Is Islam a violent religion? Is it really a religion of peace as they say?

What is Islam?  I'm posting this so you will know the truth...




The world today is trying to convince us that Islam is really a peaceful religion. Muslim leaders are saying so, the Pope is saying so, liberal media is saying so, even "Christians" are saying so.

Islamic doctrine teaches Muslims to lie to further Islam (using the doctrine of to excuse it), that's why their leaders are saying so.

The Pope and the rest of the world believe the lie, and that's why they're saying so.

Pope Francis: "Authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence"

No one would even be interested in this question were it not for the abundant evidence to the contrary: the daily record of jihad violence carried out by Muslims who point to Islam and the Qur'an to justify their actions, including many who are burning churches and terrorizing Christians in Nigeria, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere. It is because of them that Pope Francis, David Cameron and others feel compelled to insist that, contrary to what we see happening every day, Islam is really peaceful. The question is whether they are doing the victims of jihad any real service by insisting this.

"Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium of the Holy Father Francis to the Bishops, Clergy, Consecrated Persons and the Lay Faithful On the Proclamation of the Gospel In Today's World," from Vatican.va, November 24:

The Bishop of Rome, by virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, can, according to Catholic teaching, speak authoritatively about Catholic doctrine: he has the authority to delineate what is authentic Catholicism. This, however, is a statement about "authentic Islam." It would be interesting to know how he came to this conclusion, since the Pope of Rome has no counterpart within the Islamic world: there is no Muslim authority to which he can appeal in order to discover what "authentic Islam" consists of, and many Muslim authorities would disagree with his statement that "authentic Islam" is "opposed to every form of violence." To take just one of many available examples, I recently debated the Islamic apologist Shadid Lewis, who insisted (falsely) during the debate that Islam had no doctrine of offensive jihad, and that all jihad was defensive. However, he repeated several times that Islam was not a pacifistic religion, and that it did sanction and even mandate warfare under certain circumstances. This position is by no means unique to Lewis; it is quite common among Muslims, most of whom would freely acknowledge that Islam sanctions warfare in defense of the Muslim community or against "oppression." But it contradicts the contention that Islam is opposed to "every form" of violence.

Among the modern-day Muslims (and some from the recent past) who would disagree with Pope Francis's statement about "authentic Islam" are these:

All of these, of course, may be dismissed as "extremists," although they were also all devout Muslims who were determined to follow their religion properly. One finds the same thing, however, when one turns to the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari'ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: "Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book...is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah." Nyazee concludes: "This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation" of non-Muslims.

All this doesn't sound like a religion whose "authentic" manifestation is "opposed to every kind of violence." It would be illuminating if Pope Francis or someone around him produced some quotations from Muslim authorities he considers "authentic," and explained why the authorities I've quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is "authentic" Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what "authentic Islam" actually is, clearly there are many Muslim who believe that authentic Islam does sanction violence.

The Pope also declared that the authentic understanding of the Qur'an is "opposed to every form of violence." For that to be true, there would have to be a general rejection among Muslims of the literal understanding of these verses:

That's three verses about slaying polytheists, apostates, etc. wherever they are found, one about beating disobedient women, two about beheading, and more. However Muslim spokesmen in the West may explain these away -- as only applying to the seventh century, or under strict circumstances, etc. -- it would be hard to see how this could all be reconciled with the claim that the Qur'an is "opposed to every form of violence."

To be sure, there are some tolerant verses in the Qur'an as well -- see, for example, sura 109. But then in Islamic tradition there are authorities who say that violent passages take precedence over these verses. Muhammad's earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur'anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah's last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur'anic verse: "Then God sent down to him: 'Fight them so that there be no more seduction,' i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. 'And the religion is God's', i.e. Until God alone is worshipped."

The Qur'an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until "the religion is God's" -- that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.

The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad's prophetic career: "For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God's religion was fully established."

In other words, he initially could fight only defensively -- only "those who fought him" -- but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was "fully established." He could fight them even if they didn't fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh 'Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, "at first 'the fighting' was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory." He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: "(1) against them who start 'the fighting' against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur'an)." (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur'an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh 'Abdullah is referring to Qur'anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

Here again, obviously there is a widespread understanding of the Qur'an within Islamic tradition that does not see it as "opposed to every form of violence" at all. And we see Muslims who clearly understand their religion as sanctioning violence against Infidels acting upon that understanding around the world today, in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Israel, Nigeria and elsewhere. We can hope that those who embody the "authentic Islam" of which Pope Francis speaks would come forward and work against the Muslims who believe in violence. So far we have not seen that. On the contrary, we see reformers threatened and cowed into silence. The Moroccan imam Ahmed Assid condemned violence in Islam's name and was immediately declared an apostate and threatened with death by his fellow clerics. If the Ahmed Assids of the world represent "authentic Islam," the message has not gotten through to all too many of their coreligionists.

We may hope it does someday. In the meantime, it is imperative to continue to speak about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, so as to alert all people of good will to the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and its motives and goals. This is not indulging in "hateful generalisations." This is simply to speak honestly and realistically about a threat all free people face. If we cannot speak about it, it will nonetheless keep coming, and catch us unawares.

Thanks to: Posted by Robert Spencer on November 28, 2013

Additional note by Dan:

We need to remember that the Quran (Koran) was written over time during the life of Mohammed (conveyed or recited by him). He started as a peaceful man, but as time went on he changed many of his values. As he became increasingly violent, his writings matched his attitude. The correct interpretation of the Quran is to take any conflict in doctrine, of which there is a whole lot, and replace an older verse with the latest one, supplanting it's meaning with the more recent version in a process called abrogation.

This very clearly means that Muslims should obey the later writings and ignore the conflicting earlier writings. Those earlier writings are the one's that they use to convince the world that they are "peaceful" and non-violent. The earlier writings are from when Mohammed was peaceful, but as he became more and more violent throughout his career, his writings became more and more violent. And Muslims are instructed to obey the later writings!

This is part of the practice of Taqiyya (deceit to assist in the ascendency of Islam) that the leaders of Islam even use on new Muslim converts to lure them in, and then slowly lead them to stronger and stronger doctrine as they become devout Muslims.

Should we hate Muslims because they worship a false god, have a violent religion, and hate the lord Jesus?

Absolutely not. I have seen and heard many testimonies of ex Muslims who did not understand their own religion. And, I recently saw a video of a man talking about how he, as a Muslim, thought his religion was a peaceful religion, but as he grew to understand Islam and read the Quran, he came to understand that it is not a peaceful religion and that he was actually instructed to kill for Allah. This is a great example of how many Muslims, like Christians who never read their Bible, do not understand their own religion, and how the Imams (preachers of Islam) use the practice of Taqiyya (lying to assist the ascendency of Islam) on their own people and lure them in with promises of peace and love while they hope to bring them in deeper and turn them into devout Muslims who will die for them.

It is our job to try to help those Muslims who think it's a peaceful religion to understand the truth of it. This does not mean we should be ok with a false religion by any means, but that we should talk to any who are willing to listen and help them to understand, if at all possible.