Connect with us

Articles

Mecca Islam Vs. Medina Islam

Published

on

An oft heard and popular analysis of the Qur’an argues that it is divided into two categories: the peaceful Meccan books and the more violent books written in the time Muhammad left for Medina. The latter books call for violence against the nonbelievers. Nonbelievers include polytheists, hypocrites, Jews, Christians, pagan Arabs, essentially anyone who is not a Muslim. I do not subscribe to this false dichotomy — to me both parts of the Qur’an are equally violent. I reject this spurious and oversimplified analysis.

Indeed, in the Meccan books, it is not written that believers may punish the nonbelievers for Allah’s sake here in the physical world, however there are very hostile threats of punishment and/or penalties in the hereafter. These early verses describe vividly burning in hell, including having to drink fire, being bound by chains, and the toasting or roasting of human beings. The Meccan books also make it painfully clear there is no escape from this suffering. This torture and suffering are described in these so-called peaceful books as a type of reparation to satisfy Muhammad and the believers (Muslims). For example, the man, I believe it was Muhammad’s’ uncle, who was hard and unfriendly toward Muhammad is said to receive his punishment in hell, where he will receive no mercy. Nonbelievers are often portrayed as losers, while the believers (Muslims) are successful.

Labeling these Meccan chapters as peaceful is like the claim that “light” products are healthy. “Light” chips are not healthy, they are less bad for you. In that light, the Meccan verses of the Qur’an are not peaceful, they are merely less violent, but still very hostile. The call for violence inevitably follows later, born from the anger, frustration and clear separation between the believers and nonbelievers that has already been established in the earlier verses.

The feelings of hate and anguish are steadily cultivated throughout the Qur’an and since the Qur’an itself, nor the Sunna of Muhammad, offer any other solution, the open call for violence is both predictable and unavoidable. It is like when one hears the people next door argue every day, you hear them yelling at each other, the slamming of doors, glass being broken, again and again, seemingly no solution to their frustrations. When eventually the police are called for domestic violence, nobody is surprised. If your neighbors acted differently or communicated more effectively, they would not argue every night.

Likewise, throughout the Qur’an there is a lot of anger and frustration, but no escape route. For example, in the New Testament there are the teachings to turn the other cheek, pray for those who persecute you and not to recompense evil with evil and to live in peace with all men (Romans 12). Such teachings the Qur’an does not show. Anger builds up, page by page, until the frustration erupts into a violent outburst. This is mentioned in various surahs in the Medina part as a preview of what their later punishment will be. Surah 17:75 “In that case We should have made thee taste an equal portion (of punishment) in this life, and an equal portion in death: and moreover, thou wouldst have found none to help thee against Us!”  It is then that the open calls for violence with an open end, up to the last day, are described.

In my opinion, danger lies throughout the entire Qur’an, beginning with the Meccan verses, then steadily intensifying through the mounting anger, frustration and discrimination towards nonbelievers. The solution to this anger and frustration that the reader feels eventually will have to come, follows in surah nine, verse fourteen: “Repentance”. Here, the believers get divine permission to punish nonbelievers, as if they were Allah’s hand. “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people.”  This verse suggests clearly that violence towards the nonbeliever is not only divinely permitted, but will also deliver satisfaction to the believers.

It is significant to note that by labeling these books as “peaceful” it will hide the true meaning and intention of the Qur’an. If these books are called “peaceful”, it gives false hope that it is possible to live in peace, side by side, with Islam. It is not. It is important to see and read the Qur’an in its entirety, not just focus on the openly violent verses, as we often see today. This excuses the verses that may not call for violence, but feed the anger and frustration and are therefore just as dangerous. Oddly enough, I agree with the Islam apologists who argue that we must see the violent Qur’anic verses in context, but for an entirely different reason. The poison begins in the Mecca verses and can only lead to a solution in the calls for violence in the Medina books. The Meccan books might not call Muslims to practice violence, but they do preach intolerance, rage, anger and hostility towards unbelievers. These early books are not as peaceful as they appear to be, rather they subtly set the tone and set the stage for the Jihad that follows.

Written by: Sonja Dahlmans (Netherland)

Continue Reading
Click to comment

0 Comments

  1. Crystal B.Raymos

    June 18, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    Please sign me up

  2. Joshua Naabu

    June 29, 2017 at 1:55 am

    Great insight

  3. Abbé Guy Pagès

    July 30, 2017 at 5:51 am

    Praise our great Lord and Savior Jésus-Christ !

    Dear Sonja,

    Thank you very much for your article.

    I agree with you about the false dichotomy of the Qur’an in two parts, Meccan and Medina parts. I have shown, one by one, in my book “Interroger l’islam” that the verses called “tolérant” are not.

Leave a Reply

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

Articles

Have We Forgotten What Happened On 9/11?

Published

on

Continue Reading

Articles

Sharia in the U.S. Judicial System?

Published

on

By

The U.S. Senate’s recent confirmation of Zahid Quraishi as America’s first Muslim federal judge to a lifetime position on the District Court of New Jersey raises some concerning questions.

