PuffHo tries to whitewash Islam again (yawn)

October 7, 2016 • 11:00 am

PuffHo is on a crusade to stamp out “Islamophobia,” by which it apparently means not just bigotry against Muslims themselves, which is reprehensible, but criticism of the religion. To the latter end, it repeatedly asserts that Islam is not a divisive, xenophobic, or particularly hateful faith—and it’s not, so long as you’re a Muslim of the right sect. But if you’re a Sunni, the Shias should watch out, along with nonbelievers, ex-Muslims, gays, Christians, and women (the list is long).

So here’s the latest piece of HuffPo garbage (click on the screenshot to go to the article):


Here’s an example of “anti-Muslim garbage.” And indeed, it’s meant to incite fear, but it’s not garbage; in fact, the call for killing of apostates and unbelievers appears repeatedly throughout the Qur’an.

They do show another, and far more invidious, “meme” suggesting that we nuke Muslims, and that is Islamophobia. But the author, Christopher Mathias, adds these claims about Islam. I’ll leave it to readers to discuss them, as I’m off to Fallingwater.

The Quran? On the whole, it’s a book that promotes faith and peace. Scary quotes you see attributed to the Quran are often fake or taken out of context.

Sharia? It’s not a strict set of laws as much as a set of guidelines for how Muslims can live their lives. (And no, lawmakers aren’t trying to implement Sharia in the U.S.)

Jihad? It doesn’t always mean violence. It’s an Arabic word that means “exerted effort” or “struggle.” It can be a Muslim’s jihad to exercise more, or to go on more dates.

Hijab? It’s a traditional way Muslim women choose to express their faith. (Hijabs aren’t mentioned in the Quran.) Are some Muslim women limited by their faith? Some are, yes. Yet there have been far more female heads of state in Muslim countries than in the U.S.

61 thoughts on “PuffHo tries to whitewash Islam again (yawn)

  1. Mein Kampf? On the whole, it’s a book that promotes purity, economic equity, and traditional Christian values.

    That’s the thing that always gets me about these sorts of apologia.

    Yes, Jesus and Muhammad are on record as saying some very lovely things. But Hitler kissed babies.

    Any time your paragon of virtue is on record as saying, “KILL ZEM ALL!” and not in a sarcastic or otherwise condemnatory manner…well, that’s pretty much game over. “Hitler was a really nice guy, except for the millions he sent to their deaths,” makes as much sense as, “Jesus is the Prince of Peace, except for when he’s gonna lead the Final Battle at Armageddon.”

    If peace really is what you most care about, then the Abrahamic holy texts are exactly that which you are opposed to.

    If it makes sense to be a Muslim and to condemn the Q’ran, then you can be a peace-loving Muslim. Some Jews and Christians manage to pull that off to varying degrees, so why not Muslims?

    But there is a very strong sense and tradition of fundamentalist literalism within Islam, coming from the unquestionable belief that the Q’ran is the literal posthumous transcript of illiterate Muhammad’s private dialogue with the Archangel Gabriel. And if one must believe that in order to be a good Muslim, then one, quite simply, cannot be both a good Muslim and a good human — any more than one could be both a good Nazi and a good human.



    1. Come to think of it, “Kampf” and “Jihad” both mean struggle. And MnKmf has been a popular book in the Arab world.

      Of note is that in the 1930s, Houghton Mifflin published and abridged Mein Kampf that omitted some of Hitler’s more militaristic and anti-Semitic statements.

      1. Seems the struggle was to eliminate every one who in any way was disagreeable to Hitler or to Mohammed.

      2. I heard about that! This was at a time when a lot of the world powers thought that Hitler was doing a good job with Germany. What I Can’t recall exactly is that one guy knew that the abridged edition was wrong and pirated the complete version. Long story short, Hitler sued him for piracy and won. What I Can’t remember was the guy’s name : was it Brian Cranston (??) Or have I made the whole thing up?

        1. “Or have I made the whole thing up?”

          Doesn’t matter. To good not to be true. Film version out in the spring.

    2. Donald Trump already has a book deal lined up. The title? “My Struggle”.

      ^^^^ not my joke, read it on Twi//er from Krugman’s retw::t.

