The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran
by Jamie Glazov
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a
Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian,
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad
Watch, a program of the
FP: Robert Spencer, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Spencer: Thanks, Jamie. It is always an honor to chat with
a perceptive and honest thinker like you.
FP: Well thank you.
So how is this new book different from your previous ones?
Spencer: While in my other books I’ve quoted from the Koran
in explaining various aspects of the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism,
this book is unique among my books in being an in-depth examination of the
Koran itself. In this book, and in none of my other books, I discuss how the Koran was compiled; alternate
versions of the Koran; alleged miracles of the Koran; how the Koran adapts and
alters Biblical stories such as those of Adam, Noah, Moses, Solomon, Mary and
Jesus; the Koranic appropriation of Jewish, Christian and even pagan figures;
the foundations of Islamic mysticism in the Koran; the ways in which seemingly
innocuous passages of the Koran actually convey meanings quite different from
what may appear to non-Muslim Westerners; how the Koran’s stories of the
Biblical prophets are all told in a way meant to support Muhammad’s prophetic
claim; why Muslims regard the Jews as their worst enemies; how and why the New
Testament accounts of Christ are altered in the Koran; the Koran’s moral code
and what it is conspicuously lacking; and much more.
FP: How come there is so much ignorance about the Koran,
not only among non-Muslims but also Muslims themselves?
Spencer: Large numbers of Muslims have no firm idea of what
is really in the Koran. This is in large part because, as central as it is to
Islamic faith and culture, the Koran is an Arabic book: its Arabic character is
part of its essence. This notion comes from the book itself: “We have revealed
the Koran in the Arabic tongue so that you may grow in understanding” (12:1). The Koran describes itself repeatedly as
essentially and inherently an “Arabic Koran” (12:2; 20:113; 39:28; 41:3; 41:44;
42:7; and 43:3).
Indeed, with an eye apparently only on the local situation in Muhammad’s
time and not on the long-term picture, Allah says that it would not have made any sense to send down
the Koran to Muhammad in any language other than Arabic, and to have done so
would have incited the scorn of Infidels: “Had We sent this as a Qur’an (in the
language) other than Arabic, they would have said: ‘Why are not its verses
explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in Arabic and (a
Messenger) an Arab?’” (41:44).
All Muslims, whether or not they speak Arabic (and most Muslims today are
not Arabs), are obligated to recite the Koran in Arabic. This means most
Muslims worldwide recite their prayers from rote memory. Translations of the Koran occupy a curious
position in the Islamic world. Muslims do not consider any translation of the
Koran to be the Koran at all; it is only Allah’s word when it is
transmitted in Arabic. In Arabic, says English Muslim convert
Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, the Koran is an “inimitable symphony, the very
sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy.” But that quality allegedly
doesn’t carry over to other languages – something essential is lost in
translation.
Still, translations of the Koran are tolerated for the sake of spreading
Islam to non-Arabic speakers. Muslim groups worldwide
work energetically to convert non-Muslims, offering Islamic materials such as
translated Korans that are produced by Muslims themselves, despite the alleged
impossibility of understanding the Koran except in Arabic. And yet Muslim scholars and apologists often dodge
tough questions about the allegedly peaceful nature of Islam by dismissing all
translations of the Koran and claiming that the book can only be truly
understood in Arabic. Why they bother translating it and
distributing these translations among non-Muslims remains unexplained.
The religious superiority of Arabic in Islam has led to an Arabic cultural
hegemony in the non-Arabic Muslim world. Great non-Arab civilizations in lands
that are now Muslim — most notably
The implications of this for contemporary debates about Islamic terrorism
are profound. The point here is not that peaceful Muslims misunderstand their
own religion and would become radicalized if they knew it better. But when the Koran is not immediately
understood – and its seventh-century Arabic can be difficult even for native
Arabic speakers – those who believe in it understand it by means of how it
is preached and presented in the local mosque. If the imams there do not preach hatred of
Infidels and the necessity to fight and subjugate them, then these probably
won’t be live ideas in the minds of the devout – and such has long
been the case in many areas of the world.
We see
here that Islam above all other religions in the world is one that subjugates
its follows, by first claiming no man can translate it into any language, so that
only those who can read 6th century Arabic understand the Koran. And
thus Islam is ruled by a system of Imam’s the greatest majority of whom can not
read 6th century Arabic, so that a very small caste of Imam’s and
Scholars control the religion and disseminate its teachings as they will.