First and foremost, there is the question of his faith. Does it matter if Zahid Quraishi is a Muslim? The Left would, of course, maintain that raising the Muslim identity of Quraishi is racist, bigoted and “Islamophobic.” But those who understand the reality of Sharia – and the fact that Islam is not a race — understand that this matter is more complicated than what might first meet the eye.

It may very well matter if Quraishi is not just a Muslim “by name” – or just a “secular Muslim” by birth heritage. Indeed, if, as an adult adherent to Islam, he devoutly recites the Shahada — “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” – then Quraishi’s Muslimness could matter very much. That’s because it could indicate whether or not Quraishi would ever uphold aspects of Sharia – Islamic law – in his legal rulings.

As a survivor of Sharia law, I can tell you: Sharia matters — and in the most horrendous and painful of ways.

It is vital to understand that in Islam, Allah’s Law is supreme for Muslims, above all other laws and legal systems. And that poses a problem for America when Islam resides on its territory, because Sharia is completely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the foundations of a free society.

Quraishi’s relationship to Islam, therefore, matters a great deal — seeing that his new position entails significant power and influence in America.

So let’s dig a little bit deeper on Quraishi.

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) surprisingly did not come out and cheer Quraishi’s appointment — as one might have expected them to do. Instead, the Muslim “civil rights” organization appeared to be quite furious about him. Zahra Billoo, head of CAIR’s San Francisco branch, issued a statement affirming that she “would much rather have a white Christian judge with progressive values… It’s not enough that he is Muslim. In fact, it’s insulting.”

It appears that the problem for Billoo and CAIR is that Quraishi is not a Muslim from an apparent “list” of “20 to 50 Muslims who have been in the fight” for “social justice.” One unnamed Muslim politician who complained to Slate magazine about Quraishi’s appointment echoed the same theme: “We don’t know what his stances are on civil rights because you can’t find one article or anything that he’s written publicly about the Muslim struggle in the last 20 years post-9/11.”

For those concerned about Quraishi’s potential ties to Sharia, this negative disposition from the “Sharia camp” toward the Muslim judge might appear to be good news. But is it?

CAIR’s concern about Quraishi’s supposed lack of support for “progressive values” appears to be a good sign in light of CAIR’s own record of opposing counterterror measures and slandering opponents of jihad and Sharia tyranny. However, CAIR’s disposition toward Quraishi tells us little, if anything, about the key issue at stake: does the judge hold Islamic values or not?

The narrative takes another peculiar twist when we examine what transpired during Quraishi’s questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee: When asked by Committee Chair, Democrat Senator Dick Durbin: “What do you know about Sharia law?” Quraishi answered that he knew “nothing about Sharia.

Really?

Quraishi knows “nothing” about Islam or Islamic Law?

Christine Douglass-Williams has commented on Quraishi’s dubious answer:

“Virtually everyone knows something about the Sharia. In his position, Quraishi is likely to know a lot, and was probably fibbing, and not in an intelligent way, either. It isn’t possible that a man of his standing, who ‘has served as a military prosecutor and Army captain in Iraq, as an assistant U.S. Attorney who has tried cases of public corruption, organized crime and financial fraud, and as a white-collar criminal defense lawyer’, would know ‘NOTHING’ about Sharia.”

True indeed.

What makes the matter even more peculiar is that when one pulls up Quraishi’s questionnaire answers for the Senate Judiciary Committee, one finds that he is mentioned as a “Muslim” many times in his “Honors and Awards” list. So Quraishi is praised, rewarded and held in acclaim by the Muslim community for his achievements in light of his Muslimness, but he personally doesn’t know anything about Islamic law at all?

Could it be that Quraishi might actually not be the incidental Muslim he postures as being? Could it be that he has been recognized and awarded by important prominent Muslim organizations because they gauged that, among other things, he actually is somewhat of an adherent Muslim after all?

Is it possible that CAIR might really not be as upset as it is claiming to be about Quraishi’s appointment? Or maybe it is upset, but not for the reasons it has given? Could it also be that certain players involved in this narrative are engaging in some form of taqiyya – the command in Islam for Muslims to deceive non-Muslims?

Would it also be out of bounds to ask: even if Quraishi is not an adherent Muslim, is it legitimate to be concerned that he one day could become one?

It is vital to stress at this point that Islam is not just a “religion” the way that Christianity and Judaism are religions. Islam is much more than a “faith.” For example, like Judaism, Islam has a legal system — but Islamic Law extends far beyond any Judaic (or even secular) legal system. Sharia embodies all the commands of Allah and all the examples of Muhammad-as divine law that must be implemented in all areas of life.

Qur’an 33:21 is just one verse of many that confirms that Muhammad is “an excellent pattern” for Muslims to follow. It would do well for people to keep in mind that the “excellent” examples that Mohammed set for his followers included the following: marrying a six-year-old girl, A’ishah, and having sex with her when she was nine (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134); encouraging rape of female captives (Qur’an 4:24); stating that women are stupid (Qur’an 2:282) and that hell is comprised of mostly women (Bukhari 29); commanding men to beat their wives (Qur’an 4:34); and being merciless to a woman who had been beaten so brutally that her bruise was green (Bukhari 5825).

