Sunday, March 2, 2014

Is Islam a religion of peace?

Is Islam a religion of peace?

This question — Is Islam a religion of peace? — has recently been hotly debated [1], and it’s an interesting question because the controversy that has surfaced around it exposes some really interesting differences between the worldviews of Islamic societies and that of Western societies. But before I get into details, I’d like to point out that there are some things that we should keep in mind that are crucial to understanding this issue. I’ll summarize them below.

The first crucial part of this question is what the term 'Islam' is referring to. Is it referring to Islam as it was 1,400 years ago in the Quran and the Hadith and in history? Or is it referring to Islam as it exists today in civil law and politics in Islam-majority countries? Or is it referring to Islam as it exists today in the minds of Muslims? Or is it referring to a combination of these?

The second crucial part of this question is what constitutes peace. In order to figure out whether or not an idea or action is peaceful, we need to have a standard by which we differentiate between pro-peace and anti-peace. And we have to agree on that standard, otherwise we will disagree about which ideas and actions are pro-peace versus which ones are anti-peace.

The third crucial part of this question is the context in which it was asked, because knowing the context of the question allows us to have insight into the other two things. So let’s consider some context. Why did this question popup into the minds of so many people around the world? Well, it’s because so many non-Muslims are asking themselves why there are so many Muslims who are willing to commit suicide and kill non-Muslims (kafir, kuffar) in the name of their religion, while there are also so many Muslims that aren’t willing to commit terrorism or sympathize with terrorists. And why are they asking this? It’s because these sets of Muslims, known as extremists and moderates, both claim to be following the core principles of their religion while each of them are claiming that the other group is misinterpreting the Quran.

So what are their positions? The extremists are claiming that Islam is a religion of war, and that they must struggle (jihad) in the cause of Allah by defending Islam from anybody who they perceive is attacking it, by waging war on the attackers [2]. In contrast, the moderates are claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and that each Muslim must struggle (jihad) against his own evil desires, and especially against his doubts of his faith of Allah's existence [3].

Now the people asking this question — Is Islam a religion of peace? — are non-Muslims looking at Islam from the outside in. And they are watching the extremist Muslims and the moderate Muslims answering this question in rival ways, both claiming to have the truth on their side. So who is right? Before I address that, I’d like to address the issue of what should be the standard by which we judge ideas and actions as pro-peace versus anti-peace.

The standard of judgement: pro-peace vs anti-peace

In order to shed some light on this issue, let’s consider some things we already know. One of the most important inventions of the Western world is the political philosophy known as liberalism. Note that I'm not referring to the modern use of the term 'liberal' and instead I'm talking about 'classical liberalism'.

Liberalism says that people are created equal, and thus should be treated equally under the law. It says that individuals should have rights that should be protected, by the state, from being infringed upon by other individuals, and from being infringed upon by the state. Two crucial concepts within liberalism are freedom and reason — without these, liberalism is impossible.[4]

Freedom is a tradition about individuals being able to do what they want, short of infringing on the freedom of other individuals to do the same. This allows each individual the freedom necessary to pursue his own happiness the way he sees fit.

Reason, as Elliot Temple explained, "is a tradition about how to think properly. It tries to avoid bias and find the truth whether we like that truth or not. It avoids superstition, magical thinking, parochialism, faith, hardheadedness and whim. Reason requires people be open to changing their mind." [5]

I should note that freedom and reason are interconnected, in the sense that you cannot have one without the other. Let's consider how they are connected. Without freedom, a person cannot make his own choices, in other words, he can't exercise his faculty of reason. Without reason, how could a person pursue his own happiness? Believing things on authority, say about what is a good life, is not going to help a person figure out what is best for him. Nobody knows my interests besides me, so if I were to make life decisions on the authority of other people, then I’d be making my life decisions without taking into account my own interests  that’s a recipe for disaster! Without reason, one is mentally enslaved.

So what constitutes peace? If a person infringes on the freedom of another individual, then that’s anti-peace. Let's consider some examples. Murder infringes on the victim’s freedom to live. Theft infringes on the victim’s freedom to do what he wants with his property. This applies to nations too. If a nation initiates war on another nation, that infringes on that nation’s sovereignty. So peace is about individuals respecting the autonomy of other individuals and nations respecting the autonomy of other nations.