At the same time, however, the Koran says what it says, and so jihadist
movements do point to chapter and verse to attempt to recruit peaceful Muslims
to their cause, and to justify their actions within the Islamic community.
Many non-Muslims, meanwhile, simply assume without examination that the
Koran, since it is a religious book, must teach peace, love, brotherhood, and
compassion.
FP: What does the Koran think of infidels and what does it
teach for Muslims to do to them? Why?
Spencer: In the Koran the Infidels (kuffar) are, simply,
those who reject Islam. They are those who do not believe in
Muhammad’s message: they “treat it as a falsehood that they must meet Allah” (6:31)
and “believe not in the Hereafter” (16:60). They “have bartered guidance for
error” (2:16). They even dare to mock Muhammad in his proclamation of Islam.
Allah tells his prophet, “When ye proclaim your call to prayer they take it
(but) as mockery and sport; that is because they are a people without
understanding” (5:58).
The Infidels are those who have made
themselves enemies “to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel
and Michael.” Allah himself, in turn, “is an enemy to the disbelievers”
(2:98). And Satan and his minions are their friends: “Lo! We have made the
devils protecting friends for those who believe not” (7:27). They are also,
naturally enough, the enemies of the Muslims. Allah gives permission to the
believers to shorten their prayers while traveling “for fear the unbelievers
may attack you: for the unbelievers are unto you open enemies” (4:101).
Who specifically are Infidels? First there are polytheists (mushrikun),
whom Allah particularly disdains for committing the cardinal sin of shirk –
associating partners with Allah (2:105, 3:95, and many other passages identify
the polytheists as apart from and opposed to Islam’s central monotheism). Islam Charges that
Christians are Polytheistic in that they believe in the Trinity God the Father
God the Son God the Holy Spirit, therefore the time is coming when Christians
shall be persecuted beyond the Jews.
There are
also People of the Book – mostly Jews and Christians. Islamic apologists argue
that Islam does not consider them Infidels, since the Koran never specifically
identifies them as such. The Koran, they further note, speaks of the
“unbelievers among the People of the Book” (59:2), implying that at least some
People of the Book were believers, and therefore were not Infidels. However in
practice Muslims do persecute torture and slaughter Christians in every nation
where they have a significant population.
The reason why is not what the Koran says, but how they interpret these
passages on The People of the Book
But who
comprised this group among the People of the Book that the Koran identifies as
believers? They were Jews and Christians who distinguished themselves by
“believing” in one thing: that the Biblical prophets, as well as Jesus,
preached Islam and anticipated Muhammad’s arrival — and thus they became Muslims when they
heard about Islam. In other words, they were proto-Muslims who recognized that
the true teachings of Moses and Jesus were identical to Muhammad’s teachings.
Any Jews and
Christians who rejected this idea and stayed true to their own religions were
“unbelievers among the People of the Book” – and therefore Infidels. From this we
see that Islam not only enslaves its followers, but it is a religion built upon
lies and deceit as its Imams and scholars willfully redefine terms and
terminology to bulster their power and control not only over their followers
but over all non-beleivers as well.
The Koran consistently assumes that the Infidels are not people who have
come to a good faith decision that Islam is false – neither the Koran nor
Islamic tradition allows for the existence of such people. The Koran declares
that “the Religion before Allah is Islam,” and that the People of the Book
reject it only because of “envy of each other” (3:19). The Jews and Christians,
says Maulana Bulandshahri, a twentieth-century Islamic scholar, recognized
Muhammad “to be the final Prophet but their obstinate nature prevented them
from accepting.”
Thus, in the Koran the unbelievers know that Muhammad is a prophet, and yet,
purely out of bad faith, they refuse to become Muslim and follow him. The Koran
repeatedly emphasizes the oneness of Allah, and claims that “those to whom We have given the Book” – that is, the Jews and Christians –
“know this” – that is, the truth of Muhammad’s message – “as they know their
own sons” (6:20). This is because, says Ibn Kathir, “they received good news
from the previous Messengers and Prophets about the coming of Muhammad, his
attributes, homeland, his migration, and the description of his Ummah.” In
other words, their unbelief in Islam is not a sincere rejection based on honest
conviction, but sheer perversity: they “lie
against their own souls” (6:24). For “in their hearts is a disease; and Allah
has increased their disease. And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because
they are false (to themselves)” (2:10).