    3. “Yes, Jesus and Muhammad are on record as saying some very lovely things. But Hitler kissed babies.”

      And John Wayne Gacy brought joy to kids, entertaining them as a clown.

      And Ted Bundy worked at a rape crises center.

      What swell guys! Nothing more to see here.

      A while back I saw a documentary on that serial killer, The Night Stalker. After detailing his unbelievable rampage of killing and maiming people, the story ended with him in prison, marrying one of his groupies (just as I think Bundy had women who were infatuated with him). In the interview, all this woman would say about her soon-to-be-husband serial killer was what a wonderful, sweet, caring man he was. How good he was to her and how he wonderful made her feel. All that serial killing? Whatevs.

      I couldn’t help but be struck by how similar this attitude was to that shown by many Christians about their God. You can point out all the atrocities ordered in the Bible. The fact God would send or allow countless people to a place of eternal suffering. That God has sat by and watched every horror anyone has ever done to anyone else, without lifting a finger off his throne to help. The response is so often purely personal and emotional, even solipsistically so: “He makes me, and people in my church, FEEL wonderful. Whatever you say He’s done I’m not going to concentrate on it because surely a God who would treat ME so well can’t be the Bad Person others think Him to be.”

      It makes me astonished in the same way as beholding the blinders worn by the women who are wooed by serial killers on death row.

      Every (outspoken) atheist knows that, when detailing the case against God, the most predictable charge from the believer will be “You’re just cherry picking the things that look bad, not looking at the whole picture.”

      Which is absurd for the reasons Ben has put so well. I don’t care if my neighbor runs a soup kitchen for the homeless; once bodies start turning up in his backyard linked to him, game over. There are things that no good person could ever do – that are indicative of what a morally untrustworthy person would do. Likewise, I don’t care if in one part of your holy book your God says some nice things: if in another part He commands atrocities, or sends people to hell, that’s all she wrote! No one deserving of the description “Good” would EVER do such things.

    4. Agree, but would re-frame it a little.

      We know that in general people hold simultaneously multiple and on some points conflicting beliefs in their brain and we know that people can switch very fast their beliefs for justifying their actions.

      And we know for humans it’s relatively easy to switch beliefs if the circumstances demand it; logic has not much to do with it.

      You can be a peace loving Muslim without condemning the Quran; you simply have to become a hypocrite.

      In that sense most Christians are not “good” Christians and probably most Nazi’s are not “good” Nazi’s.

  2. Re: ” Yet there have been far more female heads of state in Muslim countries than in the U.S.”

    I would think the proper comparison would be with either all European countries, or at least with women in multiple public offices , mayors, senators, and governors.

    Wikipedia reports “Arab women today enjoy the smallest number of parliamentary seats around the world. For example, in 2005 women occupied 5.7% of all parliamentary seats in the region, as compared to 12-15% in other regions”
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_female_political_leaders )

    It’s an in appropriate statistical comparison.

    1. It’s also worth pointing out that many of these women became the head of state (a position which is generally less powerful than the head of government), because they were the daughter of an extremely important former diplomat, or the wife/daughter of royalty.

    2. The women who are heads of state in Muslim countries mostly got there because they were the only representative of a ruling family – it was about their surname being well known. They were also frequently intelligent, capable women, but that would have mattered for nought if they didn’t have the right name.

      1. Seems like it’s going to be the same in the US. The first woman to become a leader will get there because she is “the only representative of the ruling family” – the Clintons.

        1. Yeah, although it’s a pretty new family. If she was a Kennedy they’d have a better point. I’m not sure the US is that good an example though because the whole political system has become so screwed up, ultra partisan, and corrupt. Which actually is how many of the women in majority Muslim countries got their jobs – corruption, though on a much larger scale than the US has sunk to so far.

  3. … “Islamophobia,” by which it apparently means not just bigotry against Muslims themselves, which is reprehensible, but criticism of the religion.

    To the extent it is valid, most of what goes under the rubric “Islamophobia” should properly be relabeled Muslimophobia. But I’ve come to recognize that there is a narrow brand of paranoia that legitimately merits the name Islamophobia. You can find it in the efforts of some demagogues and parents to ban any mention of Islam from history textbooks. You can find it as well in the demagogic efforts to enact otiose laws forestalling the (nonexistent) creep of Sharia law into our justice system.