One important thing I should clarify is that peace requires the use of force in self-defense from those who initiate force. As an example, if an armed intruder broke into your home running towards you with a knife while your children are sleeping upstairs, it is your responsibility to defend yourself and your children, by meeting force with force, say by shooting him. And if the aggressor succeeded at committing murder, then our government will put him in jail, which is a use of force against the aggressor in order to protect the rest of society from his anti-peaceful actions. Analogously, if a nation initiates war on another nation, the aggressor nation’s force must be met with force. So self-defense is pro-peace, in the sense that the victim is trying to restore peace after he has already been (forcefully/involuntarily) dragged into a war against his will. 

So an idea or action that is pro-peace is one that respects freedom and reason. And an idea or action that is anti-peace is one that doesn’t respect freedom and reason.

An interesting thing to note here is that this question — Is Islam a religion of peace? — arose in peoples' minds with most people already having a pretty good understanding of the difference between pro-peace and anti-peace. Most people asking this question already know that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an act of war (anti-peace), not an act of self-defense (pro-peace), and that the US's response in Afghanistan was an act of self-defense — we went to Afghanistan because that's where the hijackers were trained.

Now that I’ve established a standard for differentiating pro-peace from anti-peace, I’ll discuss some common positions people take on the question — Is Islam a religion of peace?

A common position taken by some Westerners

One common position that Westerners take on this issue is that Islam is a religion like all other religions, and people should have the right to practice whatever religion they like as long as it doesn’t encroach on matters of the state — this is what is meant by separation of church and state. And since they recognize religions as not in conflict with the laws of their state, they assume that this must hold true for Islam too, since it too is a religion. And since they see Muslims within their communities living out their lives peacefully, they think that the Islam these Muslims are following must be peaceful. And so they conclude that Islam is a religion of peace. And when they are asked why there are so many terrorist Muslims, they blame it on the harsh conditions that those Muslims are living in within their countries. But this position has a few flaws.

One flaw is that many of the terrorist Muslims were born and raised in Europe where they have access to lots of welfare programs. So it doesn’t make sense to blame terrorism on harsh conditions of poor countries when many of those terrorist Muslims don’t live in those conditions. For the Muslims living in the West, the Islamic interpretations that they are adhering to is producing (anti-peaceful) extremists who are committing martyrdom-suicide-bombings in their misguided attempt to get closer to Allah and be rewarded in the afterlife.

A second flaw in this position is that it falsely assumes that Islam is not in conflict with matters of the state, because it assumes that Islam is like the other religions Westerners are familiar with. But Islam is not the same as those other religions in one very crucial way which makes it very unique — it's the only religion that still has a political dimension. It's the only religion that is also a political ideology. It instructs Muslims how to operate a society. It gives laws about what should and shouldn’t be allowed by the state. And it instructs Muslims how to respond to dissenters. So this means that Islam is in conflict with matters of the state. In other words, Islam does conflict with the Western tradition of separation of church and state. Now, if Muslims abolished Islam’s political dimension, then this would solve its problem of conflicting with the tradition of separation of church and state. In other words, if Islam reforms such that it no longer has a political component, then Islam will no longer have the flaw that it used to have.

A third flaw in this position is related to how it addresses the issue of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism tries to deal with the conflicts between people of different cultures living within the same nation. I think the issue arose from racism, and from our attempt to try to fix it. In response to this, some people think that in order to not be racist, one must judge all races, and cultures, as equal. But this is a mistake. Cultures are not equal. Cultures are sets of ideas, and ideas are not equal. For example, pro-peace ideas are better than anti-peace ideas. There is no escaping this.

Races on the other hand, are equal, in the sense that all people, no matter what race, have the same uniquely human quality, which is universal intelligence, in other words, the faculty of reason. So in this sense, all individuals are born equal because they have the same faculty of reason.[6] And all individuals (well after birth) are not equal, in the sense that some of them have better ideas, and act better, than compared to others — note that actions are consequences of ideas, so judging actions means judging ideas. So, if you judge a person on his ideas, in other words, by merit, then you are not being racist. 