Muslims have
the responsibility to fight the Infidels (4:89, 2:191, 9:5) and subjugate the
People of the Book under the rule of Islamic law (9:29).
FP: Why do Muslims regard the Jews as their worst enemies?
Why such targeting of Jews?
Spencer: The Koran says that the Jews will be the Muslims’ worst enemies, along with the pagans
(5:82). This comes from the Koranic presentation of Muhammad as the last
and greatest in the line of Biblical prophets, preaching a message identical to
theirs. The authentic Torah supposedly commands Jews to follow Muhammad and
recognize his prophecy – those who refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet are,
in the Muslim view, rejecting both Moses and the prophecies of the Torah. It is no surprise,
then, that in the Koran both David and Jesus curse the disbelieving Jews for
their disobedience (5:78).
Yet of
course, Torah-observant Jews did not and do not accept Muhammad as a prophet,
and this enraged the prophet of Islam during his lifetime. Muhammad initially
appealed energetically to the Jews, hoping they would accept his prophetic
status. He even had the Muslims imitate the Jews by facing
Another Jewish leader noted that “no covenant was
ever made with us about Muhammad.” Allah again responded through his
Prophet: “Is it
ever so that when they make a covenant (With) a party of (For) them (To) set it aside? (The import of
this is Mohammad made a covenant of sorts with the Jews in
FP: Muslims say they believe in Jesus and respect him, but
what they say about him is quite different from what the New Testament says
about him. How does the Koran alter the New Testament’s accounts about Jesus?
Why?
Spencer: Jesus has a prominent place in the Koran. The
Islamic holy book refers to Jesus frequently, usually either as “Jesus Christ”
or as “Jesus the Son of Mary” (although
it uses a form of the name Jesus, Isa, that
is not used by Arabic-speaking Christians, and which in reality is closer to
“Esau” than to “Jesus.”) The references to the “Son of Mary” reflect the
Koran’s acceptance of the Virgin Birth – everyone in antiquity was referred to
as the son of his father, not of his mother, unless his father was unknown. And the Koran
also affirms the Virgin Birth directly (3:47). Besides “Son of Mary,” Jesus is
called Christ (3:45; 4:157; 4:171-2; 5:17; 5:72; 5:75; 9:30-1) and the “Word”
of Allah (3:45; 4:171), recalling the Gospel of John, which also identifies
Jesus as God’s Word in a striking passage that also says that “the Word was
God” (John 1:1, 1:14).
But the Koran and the New Testament also disagree, quite profoundly, about
Jesus Christ. Yes, Jesus is the Word of Allah in the Koran, but the Word is not
Allah. Allah explains, “The similitude
of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said
to him: ‘Be.’ And he was” (3:59).
Similarly, in
the Koran, “Christ” (al-Masih) is essentially a proper name, not a
title; Jesus is not the “anointed one” promised to the Jews or to anyone else.
Islamic scholars explain that the name is derived from the Arabic verb Massaha,
which means to anoint someone with oil for healing. So then is Jesus the
Messiah, the anointed one? Not in the Christian sense — they say he bears this
name solely because he healed others. (Who
before Jesus Christ healed others? The word delineation and supposed meaning here
is dishonest, because no Arab ever went about healing the sick. No Arab ever
performed miracles not even Mohammad, thus the annointed one can not be claimed
by Mohammad but can only be claimed by Jesus Christ both in scripture and in
the Talmud because after 70 AD and the destruction of the Temple and all the
records no more Messiah could appear out of the lineage of David. Mahammad was
born 500 years too late.)
Instead of the Messiah and the Savior of the world, Jesus in the Koran is
only one among many prophets — even if he is favored above his fellow prophets,
for Allah has given him “clear (signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit”
(2:253). In fact, another passage says that Jesus is himself a “spirit
proceeding from” Allah (4:171).
The spirit of a being is, of course,
its very life, but Muslim theologians have never considered the implications of
this title, any more than they have considered the implications of calling
Jesus Allah’s “word.” The Koran repeats twelve times that Allah has no son, saying
that to claim that he does would impugn his transcendent majesty (2:116; 10:68;
17:111; 18:4; 19:35; 19:88; 19:91; 19:92; 21:26; 23:91; 39:04; 43:81). This is straight out of the Talmud It also specifically rejects the Christian idea that Jesus
is the Son of God (4:171; 9:30), And this is
straight out of the Talmud as well at one
point implying, remarkably, that Muhammad thought of the question in purely
physical terms: “How can [Allah] have a Son when He has no consort?” (6:101). Previously quited from the Koran Jesus’ virgin birth is
accepted by Islam – this is the justification and proof by the Koran that Kesis
was indeed God’s son born of a virgin.