    What HuffPo complains of here, however, is neither legitimate Muslimophobia nor bona fide Islamophobia; it’s simply paranoia coming from the opposite direction.

    1. Yes. There is such a thing as Islamophobia, but it is pretty rare.

      Bigotry against Muslims should be relabelled Muslimophobia, if only because Islamophobia makes criticism of an idea rather than people into a negative, which should never happen.

    2. We also have small groups in Australia that get hysterical about halal certification of food and think its a plot to fund international terrorism and make us all eat halal food. Also the Muslims here are more reasonable than Jews about method of slaughter – stunning prior to killing is fully allowed.

      1. I have wondered why the objectors to Halal haven’t objected to Kosher, which has been around much longer, is much worse** than halal, and would I believe contravene animal cruelty laws if it didn’t have some sort of religious exemption.

        (** I believe that to be correct)


      2. Even if your assertion about slaughter is true, why are people “hysterical” for not wanting to pay a tax to Islam? Where do you think the money for certification goes?
        If the vocal minority had its way, all fast food would indeed have to be halal. Non-Muslims want to keep the choice not to fund dakwah or worse.
        Calling such concerns hysteria rather makes you look naïve.

  4. “Hijab? It’s a traditional way Muslim women choose to express their faith. (Hijabs aren’t mentioned in the Quran.)”

    Unless they choose to be punished, sometimes under law, sometimes extrajudicially.

    1. According to all the Sunna school, which is about 80 % of Islam, the Quran itself says that it must be taken with the Prophet’s sunna – which are the hadith that go on for volumes each collection and there are various collections and the sira (account of his life that goes on for 4 volumes of about 4,000 pages in all which is online but is crushingly dull so confess haven’t read any)

  5. PuffDoody seems to think Islam is special. Seems to set a standard that non Muslims are expected to sit in mute reverence. That free speech means it is an outrage if there’s a counter argument. That it is important to keep arguing about and protecting the human invention called religion.

    As the meme goes : “what if I told you ALL religion is a human invention?” Want to protect it? Put it in a museum.

  6. Just in from the HufPo: a new revisionist take on American slavery. Whips and chains were freely chosen symbols of expression by Africans meant only as fashion statements.

  7. This gut did not pass his Phil 101 course.

    The Quran? On the whole, it’s a book that promotes faith and peace. Scary quotes you see attributed to the Quran are often fake or taken out of context.

    (Well, mainly what Ben said above; but …)

    Talk about not addressing the issue and hand-waving! Often fake or taken out of context. Is the one quoted fake? Prove it.

    And it’s hard to take: “Slay the unbelievers where ever you find them.” Please provide some context (the actual context in the Qu’ran) where this is acceptable.

    Sharia? It’s not a strict set of laws as much as a set of guidelines for how Muslims can live their lives. (And no, lawmakers aren’t trying to implement Sharia in the U.S.)

    Yeah, a strict set of guidelines enforced by capital and corporal punishment dished out by religious authorities. The guy is entirely unware, apparently, of what life is like in “Muslim countries” such as Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

    He forgot a word: And no, lawmakers aren’t trying to implement Sharia in the U.S. – ye.

    It’s already happened in the UK.

    Jihad? It doesn’t always mean violence. It’s an Arabic word that means “exerted effort” or “struggle.” It can be a Muslim’s jihad to exercise more, or to go on more dates.

    Yeah, that’s what they always mean by the word. Mohammad was a fitness trainer, didn’t you know that?

    Hijab? It’s a traditional way Muslim women choose to express their faith. (Hijabs aren’t mentioned in the Quran.) Are some Muslim women limited by their faith? Some are, yes. Yet there have been far more female heads of state in Muslim countries than in the U.S.

    Let’s see, there have been a handful of female heads of state in majority Muslim nations — and none in the US (yet!) — and that justifies the oppression of millions of women in Muslim nations.

    I wonder what the author would think of being forced to cover himself in a similar way on pain of public flogging or execution? Just his way of showing he’s meek?