In contrast, if you judge a person based on which race, or culture, or tribe, or religion he’s from, then you are not judging by merit, and instead you are being racist. So it doesn’t make sense to judge a person by his race, like it doesn't make sense to judge a race. Races don’t have ideas, and it’s only the ideas that can be judged. Another implication this has is that a person’s race doesn’t determine what ideas are in his mind.

So judging a person by his ideas makes sense, and judging cultures, religions, and ideologies, which are all sets of ideas, makes sense too. This means that judging all cultures and religions as equal is ridiculous. It’s moral relativism, and all it does is help pave the way for evil people to commit their anti-peaceful actions by pressuring good (pro-peace) people to avoid judging anti-peaceful ideas and actions. So moral relativism is on the side of anti-peace. Ayn Rand said it best [7]:

I will confine my answer to a single, fundamental aspect of this question. I will name only one principle, the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent today and which is responsible for the spread of evil in the world. That principle is: One must never fail to pronounce a moral judgment. 
Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil. 
It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?
On a related note, a person should not be judged by his past ideas and actions, and instead he should be judged by his current ideas and actions. As an example, it doesn’t make sense to judge me by a mistake I made 10 years ago if I’ve already corrected that mistake since then. Analogously, a set of ideas like a culture, a religion, or an ideology, should not be judged by its past ideas and the actions of its followers who died long ago, and instead it should be judged by its current ideas and actions. As an example, in the Bible it says that a women should be stoned to death if she is found to not be a virgin on the night of her first marriage, yet no Christians today administer the death penalty for that — so Christianity has evolved and shouldn’t be judged by this idea that Christians have already abolished. So, just like individuals evolve over time, so do cultures, religions, and ideologies evolve over time.[6]

A common position taken by almost all moderate Muslims

The position that almost all moderate Muslims take on this issue is that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the so-called aggressive parts of the Quran are being taken out of context, and misinterpreted, by extremist Muslims. When confronted with questions about the aggression against non-Muslims, they defend the Quran by saying that there is context that is being ignored — they say that it was in self-defense. But this is false. The founder of the religion initiated over 60 military campaigns against his neighbors, every time as the aggressor, never in self-defense.[8] Within Mohamed's lifetime, the Islamic empire grew to a size comparable to the largest empires in history. Muslims were created by force (involuntary conversion, which is anti-peace), not by persuasion (voluntary conversion, which is pro-peace). These people are ignoring history.

When confronted with questions about the aggression on Muslim wives by their husbands, they defend it by making all kinds of excuses.[9] One common excuse is that Islam improved the treatment of women as compared to before Islam in the 7th century in the deserts of today's Saudi Arabia. The problem here is that the treatment of women hasn’t improve since then. The laws of Islam, i.e. Sharia law, are being applied in some countries even today, 1,400 years after the improvement of women’s treatment. So women in these nations are still being treated as second class citizens — they can’t vote, can’t drive, can't decline sex from their husbands (which means rape), can’t initiate divorce, don’t get equal inheritance, don’t get equal custody rights, and a husband is still allowed to beat his wife if she doesn't submit to his will. Demanding submission under threat of violence is not peace — it is war! And this is sanctioned by the Quran and Hadith. And in the nations where Islam’s political dimension is put into action, then these inequalities are also being sanctioned by the state. I should note also that even in the US, Sharia law is encroaching in our family courts, in favor of the anti-liberalism of Islam. Increasingly, family courts are denying Muslim women their individual rights in favor of Sharia law, which denies them equality under the law.[10] So it doesn’t make sense to say that Islam improved the treatment of women when the very same Islam is also being used to stop improving the treatment of women!

When confronted with the issue of reform, like the way Christianity reformed centuries ago, most moderate Muslims say that they need to reform by going back to the core principles of Islam.[11] This is interesting because to reform means to change from a worse position to a better position, and that’s what happened with the Christian reformation. But these Muslims are saying something sort of opposite of that. They are saying that they need to change back to what Islam was when it first started 1,400 years ago. The thing is that that’s not a positive change (evolution), and instead it’s a negative change (devolution). They are assuming that Islam at it’s beginning was better than Islam today, that it was the greatest thing in the world. But this is ignoring history.[11] It’s just making up stuff without any connection to reality. 