Ultimately, the Koran concludes that Christians have departed from the truth
by teaching the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ: “So believe in Allah and His messengers, and
say not ‘Three.’ Cease! (It is) better for you! Allah is only One Allah. Far is
it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son” (4:171).
The most significant Koranic departure from Christianity is its denial of
the reality of the crucifixion of Christ: “They did not kill him, nor crucify
him, but they thought they did [or literally, it appeared so to them].” The
Jews boast that they killed Jesus—but they only think they did (4:157). In fact,
Jesus escaped crucifixion, though how he did so is the source of some dispute.
The traditional Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir argues that “when Allah sent ‘Isa
[Jesus] with proofs and guidance, the Jews, may Allah’s curses, anger, torment
and punishment be upon them, envied him because of his prophethood and obvious miracles. . .” Consumed by this envy, Ibn Kathir continues,
the Jews stirred up “the king of
The Koran emphasizes that Jesus was a prophet of Allah, who did all his
mighty works by order of Allah – and is thus not himself divine. Interestingly,
unlike Muhammad, Jesus is depicted performing various miracles. But after these
miracle stories, Allah again stresses that Jesus is not divine, asking him
point blank: “O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my
mother for two gods beside Allah?” (5:116)
The Koran here seems to be criticizing the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity, which it apparently envisions as consisting of Allah along with a
deified Jesus and Mary. Ibn Kathir says the same thing, claiming the Christians
elevated Jesus “and his mother to be gods with Allah.” The actual Christian
Trinity of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not envisioned in the Koran.
In any case, Jesus denies having told his followers to worship him and his
mother, and the passage concludes by repeating that those who believe otherwise
will, of course, be punished (5:116).
The Koran even asserts that those who believe that Jesus is divine are
themselves Infidels, and hell-bound to boot: “They surely disbelieve who say:
Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children
of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo!
Whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His
abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.” (5:72).
Jesus is, far from being divine, a “slave of Allah” (Abdullah:
4:172; 19:30; 43:59). Calling Jesus a slave of Allah, of course, puts him on
the same level as all created beings – for the master–slave relationship is the
primary paradigm in Islam for human relations with the divine. Despite his
Virgin Birth, despite his miracles, despite his being favored above the other
prophets, Jesus is, in the final analysis, simply another created being, a
slave of Allah. Those who assert otherwise, identifying Jesus with God, are
Infidels: “They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son
of Mary” (5:17).
In case the point is not clear, Allah directs Muhammad to say that Allah
could destroy Jesus, his mother, and the entire earth if he so wished (5:17) –
thereby vividly reasserting Allah’s absolute sovereignty, which the Koran
appears to regard as threatened by the idea of the divinity of Christ.
The Koran declares that, just as Muhammad’s message confirmed that of the
Gospel before it, Jesus told the Jews that his message confirmed that of the
Torah. Jesus also said, according to the Koran, that he was the precursor of a
messenger who would come after him, whose name would be Ahmad. But the people
would dismiss Jesus’s miracles as “sorcery” (61:6) – recalling their dismissal
of Moses (28:36) and Muhammad (28:48).
“Ahmad” means “the Most Praised One,” and it is etymologically related to
Muhammad, which means “Praised One.” Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, a British
Islamic scholar and convert to Islam, drove the connection home by translating
“Ahmad” simply as “Praised One.” And Muslims universally understand the verse
as depicting Jesus predicting the coming of Muhammad.
Muslims contend that this prophecy is the uncorrupted version of the words
of Jesus that survive in corrupted form in John 14:16-17, where Jesus says,
“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with
you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because
it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and
will be in you.”
“Counselor” here is parakletos, or Paraclete. Some Islamic
apologists have claimed this is a corruption of periklytos, which
means “famous” or “renowned,” i.e., “Praised One.” However, there is no textual
evidence whatsoever for this: no manuscripts of the New Testament exist that
use the word periklytos in this place. Nor is it likely that the two
words might have been confused. That kind of confusion may be theoretically
possible in Arabic, which does not write vowels and hence would present two
words with identical consonant structures. But Greek does write vowels, so the
words would never in Greek have appeared as even close to identical.