    And even for those who do use it for Islamic virtue-signalling: They are signalling that they adhere to a medieval set of superstitions.

    1. Also those female heads of state have always got there for dynastic reasons – as the remaining senior member of a ruling clan

    2. Rather to my surprise, I think the context does matter for the verse cited in the picture!
      The verse before indicates that it is specifically referring to those who started hostilities against you, rather than peaceful unbelievers; and the verse after advocates being merciful when they cease…

      Would that be better or worse than killing all the adults without mercy, but sparing the young girls to keep as wives?

      Just to be clear: My own opinion is that the correct context is: that it’s all made up and shouldn’t be taken seriously in the first place.

  8. It is easy to believe the Huff Post if you either know nothing about the religion or you do not want to learn anything about it. Also you do not want to offend any Muslims and you ignore all the news you could have received for the past 20 years just by reading a newspaper. Apparently that river over in Egypt is no longer for sale and Huff as closed on that deal.

  9. I actually have some Muslim friends, not of the extremist kind, but still Muslim. I think they are good humans *despite* of, not because of Islam. And several of them have become ex-muslims (no, I do not want to take the credit for that)
    I’m sure Mathias has not read the Qur’an, Hadith and Syra, pontificating like that. He clearly has no clue. The Islamic trilogy is approximately 1/2 to 2/3rds hate speech. Worse than eg. “Mein Kampf” wich is ‘only’ about 1/5th hate speech. (No, I’m not defending Mein Kampf).

    1. Since the Sira cannot be understood without the Hadiths and the Hadiths cannot be considered genuine without the Isnads and the Koran can only be interpreted by scholars versed in the special Arabic script,
      no wonder people accept by rote what they are told, it’s more confusing than christian theology.

    2. To me, the statement “Muslims are good people” is akin to “Burn victims look beautiful”. They do not look beautiful because of the burning but despite it; their beauty is inversely related to the degree of their burns; and there is nothing beautiful about the fire that has caused the burns.

      Of course, the analogy is imperfect, because most Muslim praise their religion, while burn victims hate the fire they have been through.

    3. yes its the density of unpleasantness in the texts that strikes the reader -which isn’t to say there are not Islamic virtues such as economic charity (which in Hanifi school is not restricted to fellow Muslims). and (generally) an expectation of politeness. A lot of the restrictions on women are not that clear in the most central texts. The sheer bulkiness of the texts should allow change one would hope – problem is even the most key and central aren’t great material to work with, though there are many things that are contradictory in Sunni (and no doubt Shia) islam on stoning for adultery, treatment of women and many other areas.

    4. I even would make a stronger claim; atheists are not better humans than the religious ones.

      I still prefer liberalism and atheism because it frees me from a lot of ridiculously stupid rules and biases.

  10. Why is a white guy who isn’t even a muslim trying to educate others on what islamic dogma and teachings actually mean?

    Does he know that his interpretations are just as valid as of those “islamophobes” on facebook?

  11. “Yet there have been far more female heads of state in Muslim countries than in the U.S.”

    Well, he is in fact correct.

    Though that wouldn’t be difficult to achieve. Female heads of state in the US so far = (tries counting on fingers) 0.0 ?



    1. I do not see, however, any contribution of the numerous female heads of state in Muslim countries to the well-being of female citizens. Well, maybe there is some improvement driven by the head of state here and there, but the “before” state was so dismal that the “after” conditions are not impressive.
      To me, the sex of a candidate matters little, what matters is his (her) ideas and his competence to realize them. In this line, I think that American women need a president committed to extend maternity leave much more than they need a female president.

      I admit that several months ago I was excited to see a female elected as head of our university, for the first time in its history. Unfortunately, it turned out that she has some strange ideas that became known only after she took the position. So many of the university employees, both male and female, are unhappy and will try to recall her.

    2. Also considering the fact that there at least 20 Muslim majority countries and only one U.S. – or two, if you count Mexico which also has “United States” in its official name.

      1. 20 x 0.0 still = 0, though.

        JoniLynnHarvey’s comparison upthread is probably better.

