The President's Favorite Surah
Surah 5:32 states,
"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."
My Pakistani cab driver quoted this to me the other day when we were discussing Islam and Christianity. I didn't have an example from a representative Islamic jurist to prove that this surah doesn't mean what he said it meant, but now I do. Sa'id bin Jubayr, (quoted by Ibn Kathir), understands the passage this way:
“He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.”
So, properly understood, the passage is warning Jews and at the same time telling Muslims that, "any Muslim who kills another Muslim - except when trying to terrorize the Jews, it will be as if he killed all Muslims." Quite a bit different than what Jorge Bush thinks, huh? Robert Spencer explains the rest, as well as Surah 33:
Never mentioned by the President or any of the others who quote this verse as if it condemns Islamic jihadist violence are several important facts: it comes within the context of a warning to the Jews, and is not presented as a universal principle; it contains the important exception “unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land,” and it is followed by v. 33, which specifies the punishment for that mischief: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
This passage is also used in Britain's new Orwellian "Islam is Peace" campaign. It's probably one of the most evil examples of moral equivalence I have ever seen. If you're a conservative British subject, you have to be feeling the water boiling by now. Indeed, many are.
PRCalDude
The President's religion: a Texan's form of liberal Christianity. He's a Methodist.
9 Comments
Reader Comments (9)
politically, the President or any future president can not get away with telling the truth about what the Koran says. We have Muslims serving in our military and of course which are citizens. Combine that with the ACLU and PC culture and its walking a fine line. We have to hope they know the truth and are just trying to force the religion to moderate the way Libs have done with many Protestant denominations which are no longer really churches.
I find the President's groveling to Muslims to be pathetic and embarrassing and hardly what the free world needs right now. There's no harm in explaining what Muslims actually believe and using examples from Islamic juridical texts to prove it. He doesn't really have to make a moral judgment one way or the other. He does have a duty to inform and to keep them out of the country. The 30,000 student visas he issued to Saudis last year really makes it hard for me to think he's thinking.
Were you referring to the State Department's "Diversity VISA program?" This article states, " The report says that 9,800 people from countries designated by the State Department as “state sponsors of terrorism” have used this program to gain permanent legal status in the United States. Of those, more than 3,000 have come from Iran and Sudan respectively, while 160 have come from Syria, and 2,700 have come from Cuba.
The Diversity Visa Program differs from other visa programs because it places no emphasis on employer or family sponsorship from within the United States but uses a lottery system to allocate visas.
Since 1995, more than half a million immigrants from countries with low rates of immigration have become legal permanent residents of the United States through the program.
“The State Department must do more to prevent fraud among diversity visa applicants, and the Department of Homeland Security must follow up with individuals after they are here in the United States,” Thompson said in a statement to Cybercast News Service."
Your tax dollars at the State Department are at work here.
We certainly wouldn't want to offend our enemies by not allowing them visas, would we?
politically, it does not matter what the Koran really says. No matter what the president or any figure were to do on the national stage, it would be spun all over the place to discredit him. the Libs/Socialist/relativist control the media and the general PC Police...then you have the ACLU crowd, CAIR, etc. all part of the political game. Then the fact many muslims really don't beleive what the Jihadist beleive, I hate to use Christianity parrallels but its not all that different from the liberal Christians compared to more conservative. Or heck, Pre-mil, vs. Amil, vs. Post-Mil....so the media and other mentioned would quickly pull out various Muslims who do not 'agree" with what the Jihadist and Robert Spencer say the Koran says and Islam is, to quickly discredit the President....instantly lose any PR campaign on the issue.
point is, politically its not feasible for a host of reasons. As close as we've got to seeing Truth be said was the "Axis of Evil" speech, which the PC police have since sliced and diced to hurt the president politically.
as Mark Steyn says, there are 'moderate muslims" but there is no moderate Islam.
No. It was something I saw over on HotAir. I remember thinking, "You've gotta be phreaking kidding me." The Saudis just own our government.
just because the President says something in Lebanon, does not mean he necessarily beleives it. Its politics, Machivellian politics at that and probably necessary. As the commentor in the Jihadwatch thread notes, if he says something inflamatory it could easily lead to the slaughter of Christians in the region.
There's no way he cares about any of the Christians in the region. If he did, he wouldn't have gone in in the first place and he'd be trying to help the Iraqi Christians now. All he believes in is protecting 'freedom', whatever the hell that means.
perhaps, but I don't think there is anyway you can know that for sure. Its too complicated of an issue, as are most things foreign policy related.