentic. To my own mind the truth, or theories about history can have a sense of humor.
4. N. What makes Islam so different?
I had read a chapter on Spencer's site on 'Violence' awhile ago and had it in my notes to review and also took notes on it but for some reason did not reread the site until now. To note the rest of site reviews many subjects around Islam in a critical way and covers many topics. Perhaps if I chose to redo this section this site would have been a good place to start. It outlined and covered much of the information I've picked up from different sources here and there. In any event I will use it to round out the picture and give you a taste of what it has to say, much of which I mention elsewhere. You can find it on the internet if you choose to read it more thoroughly. The perspective from the site is from the present looking back.
The authors emphasize that many Muslims are peaceful and in general believe the basic tenants of Islam conform with the Judeo Christian ethic to do good. They often overlook the more violent passages or use cross reference and 'context' arguments to temper these aggressive scriptures. There are very few tolerant verses to counter the violent ones. Modern believers often bypass these sections and adapt their own personal ethics to the scriptures as their way to behave. In doing so they overlook the actual content of what is put forth. The authors do have perspective in that they conclude that it is not bad people they are condemning but bad ideology.
For the most part, what is put forth is that non-Muslims are to be battled until they submit to rule with humiliation, convert or be subject to the sword. A tremendous trail of blood has followed the path of Islam. When in the majority the minority of non-believers are persecuted harshly as in Pakistan. When in the minority as in Europe they threaten with chaos and upheaval. Terrorism follows both. Please note the moderate Muslims are not being referred to, but rather the fundamentalists.
The writers make a comparison of the Qur'an to the Torah, calling many of the Qur'an verses 'open ended' or not placed in a proper historical setting and surroundings. Of course many Muslims would disagree. 109 verses in the Qur'an deal with war with non-believers. Chopping off heads and fingers and killing them wherever they escape is often sited. The Muslims that don't join in such actions will be sent to hell by Allah. Nice.
All the violent passages from the Qur'an are listed in this section. I'll quote a few.
Qur'an (8:67) It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an (9:29) "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Qur'an (9:30) "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Qur'an (47:3-4) "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."
Okay this is just a sample of the 109 verses. Some of the Muslim exploits consist of eliminating tens of millions of Hindus starting around 1000 AD for 5 centuries thereafter. Mahmud of Ghazni and Tamerlane killed multitudes who were fighting for their temples. Buddhism nearly was annihilated off of the continent. According to the writers, Judaism and Christianity followed a similar path albeit more gradually under conquered territories as per the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Europe and Turkey. Many religions were almost wiped out such as the Persian Zoroastrianism. They claim on this site that violence is an integral part of Islam and they war all the time, with themselves as well as other religions.
I will let the authors speak for themselves in the next paragraph. They say “Mohammed was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if the did not. Mohammed allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.” Somewhat of a brutal description. Some say the verses just describe war in general, but these wars were started by the Muslims.
A Sunni contemporary theologian al-Qaradawi feels terror attacks are justified because in war times civilian populations are still the enemy. The Qurayza Jews were totally wiped out five years after Mohammed came to Medina. By demand from their leader they stayed neutral when Meccans invaded and peacefully gave in to Muslim demands after the Meccans were turned back. Still, every male was beheaded from the Qurayza, women and children enslaved, and he even raped a captive himself humorously called :same day marriage.”
The well regarded modern scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi defends aggressive Jihad saying “in the Jihad you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him......Islam has the right to take initiative....this is God's religion and it is for the whole world......it attacks various institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences,.......” Powerful stuff.
A Dr. Salah al-Sawy, chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, says “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time,” hinting it does and will when they do have the strength
4. O. Succession
Perpetual war followed after Mohammed's death with no orderly succession. First there were the 'Apostasy wars,' keeping far away tribes true to Islam. The infighting followed. Those who traveled with Mohammed to Mecca fought those from Mecca. A struggle ensued between his wife and daughter, foretelling the Shias and Sunnis conflict.
The writers claim Muslims show little inclination for self-evaluation and honesty and dialogue. The standards by which the West judges itself when applied to Islam is subpar. Slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression and warfare are grist for the mill. The violent verses of the Qur'an are taken as the word of God. Every twelfth verse in this book talks of some kind of hostility towards non-believers. Moderate Muslims seem to ignore this and use their personal ethics to guide them, but many take them literally. There exist few non-violent verses. Many believe Islam is basically like Christianity, honoring peace, love and tolerance. They are often ignorant of what actually is in the Qur'an. Ibn Khaldun, a revered Islam scholar, sees”the holy war as a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.
At Cairo's al-Azhar university ISIS has never been castigated because the university's Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayeb explained: 'Al Azhar cannot accuse any Muslim of being a kafir (infidel), as long as he believes in Allah and the Last Day-even if he commits every atrocity.”
The authors see political correctness taken too far by accepting a broad based universalism between all religions while Islam maintains its own agenda.
I'm presenting all this as information to be absorbed and as data to be collected. At this time my own opinion or conviction is not part of the conversation.
4. P. Peaceful Verses
Often it is said there are numerous peaceful verses in the Qur'an. The authors find that while there are verses that seem tolerant towards others and speak to brotherhood, when delved into the circumstances around such utterances serve an underlying motive. Often they are not the majority when talking about peaceful notions or in some way are vulnerable themselves to outside forces. Mohammed preached peace while he was building to a point where he could then subjugate.
For example Qur'an (109:6) To you be your religion, and to me be mine.
This originated when Mohammed had little power in Mecca, if at all. Later, with power, he destroyed all the idols the people prayed to.
Qur'an (8:61) But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it...
Taken in an isolated setting which it often is, it appears tolerant. The actions of Mohammed's warriors never reflected this, instead doing the exact opposite.
Taken in context the text that follows it states :”make ready against them all you can................... including steeds of war to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom you may not know but whom Allah does know.”
Numerous examples are listed.