        Just that the US hasn’t done particularly well in that respect. Hopefully soon to be rectified (not that Hilary thrills me, but the alternative is just bizarre)


  12. The invidious meme of nuking Muslims is from idiots and is not analogous with criticism of Islam which has nothing to do with violence, let alone genocide. I have seen several comments by extreme leftists within and outside the West suggesting that the West should be nuked.

    “Jihad? It doesn’t always mean violence. It’s an Arabic word that means “exerted effort” or “struggle.” It can be a Muslim’s jihad to exercise more, or to go on more dates.” What a silly comment – some Muslims would be murdered for even suggesting that there could be a jihad to go on more dates (unless the author means the edible kind – but I suspect even this would be considered blasphemous).

    “Sharia? It’s not a strict set of laws as much as a set of guidelines for how Muslims can live their lives.” Reminds me of all the (both Muslim and Non Muslim) apologists who say that Sharia is incredibly diverse and Muslims implement those bits of it that attune with the spiritual way of life that is Islam in their particular community, and this is asserted to be fully compatible with properly functioning (as opposed to nominal) democracy and human rights. (Many regressives are at least somewhat wary of of the term liberalism these days).
    Yes yes Sharia is just a lovely fuzzy “spirituality”. Why then, is it that in even the most moderate version of the Sunni faith, the Hanifi school it says in their Hideya commentary on the Islamic laws – Institutes section – Of the Laws concerning Apostates (Baintner version):
    That the penalty for apostasy is death – however the apostate is to be imprisoned 3 days and given 3 days to recant – by making the simple declaration of the faith – if so he’s OK. However if someone kills him in between there is no penalty for this.

    “First Allah says in the Holy Qur’an, “Slay the Unbelievers,” and the holy Prophet has also said “slay the man who changes his religion”….”Secondly an apostate is an infidel enemy, who has received a call to the faith, wherefore he may be slain upon the instant, without delay”. A female apostate should not be killed but is imprisoned for life until she returns to the faith and it says she should be beaten severely every day unless she returns to the faith. Apostates lose all their possessions, though half of it goes to non apostate members of their family (for the man) and the rest to the Muslim State, but all goes to the family (for the woman).

    Its SO moderate, so very Liberal. Besides, how can this sort of thing Not drive alienation and extremism? So much for the claim trotted out by regressives that it is only modern forms of Islam and Hanbali school influenced modern forms that are extreme, and this of course is a reaction to Western influence. Of course in the Middle Ages the Christian church cannons would have justified rooting out and killing heretics – but it was able to Change. But ostrich behaviour prevents a call for change in Islam – which the regressives say is akin to asking for Takfir splitting and salafism. Huffpo editors need to take a deep look at themselves and their trendy careers destroying the very values that make value on human rights possible.

    1. “I have seen several comments by extreme leftists within and outside the West suggesting that the West should be nuked.”

      Leftists aren’t the only idiots. I recall comments from early Cold War days that the west ought to nuke Russia ‘before they caught up in the arms race’. And some of them were generals, ffs.


  13. Well, I agree, but it’s worth pointing out that FluffPo is aimed at a readership who are mostly Christian and implicitly believe that Judeo-Christian religions are always good and cuddly. So I suspect that their point might be that Islam should be considered in the same category. In that case, I think I’d recommend most of Deuteronomy! Here’s a not so snappy quote from the skeptics annotated bible to a similar effect:
    “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die;”

    To be the basement-cat’s advocate for a moment, let’s look at the the verse that’s cited from the same source (skeptics Quran):
    “[2:190] Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. [2:191] And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. [2:192] But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

    Which looks worse to you?

    1. Ive seen both those verses. thats selectively comparing two verses; there is so much more in the Quran that definitely Would count as hate speech

      Ive read the Penguin version of Dawood which is a really good clear english translation
      Pickthal Shakir Yusfali can be found on


      At any rate the passage you quote is from Chapter 2 of the Quran – it appears again in Chapter 9 in far less moderated form – i.e. convert to Islam or die (the poor rate is a specifically islamic tax)
      YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
      YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden 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 [tax for conquered infidels] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
      PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
      SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
      YUSUFALI: The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
      PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
      SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair 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!