In light of all this, it is clear that when the Koran refers to Jesus, it
has in mind a figure who is strikingly different from
the one in the New Testament. And the Koran is presented as the corrective to
these New Testament “corruptions.” The idea that Christianity is a “distorted,
deformed religion” created by people who were bent on rejecting the prophet
Muhammad fuels a great deal of Muslim hatred for Christianity, Christians, and
the West to this day.
FP: What are some strange things found in the Koran?
Spencer: The Koran tells of the strange journey of Moses
and Khidr (18:60-82) — one of the all-time great road-trip stories. Moses,
traveling with his servant, forgets the fish they had carried along for their
meal. Returning to retrieve it, they encounter “one of Our
servants, on whom We had bestowed Mercy from Ourselves and whom We had taught
knowledge from Our own Presence” (18:65). In Islamic tradition this man is
identified as Al-Khadir or Al-Khidr, or, more commonly, Khidr, “the Green Man.”
Some identify him as one of the prophets, others as a wali, a Muslim
saint.
Moses asks Khidr, “May I follow thee,” so that “thou teach me something of
the (Higher) Truth which thou hast been taught?” (18:66). Leery, Khidr finally
consents provided Moses asks him no questions, and Moses agrees. Khidr and
Moses then get on a boat, which Khidr immediately scuttles – whereupon Moses
breaks his promise and upbraids Khidr; Khidr reminds him of his promise.
Shortly thereafter, Khidr murders a young man in an apparently random act, and
Moses criticizes him again, and Khidr reminds him once again that Moses had
promised not to ask him any questions and to have patience when Khidr did
something that Moses did not understand. Finally, Khidr rebuilds a wall in a
town that had refused the two hospitality, and Moses
scolds him yet again, telling Khidr that he could have gotten money for his
work, which the two could have used to buy food and lodging.
Informing Moses that their journey is over, Khidr finally explains his
strange actions. (Even Muhammad wanted to hear more, commenting, “We wished
that Moses could have remained patient by virtue of which
Allah might have told us more about their story.”) Khidr damaged the ship
because a king is seizing “every boat by force” (18:79), but not ones that are
unserviceable – presumably the poor owners of the boat could repair it once the
king passed by. Khidr killed the young man because he would grieve his pious
parents with his “rebellion and ingratitude” (18:80), and Allah will give them
a better son. And there was buried treasure beneath the wall that belonged to
boys too young to inherit it yet — so repairing it gave them time to reach
maturity while protecting the treasure from theft.
The Koran translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali derives the lesson from the story
that “even as the whole stock of the knowledge of the present day, the sciences
and the arts, and in literature, (if it could be supposed to be gathered in one
individual), does not include all knowledge. Divine knowledge, as far as man is
concerned, is unlimited.” Furthermore, “There are paradoxes in life: apparent
loss may be real gain; apparent cruelty may be real mercy; returning good for
evil may really be justice and not generosity (18:79-82). Allah’s wisdom
transcends all human calculation.”
Perhaps understandably in light of the strangeness of the story and the
mystery embedded within it, Khidr looms large in Islamic mystical tradition.
The eighth-century Sufi mystic Ibrahim Bin Adham (Abou Ben Adhem) once claimed,
“In that wilderness I lived for four years. God gave me my eating without any
toil of mine. Khidr the Green Ancient was my companion during that time — he
taught me the Great Name of God.”
Another strange and pregnant passage in the Koran is this cryptic verse:
“Above it are nineteen” (74:30).
That’s it. “Above it are nineteen.”
Above what? Nineteen what? The Koran doesn’t say,
and that is where the fun begins. There are innumerable theories regarding this
verse, including that of the Koranic scholar Günther Lüling, who suggests a
slight alteration of the text to make it a simple reference to the gates of
hell – which works in context.
However, Islamic scholars don’t generally take kindly to suggestions that
the Koranic text should be changed – it is supposed to have been delivered by
the angel Gabriel to Muhammad in perfect form, and preserved in that perfect
form ever after. Thus believers must make do with the existing cryptic verse –
and they have. It has become the foundation for numerous elaborate flights of
Islamic numerology, attempting to show that this verse contains a hidden,
number-based key that demonstrates the Koran’s miraculous character. The verse
has also led to the development of mysticism surrounding the number nineteen —
such that some have opined, despite the many nominees for the role of
“twentieth hijacker,” that there is no such person, and that precisely nineteen
hijackers were chosen for the September 11 jihad missions because of the
mystical significance of that number.
