23 of 25 people found the following review helpful
Very good intro to Islam's theo-political jurisprudence: Islam,
This review is from: Sharia Law for Non-Muslims (A Taste of Islam) (Perfect Paperback)
A very interesting comment BettyH. The reason I say is that I believe this book to be a very good introductory work however for something more advanced I'd suggest reading Robert Spencer's works or that of Ibn Warraq. If one is looking for something more scholarly they might research the Islamic texts themselves especially the Hadith and other works surrounding Islamic theology re: "Milestones", "Reliance of the Traveler" and then move into the works by Andrew Bostom or Bat Ye'or. I do think that BettyH is a bit off due to there not being any Muslims in the Old Testament. Of course Muslim's killed Jews. They did so due to the Jewish community turned away Mohammad as a foolish Arab and not the last prophet. This is why Islam is violently anti-Jewish and is the crux against any peace in the Middle East. Islam has not, cannot and will not afford peace with the Harbis only the 'hudnah" or temporary truce. Be that as it may even the Qur'an outlines that the lands belong to the Jews Qur'an 5:20-21 for example. On an interesting note is that neither Moses, Jesus or Muhammad knew any "Palestinians". Mohammad had never been to Israel or Jerusalem which is why there is no Jerusalem or "Palestine/inians" in the Qur'an and due to the aforementioned is why daily Muslims turn their backs on Jerusalem and pray to Mecca. The region of Hadrian's "Palaestina" and the region of the League of Nation's Mandate "Palestine" were never countries, states or nations ergo any "nationality" is a-historical unless one wishes to seek the truth of the matter which is currently displayed, and has been on display since 82AD, on the Arch of Titus on the Via Sacra in Rome. There are no "Palestinians". There is no "West Bank". There are no "Occupied "Palestinian" Territories". There is no "East Jerusalem". This is nothing more then revisionist sociopolitically guided agenda on a realpolitik level and teqqiyya/kitman on a theo-political: Islamic agenda level.
This comment was both for the book review which I thought to be very good for an introductory read to Islam and its Theological Construct: Sharia. There is no "Militant" Islam. Islam has not been "Hijacked" and there is no such thing as "moderate" Islam. If one reads the Islamic texts, refers to both its history, its theo-political jurisprudence: Sharia and the realities of its prophet one must, beyond any reasonable doubt, conclude that the Jihadists are the real Muslims following the classical Islam of its founder Muhammad. How does one think Islam spread from Asia to Spain "submitting", today, over 50, once non-Islamic, lands nations and peoples?
A very good introductory read. I would recommend the works by Robert Spencer, Fitna by Hon. Geert Wilders and many other websites like Jihadwatch, GatesofVienna, TheReligionofPeace and many others.....enjoy.
Tracked by 3 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 5, 2012 5:37:01 PM PDT
I'd like to comment particularly on the following: "There is no "Militant" Islam. Islam has not been "Hijacked" and there is no such thing as "moderate" Islam. If one reads the Islamic texts, refers to both its history, its theo-political jurisprudence: Sharia and the realities of its prophet one must, beyond any reasonable doubt, conclude that the Jihadists are the real Muslims following the classical Islam of its founder Muhammad."
First, please note that the violent historical events you are referring to can quite easily be likened to, for starters, the Christian crusades, the French Wars of Religion (1562-1598), and the Spanish inquisition (and not the one in Monty Python's flying circus). Second, it is thrilling that you have taken a gander at some original texts, however it appears that you have done so with no understanding that Muhammed was BOTH a religious leader, and a military commander.
Third, Your sweeping remarks about Islam are particularly uncharitable to those Muslims who live their lives seeking true peace, in what they understand as submission to the will of God. "Submission" is a concept embraced in Christianity as well, and Christian rule indeed spread all over Europe and beyond in the Middle Ages, to what are now many nations that were once "non-Christian". Let us not forget that missionaries have carried on that goal for centuries. Would you then generalize that all Christians are missionaries?
What would you say of A. Breivik, Norway's Christian terrorist, not to mention the Christian terrorists that we have here in the U.S.? Is he also "the real" kind of Christian? It is inconceivably foolish to say that there is only one "real" kind of anything.
In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 5:48:42 AM PDT
There is no biblical Scripture in the New Testament to back up Christian violence. Jesus, said we are to love our enemies and do good to them. The Apostle Paul in Romans 12, said not to seek revenge, but leave room for God's wrath. Over and over, we are told to love, to bless and not to curse. So, there is no scriptural backing for these acts of violence by Christians. This however is not true of Islam. There are many Koranic scriptures that support violence against infidels (non-Muslims)....see Sura 9:123 and 2:193 of the Koran.
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 6, 2012 8:37:45 PM PDT
Humble Patriot says:
Your critique of Sir Lancelot's review is hopelessly non sequitur.
1) You quote his observation about the character of Islam as a doctrinal religion, then assert that he is referring to violent historical events that are somehow paralleled in Christendom. This is bizarre. Firstly, he reiterated the universal view among mainstream Muslims of the Madh'hab that Islam is eternal, immutable, and without variations in orthodoxy. As Recep Erdogan famously encapsulated, "the term 'moderate Islam' is ugly ... there is no moderate Islam. Islam is Islam." The idea of variations in Islamic orthodoxy is rejected by Muslims as a jahil (ignorant and unenlightened) Western idea, as is the dhimmi-esque assertion that the mujaheddin waging jihad have somehow "hijacked" an otherwise peaceful religion (although kitman-practicing jihadists have demonstrated an inclination to allow the dhimmis to promote the latter assertion among the kuffar). Secondly, your relativist argument that violence in Christendom frees Islam from doctrinal culpability is fallacious. Doctrinally, Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam is a religion of conquest. Jesus implored Christians to "turn the other cheek" and "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone," while Mohamed declared, "I was ordered to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah." The Qur'an, the Siyar and the Sahih Hadiths are clear about jihad fi sabilillah and the fact that there is a specific, religious obligation among all Muslims to support the conquest of all infidels (Dar al Harb) until the entire world comes under Islamic rule. Thus, violence by Christians is committed in violation of the tenets of their religion while violence by Muslims, when committed to promote Islam, is done so in accordance with theirs. Contrary to your assertions, violent boundary disputes and other wars of nationalist or even religious aggression in Christendom can NOT "easily be likened to" shari'a-sanctioned jihad by the Umma. Finally, notwithstanding your patronizing, feeble and unsuccessful attempt to be clever, there is no indication whatsoever that Sir Lancelot failed to appreciate Mohamed's historical record as self-appointed prophet, raider, warlord, conqueror, rapist, pedophile, polygamist or merchant. In fact, although the reviewer didn't write a full scale dissertation about the complete nature of Islam, I'm pretty sure he would agree that it is a totalitarian system concocted by a violent tyrant with a messianic complex.
2) Next, you claim that he made sweeping remarks about Islam that are "particularly uncharitable" to Muslims living peaceful lives. This is not only fallacious but intellectually dishonest. In describing the doctrinal nature of Islam, the reviewer owes no "charity" to Muslims who do not engage in or provide material support to jihad, "particularly" when those Muslims would be considered takfir by pious Muslims for shirking their religious obligations. Moreover, there is no similarity between the spread of Christianity and the spread of Islam. Christianity spread slowly in the already established Roman Empire, and it was originally conceived in purely spiritual terms that made a clear distinction between God and Caesar. Islam, alternately, was originally imperialist in impulse and ambition, did not distinguish between temporal and religious authority (Mohamed as prophet and warlord was the last word of god), and spread rapidly through violent conquest. To claim otherwise ignores history.
3) Finally, you mention the infamous Anders Breivik, a favorite last refuge of Islam's apologists -- which is not surprising. You introduce him because you are suggesting -- once again -- that because the West has its "terrorists" that Islam must be relieved of culpability for the religious doctrine that motivates its adherents to attack infidels. This is similarly fallacious. To borrow your rhetorical style, Was Breivik attacking Muslims when he committed his atrocities? Did he perceive the people he attacked as infidels? No. Although he clearly stated in his manifesto that he was inspired to emulate Islamic violence, he was not performing any acts that could even be remotely perceived or considered as a Christian religious obligation, or anything that could even be condoned by Christianity. Unlike the pious Muslims who claim religious justification for their frequent honor killings, acid attacks, mutilations and other acts that Westerners consider atrocities, Breivik did something that no Christian would ever suggest was supported by Scripture. Moreover, his attack was purely political, as he perceived the targetted DOMESTIC political group to be undermining Norway's culture and independence. As for the "Christian terrorists" that we have here in the U.S., do you mean the Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers? Are they committing narco-violence because they're Christian? No, obviously not. Unlike Major Nidal Hassan's act of "workplace violence" (as Barack Hussein Obama disingenuously categorized it), they are not motivated by their religion. Similarly, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols did not blow up the Murrah Building because they were promoting Christianity; theirs was a purely political act motivated by the prior ATF debacle at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco.
Ultimately, your arguments don't hold water. You don't understand history, you don't know Islam or Christianity, and your style of argument is fallacious. Please pick up some actual books and read them.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 11:20:16 AM PST
There is no moderate Islam. That is true. But it does not follow that there are no moderate Muslims whose practice of Islam has mellowed over the centuries. Some estimate these as 85% of all Muslims. Not all of the other 15% is willing to engage in jihad, likely only a very small percentage that is increasing because of the construction of madrassah's and mosques and takeover of existing mosques by those who want to spread the Islam of jihad.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›