Muhammad also disparaged black people (Bukhari 7038). He murdered between 600 and 900 Jews in one battle, and then distributed the captive women as sex slaves (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 464, 511-512).

With some of these matters in mind, the question surfaces: would or could an American Muslim federal judge consider such material as a basis for his rulings? According to Islamic law, a Muslim judge must do so. Sharia mandates that no true Muslim is obligated to obey the laws of a non-Muslim country. Qur’an 33:1 commands to “not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites.” Qur’an 4:60 says that those who “refer legislation” to the non-Muslims are led “far astray.” And Qur’an 9:3 says that “Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger.” According to Islamic tradition, the revelation of that last verse allowed Muhammad to break the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyah.

Let us be clear: an American judge who follows Muhammad’s example can take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and not really mean it. In fact, Muhammad instructs such a judge exactly what to do in this situation: “if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.” (Bukhari 5518)

The supremacy of Islamic Law over all other laws still applies today. The Islamic website International Shariah Movement is run by certified Islamic scholars. Its post “Obey the Law of the Land?” cites Qur’an 33:1.

Under Sharia, if a woman is raped, a Muslim judge must disregard any forensic or non-witness evidence, because Qur’an 24:13 requires “four male witnesses” for a rape conviction.

A beaten woman may also easily be denied divorce, because Qur’an 4:34 commands that “Men are in charge of women,” and so may “strike them.”

That is exactly what a Muslim judge in an Iranian Islamic court told me personally when I was a 15-year-old child bride, desperate for a divorce to escape the beatings. In fact, a beaten woman who leaves Islam must be hunted down and murdered, according to Islamic law, because Muhammad said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 6922)

With all these realities in mind, it is clear that if we cannot at least ask Judge Zahid Quraishi some questions regarding his adherence, or non-adherence, to Islamic law, or even understand that the issue of Quraishi’s Muslimness is an important one to address, then America is in deep trouble.

As an individual who suffered under Sharia, and was able to escape its monstrous clutches, I strongly encourage my fellow Americans to ask the right questions in this vital – and troubling – narrative about America’s new federal judge.

Continue Reading

Articles

Iran Elects Mass Murderer as Next President

Published

on

By

The ‘election’ for president is over in Iran. The grand ayatollah handpicked Ebrahim Raisi who was then ‘elected’. He’s not just a hardline jihadist, but he’s a mass murderer and a big-time one. And more importantly, he’s very proud of his background.

He’s accused by the world of having personally supervised the trials and executions of somewhere between 5,000 and 40,000 Iranians in the 1980s. He has personally been sanctioned by most of the world, including the United States, who cannot even legally talk to him.

Meanwhile, Raisi calls himself a defender of human rights when asked about the mass executions. The guy is a world-class war criminal. He ran the death panel that sentenced and executed tens of thousands of political prisoners at the end of the 1980s. He is now the leader of the world’s most notorious state sponsor of terrorism.

The first thing we have to know about Ebrahim Raisi is that these charges of mass murder as far as the Iranian mullahs are concerned, are not a problem but rather they are a bonus. It’s not that they picked him in spite of his terrible record. They picked him because of his terrible record.

Domestically, the ayatollah is sending a message to the Iranian people who remain discontented in large part with the Islamic regime. The message is simply put, “ you are not going to be able to dissent. There will be no ability to protest. Anybody who expresses any kind of public disagreement, it’s very clear what kind of treatment they’re going to get with Ebrahim Raisi as the President of Iran.”

Keep in mind, Raisi was not elected. He was selected. He was selected by the supreme leader of Iran, who is the real power in the country, and he is going to execute the policies of the supreme leader. The supreme leader’s disposition toward his own people and toward the world is revealed by the person he selects to be the President of Iran.

By picking Raisi, Ayatollah Khamenei is not only showing that he’s going to crack down harshly on dissent within Iran, but he’s showing that he understands that with Biden’s handlers running the United States, that the United States is weak, is not going to stand up to him and this is his time to step up Iran’s support for terrorism worldwide, supporting Hamas, supporting Hezbollah, supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The Iranian regime has also in the past supported al-Qaida and the Taliban, and other jihadi groups as well as and this is much less known. It’s clear that Iran understands that leftism is corrosive to Western civilization, and they want to destroy Western civilization. Therefore Iran will support both the leftists and the Islamists around the world who are anti-America and anti-Israel.

From now on, we can expect to see increased belligerence on the part of Iran. And Raisi’s ascension to the presidency means that Iran is going to be strutting around and sponsoring terrorism around the world and cracking down on its own people within the country.

By Barry Nussbaum, Son of Auschwitz survivors, Founder American Truth Project, Foreign and Domestic Policy Commentator

Continue Reading
Subscribe For Free - To Enter Our MacBook Give Away

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter below and never miss the latest videos. By providing your phone number, you are consenting to receive SMS/MMS msgs, including automated texts, to that number from American Truth Project. Msg&data rates may apply. Terms & Conditions/privacy policy apply TextTerms