The report on the recital — no texts from other faiths were considered worth including — here.
You know, and I know, but the Obama Administration apparently does not know, that 5.32 (lifted from a Jewish source) is modified in its meaning by the verse that immediately follows, 5.33. No one has yet bothered in the press or on television to point this out, or to adduce that modifying verse. Why not?
- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
3 Responses
It’s in the Independent today too http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/you-only-need-to-read-these-passages-from-the-koran-to-realise-that-theres-nothing-islamic-about-the-islamic-state-10056772.html
Hugh – I clicked on the link. I read the report, such as it was. *Then* I read the first thirty or so Comments. Very interesting. Because not only did a good few of those commenting, first up, know all about 5.33, they *also* had their Islamspeak decoder rings switched on, and could see the enormous loophole within 5.32 itself – the line about it being okay to kill someone because of “corruption in the land”.
Here’s one commenter – “Well, guess what, this verse gives clear license to these Muslim ‘extremists’ to kill a soul if there is “corruption in the land”. That is a broad statement taking into consideration how much “corruption has gone on in the Middle East…”. To which another person replied, ‘…Using these verses to justify jihad is what they have been doing for hundreds of years…” and another replied, “That was the first thing I noticed, as well”. And someone else remarked, “[quote] ‘Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption in the land…” So if saving a soul or preventing corruption is a reason to kill, I guess ISIS is doing fine. Seems like a pretty big loophole to me.” And a few comments further on, someone cites 5.33 and glosses it, “to kill whoever criticises Muhammad and Islam”; the same astute commenter knows that 5.32 is plagiarised from the Talmud, and remarks sarcastically, “That’s hilarious! Allah in the Koran is plagiarising Sanhedrin 37a. How can words written by Rabbis suddenly pop up as “allah’s” words?”
Another commenter succinctly explains the special Islamspeak meaning of “corruption in the land” – “Failure to institute or observe Sharia and/ or putting the laws of man above Sharia constitute “corruption in the land”. This absolves the “faithful” form penalty for murder in correcting this “corruption”.” And someone else, in pedagogical mode – “That is Qur’an 5.32. It is directed ONLY AT JEWS and stolen from Jewish writings. Read 5.33. See what it says for Muslims to do to all that oppose Islam. I won’t spoil it. Just google Qur’an 5.33.”
So there you have it. The History Boys and Girls are out in force, and they turn up in most Comment threads these days, even in the worst, the ones most filled with Defenders of Islam (which this particular comments thread does not appear to be, at least if it went on – all 1000 + comments – in the same vein in which it began).
I read the other article, the one in the Independent, that Phil Kirby mentioned.
Interesting. An Ahmadi Muslim (or from the Shiite or Sunni view, a rampant heretic who isn’t a Muslim at all) busy obfuscating like mad to Defend Islam.
Forty Comments. Not a few Muslims busy trying to do dawa or to silence the knowledgeable Infidels who were not buying the BS – and an Ahmadi frantically trying to defend the indefensible, on behalf of people who don’t regard him as Muslim and would kill him as soon as look at him; and a sufficiency of quite well informed Infidels who weren’t having any of it. I think the prize, in *that* comments thread, goes to the poster who wrote – “I agree on one thing. People do need to read the Koran. [This in response to some of the Muslim dawa artists who had been urging people to “read the Quran with an open mind”, etc. etc. – CM]. The western people who have decided it [is] a wonderful book need to read the thing. It’s scary. It is an instruction manual,not a collection of stories, and what [it] advocates is not good. Educating people is usually a way to combat fear. Educating about race, sexual orientation, etc, helps to dispel malicious myths. **Educating people on the Koran has the opposite effect** [my emphasis added – CM], it dispels idealistic wishy-washy liberal myths and replaces them with some very unpleasant facts.” [And I will note, by the by, that this particular comment had received eight upticks from satisfied readers who agreed with it; this in a thread of some forty comments, among which an upvote of 8 or more was reasonably rare).
The wind is changing, yes, the wind is changing. There are still large pockets of the internet – e.g. the comments threads attached to articles about Islam published by Australia’s ABC – where the Defenders of Islam abound and the intelligently Islamo-informed and alarmed are rare; but there are plenty of other places where the Defenders of Islam are not allowed to have it their own way, at all.