      YUSUFALI: They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
      YUSUFALI: Fain would they extinguish Allah’s light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).
      YUSUFALI: It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

      This tone is right throughout the whole thing but another example (again Im citing only one translation not to take too long)
      In Chapter 98 The Proof
      YUSUFALI: Nor did the People of the Book make schisms, until after there came to them Clear Evidence. (Dawood version even has a footnote explaining this means Jews and Christians)
      YUSUFALI: And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to establish regular prayer; and to practise regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight.
      YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
      IE people who don’t worship Allah and Islam go to hell.

      1. 9.05 are those who don’t believe in god or lapsed Muslims
        9.29 is for Christians Jews and Zoroastrians “People of the Book” who are given the option of continuing their religion so long as they are submissive to the islamic state and pay a special extra tax due only from such people (known as dhimmis)

        1. Moreover the Hideya (Sharia guide in Hanifi school) And the Reliance of the Traveller (sharia guide in the Sha’afi school) both say the conquering Islamic commander who has subdued a non islamic land (of any faith or none) has the option of enslaving, taking ransom, killing the population OR in the case of the people of the book (tho most scholars of the Hanifi school will allow for others) allowing the conquered to become “Dhimmi” who can practise their faith but with second or third class status in the new Islamic territory. If they convert to islam on the spot that will be accepted but they will lose their property because they should have been muslim to start with.

          1. Slaves must be taken back to an islamic land before they can be legally utilised. So raiding non islamic lands and taking slaves is oK; likewise when its first conquered. Those who convert at the time of conquest will have their lives spared but doesnt mean they wont be enslaved – all slaves are heavily pressured to convert or forced to convert. No slave can be freed who is not Muslim.

            Once a land is conquered and occupied its not OK to take slaves from it and its not OK to the Muslim slaves – though both these things happened (Janizaries of Ottoman empire and taking of slaves from North Africa)

      2. “…The passage you quote is from Chapter 2 of the Quran – it appears again in Chapter 9 in far less moderated form…”

        I have read somewhere that earlier chapters of the Koran contain relatively moderate “Mecca verses” designed to lure followers; there verses, however, are followed and practically negated by more belligerent “Medina verses” in later chapters, conceived after followers of Mohammed became strong and no longer had to care about their image.

      3. I agree with a lot of what you say, especially, “thats selectively comparing two verses”.
        However, it’s worth being clear that the reason I pulled the whole verse [2:191] is that that’s the one that’s used in the picture! Would you agree that the previous verse somewhat changes the context? “[2:190] Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.”

        Similarly one can find a whole bunch of nasty stuff in the Bible or Book of Mormon. It’s also worth remembering that Hitler justified a lot of horrors on his particular interpretation of the Bible. I’m not sure I’d accept that the Quran is much worse without some statistics: It certainly seems a little less obsessed with foreskin…

        Another good point you raise is that the specific translation matters a lot. Sadly I don’t speak any of the relevant languages. My favorite version is: “Idolatry is worse than carnage.” 🙂

        1. Hi Andy – Yes theres lots of deeply nasty stuff in the OT – and quite of lot of Jewish custom translated into Islam – but then nasty Christian stuff like belief in eternal hell and belief in the apocalypse and belief that the faith should be propagated throughout the world.
          Where I disagree is that, as Jerry said a while a go a much Larger proportion of the Islamic books is unpleasant. Moreover the Jewish wars were against peoples who no longer exist – And Theres no islamic equivalent of the sermon on the mount.

          Plus the Quran is organised by length of chapter, longest to shortest, not by chronological date. Chronology is taken from match to relevant parts of the Prophet’s life and sayings narrated in the 4,000 page Sirah. The less aggressive parts of the Quran (relatively few) come from when he preached in Mecca and was peaceful – the more aggressive parts come from when he moved to Medina and waged wars. Throughout Islamic orthodoxy it is held that the later verses supersede the earlier verses (if they cover a similar topic) because the Prophet was under constraint from living amongst unbelieving Arabs when he lived in Mecca.

  14. The Quran is a hateful Anti Semitic demonic book and it needs to be burned to ash! I’m an nonbeliever and this quote from the Quran sounds really violent and barbaric time to burn that satanic book Quran!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *