Falling Awake

Robert Spencer’s latest installment of Blogging the Qur’an is up.  It covers verses 141-210 of Sura 2.

The five pillars of Islam are:

1. The profession of faith (”There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is His prophet.”
2. The qibla (prayer several times a day facing Mecca)
3. Charity (ostensibly to the poor)
4. Fasting during Ramadan (the holy month)
5. The hajj (a trip to Mecca)

All but the profession of faith are introduced in these verses.  Also, and more importantly for non-Muslims, the concept of jihad is introduced:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.  (2:190-193)

This text can be read in more than one way, obviously.  I think that on the face of it, it teaches that jihad should be a defensive struggle, waged against enemies who oppress Muslims.  The question then becomes, “What constitutes oppression?”

Mr. Spencer answers :

Ibn Ishaq explains that this means that Muslims must fight against unbelievers “until God alone is worshipped.” Says Bulandshahri: “The worst of sins are Infidelity (Kufr) and Polytheism (shirk) which constitute rebellion against Allah, The Creator. To eradicate these, Muslims are required to wage war until there exists none of it in the world, and the only religion is that of Allah.”

[Spencer:] This conflict would be essentially defensive, against the aggressions of unbelief: if Muslims must fight until unbelief does not exist, the mere presence of unbelief constitutes sufficient aggression to allow for the beginning of hostilities. This is one of the foundations for the supremacist notion that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers until those unbelievers are either converted to Islam or subjugated under the rule of Islamic law, as 9:29 states explicitly. As the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, puts it: “I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.” Thus one may reasonably assume that if one does not accept him as a prophet, one’s blood and riches are not safe from those who read these words as the words of a messenger from the one true God.

What matters, of course, is the interpretation.  And without a teaching authority like the Church, Muslims fall prey to whichever local imam shouts down all opposition.  (Shouts them down if they’re lucky.)

Robert Spencer continues his series “Blogging the Qur’an” with Sura 2:75-140.

Within these verses, we learn why Islam so often appears to be a “death cult.”

Say [to the Jews]: “If the last Home, with Allah, be for you specially, and not for anyone else, then seek ye for death, if ye are sincere.” But they will never seek for death, on account of the (sins) which their hands have sent on before them. and Allah is well-acquainted with the wrong-doers. Thou wilt indeed find them, of all people, most greedy of life,-even more than the idolaters: Each one of them wishes He could be given a life of a thousand years: But the grant of such life will not save him from (due) punishment. For Allah sees well all that they do. (Sura 2:94-96)

Here’s Mr. Spencer’s commentary:

Verses 94-96 issue a challenge: if the Jews’ claim that Paradise is reserved for them alone, why don’t they seek death, instead of being the people “most greedy for life”? This is the foundation of a jihadist taunt, as an Al-Qaeda warrior in Afghanistan put it a few years ago: “The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death.” The true believers long for Paradise and disdain this world.

Here we see the difference between the Judeo-Christian and the Muslim view of life. The Jew and the Christian value life. They see life as a gift from God, a gift which they may be asked to give back to Him, but not without good cause. Likewise, they hesitate to deprive anyone else of that gift. None of the many Christian martyrs ever “sought for death.” They were willing to die for their faith–but they were not suicidal.

The Muslim here is being taught to embrace death. And as for others? “Kill them all and let Allah sort them out.”

We also find the first hint of the concept of “abrogation” in the Qur’an.

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? (Sura 2:106)

This is the key to the whole argument over Islam as a “religion of peace.”  There are several passages in the Qur’an which seem to bear out that view.  And just as many that deny it.  Unfortunately for us non-Muslims, the bloodthirstier verses came later, and are considered to supersede the earlier, more peaceful verses.

As I’m sure Mr. Spencer will point out when we get to them.

Robert Spencer’s latest “Blogging the Qur’an” post went up Sunday.  He continues his discussion of Sura 2 with verses 40-75.

These verses are important to understand because they include a verse often cited by people who claim that Islam is very tolerant of the “People of the Book:”

Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (2:62)

Spencer’s commentary makes it clear that, however Mohammed meant these words, they have historically been interpreted to mean that those Christians and Jews who convert to Islam have no reason to fear:

It may seem jarring that immediately following this comes one of the Qur’an’s “tolerance verses,” verse 62, which seems to promise a place in Paradise to “those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians.” Muhammad Asad exults: “With a breadth of vision unparalleled in any other religious faith, the idea of ‘salvation’ is here made conditional upon three elements only: belief in God, belief in the Day of Judgment, and righteous action in life.” Not, apparently, acceptance of Islam. But he contradicts himself by adding “in this divine writ” after the words “those who have attained to faith” in his translation of verse 62 – that is, to be saved, one must believe in the Qur’an as well as the earlier revelations. And indeed, Muslim commentators are not inclined to see this as an indication of divine pluralism. The translators Ali and Pickthall, as well as Asad, all feel it necessary to add parenthetical glosses that make the passage mean that Jews and Christians (as well as Sabians, whose identity is disputed) will be saved only if they become Muslims. And according to Ibn Abbas, this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 3:85: “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).” Qutb opines that 2:62 applied only before Muhammad brought Islam to the world, a view supported by a saying of Muhammad recorded by Tabari, in which the Prophet of Islam says that Christians who died before his coming will be saved, but those who have heard of him and yet rejected his prophetic claim will not be.

There’s more to Spencer’s post, including the origin of the reference to the Jews as “decendents of apes and pigs.”

Here’s the kind of Christian that need not fear the wrath of Islam, from the Seattle Times:

I am both Muslim and Christian

Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.

On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.

She does both, she says, because she’s Christian and Muslim.

Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she’s ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she’s also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.

Her announcement has provoked surprise and bewilderment in many, raising an obvious question: How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim?

A good question, seeing as Christianity requires one to believe that Jesus “…was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died and was buried.  On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures…”  (From the Nicene Creed.)  Whereas Mohammed taught that, “[The Jews] said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of Allah”; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.” (Qur’an Sura 4: 157)

Those two beliefs are hard to reconcile, no?

Sadly, not only does this Episcopalian priest have a tenuous grasp of theology,  but her bishop is of no help to her, or to the faithful who look to him for guidance:

Officials at the national Episcopal Church headquarters said they are not aware of any other instance in which a priest has also been a believer in another faith. They said it’s up to the local bishop to decide whether such a priest could continue in that role.

Redding’s bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.

Which just goes to show that without a central teaching authority, there can be no unity of faith.