FP: Tell us how and why political correctness has made it
almost impossible to discuss what is really in the Koran and in other Islamic
texts.
Spencer: Political correctness would have us believe that
the Koran is a book of peace, and that anyone who says otherwise is “bigoted,”
“hateful,” and “Islamophobic.” But is it, really? What the Koran really says
can easily be verified. If the Koran really curses Jews and Christians (9:30)
and calls for warfare against them in order to bring about their subjugation
(9:29), it is not “Islamophobic” to forewarn Infidels by pointing this out. It
is simply a fact. And it should go without saying that it is not a fact that
should move any reader of my book to hate anyone. The fact that the Koran
counsels warfare against unbelievers should move readers to act in defense of
freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the legal equality of all people,
before it is too late.
FP: How does the misinterpretation of what the Koran and
other Muslim texts teach endanger our security?
Spencer: Most Western analysts dogmatically deny that the
Koran teaches violence and supremacism. Yet Muslims who believe this comprise a
global movement, active from
In March 2009, five Muslims accused of helping plot the September 11
attacks, including the notorious Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, wrote an “Islamic
Response to the Government’s Nine Accusations.” In it they quote the Koran to
justify their jihad war against the American Infidels. “In God’s book,” asserts
the letter, “he ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you, even if you
were inside the holiest of all holy cities, The Mosque in
Osama bin Laden’s communiqués have also quoted the Koran copiously. In his
1996 “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two
Holy Places,” he quotes seven Koran verses: 3:145; 47:4-6; 2:154; 9:14; 47:19;
8:72; and the notorious “Verse of the Sword,” 9:5.[i] Bin
Laden began his October 6, 2002, letter to the American people with two Koran
quotations, both of a martial bent: “Permission to fight (against disbelievers)
is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been
wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory” (22:39) and
“Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve,
fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan).
So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of
Satan” (4:76).”
In a sermon broadcast in 2003, bin Laden rejoiced in a Koranic exhortation
to violence as being a means to establish the truth: “Praise be
to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the
Islamic Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood.”
The “Verse of the Sword” is Koran 9:5: “Then, when the sacred months have
passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and
besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and
establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is
Forgiving, Merciful.”
The idea that the Koran commands them to do violence to unbelievers runs from
the very top of the international jihadist movement – Osama bin Laden – down to
the rank and file. Overall, it is extremely rare – if not impossible – to find
a jihadist who does not cite the Koran to justify his actions. Britain-based
jihadist preacher, Abu Yahya, asserts simply, “It says in the Koran that we
must try as much as we can to terrorise the enemy.” And Pakistani jihad leader
Beitullah Mehsud claims that “Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols
Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace
to the world.” He specified that his jihad – struggle in Arabic – was
an offensive military operation: “We will continue our struggle until foreign
troops are thrown out. Then we will attack them in the
One pro-Osama website put it this way: “The truth is that a Muslim who reads
the Koran with devotion is determined to reach the battlefield in order to
attain the reality of Jihad. It is solely for this reason that the Kufaar
[unbelievers] conspire to keep the Muslims far away from understanding the
Koran, knowing that Muslims who understand the Koran will not distance
themselves from Jihad.”
Yet a huge number of policy decisions are predicated upon the assumption
that the Koran teaches peace, and that those who brandish Korans and commit
violence are misunderstanding their own religion and perverting the teachings
of their own holy book. These include
But most government and media analysts dare not even question the assumption
that the Koran is peaceful, for they believe that any insinuation to the
contrary is racist, bigoted, and effectively brands all Muslims as terrorists.
In other words, they think the implications of the possibility that the Koran
teaches warfare against unbelievers are too terrible to even contemplate. Thus,
many policymakers simply assume the Koran teaches peace without bothering to
study the text. They do this to their own peril – and ours.
FP: What, in your view, is the Koran?
Spencer: It is the primary religious text of one of the
world’s most prominent and influential religions. For more than a billion
Muslims, the Koran is the unadulterated, pure word of Allah, eternal and
perfect, delivered though the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. For
Infidels, it is a threat, a call for their destruction or subjugation.
Consequently, every Infidel needs to know what is in it, and plan accordingly
to defend himself.