One example of a made up claim about Islam’s core principles is education. It’s advocators claim that if people were better educated, for example women in Islam, then women would be fighting for their rights and things would be better. There are lots of flaws here. For one thing, the reasoning here is backwards. They want to blame women’s inequality on the fact that women aren’t educated enough to fight for their own rights, while ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the fact that Muslims are uncritically following Islamic laws that entrenched these inequalities with respect to education. For a second flaw, when asked why they believe education is a core principle of Islam, they say that the Quran starts out by commanding Muslims to read — the implication being that the command 'to read' is a command 'to educate oneself'. But they are ignoring that Islam's main theme is the requirement of submission of one’s will to the will of Allah. It’s such a huge deal that the name of the religion (Islam) means submission. And the thing is that submission is antithetical to the tradition of reason. Submission means to (uncritically) take things on authority instead of making one’s own judgements. So submission is mental enslavement. Interestingly, the Quran calls Muslims slaves of Allah (ibad il'aah [12]), and Muslims wear this title with pride. They are proud to be mentally enslaved. So how could Islam be pro-education (pro-reason) and pro-submission (anti-reason) at the same time? An ideology can't have two core principles that are opposites of each other. That's a contradiction. It's impossible. One of these so-called core principles is a lie. These people are fooling themselves.

Let's recap

The take away here is that most moderate Muslims, especially those who were raised in autocratic societies, are making excuses for the bad things going on in Islamic societies. They are brought up to believe conspiracy theories that say that they are the victims, and that the blame goes to external factors. They latch on to these conspiracy theories like psychological crutches.

On a positive point though, most moderate Muslims today don’t buy in to the concept of submission. They are living out their lives as moral beings, using their own judgement without having to rely on the authority of Muslim clerics or defunct holy books. Ayaan Hirsi Ali said it best (in her speech at _A Celebration of Reason - 2012 Global Atheist Convention_):

"You have to consider that if you live under an autocracy where there is no freedom of speech, where there's no freedom of conscious, where children, from the time they are able to go to school, are fed only into state propaganda and Islamist propaganda, and [where] both propagandas reinforce one another in conspiracies theories, [then] things are never resolved through critical thinking and reason — things are blamed on outsiders, on Satan, on the Jews, on America, etc. So if you have generations who grow up in that kind of environment, then it’s not surprising that they believe in conspiracy theories, and that they are susceptible to victimhood and to blaming outsiders. But despite that, I see individuals and groups, a growing number of them, who are questioning not only states (the autocratic states that they live under), but they have started also questioning the demand to submit to a god, and that that submission means that some people are in power and others are not. And you see a young demographic, that is probably not as informed and as educated as individuals who grow up in a liberal society, but who are really hungry for freedom."

My position

The position I take on this is that, the fact that this question is being asked by so many people around the world is a testament to the fact that there is a problem. And what problem is that? It’s that Islam, as it exists today in the minds of Muslims around the world, is causing so much war, murder, and violence, around the world.

In order for Islam to become a religion of peace, Muslims must admit that there is a problem within the religion that needs a solution. It's impossible to solve a problem that one denies even existing. And what’s worse is that by denying this, they pave the way for evil Muslims to commit more evil, because they are pressuring good (pro-peace) Muslims and non-Muslims to avoid judging evil. The more they deny the problem, the more power they give to the non-reformist Muslims who are trying to defend Islam from being criticized, from being reformed. So by taking this position that Islam is a religion of peace, instead of being part of the solution, you are choosing to be part of the problem! These people are fooling themselves.

So the problem is that Islam is not yet a religion of peace, and the solution is to reform Islam such that it becomes a religion of peace.

So let's understand the problem in more detail. I mean, what would the solution look like? Being a religion of peace means existing in such a state where its followers don't see themselves as adversaries of modern societies, and where they don’t see liberalism conflicting with their religion. Imagine a future point in time where practically all Muslims see themselves as people, like non-Muslims — where they don't divide up the human population into categories of believers and unbelievers. Where Muslims see no inherent conflict between themselves and the West and its philosophy of liberalism — which includes the traditions of freedom, reason, individual rights, equality under the law, and separation of religion and politics.

Part of the problem is that extremist Muslims say that Islam and the West are adversaries [2] — and that it is morally right for believers to initiate violence on the unbelievers (kuffar), which is in conflict with liberalism. And today's Sharia law includes all the violent intolerance and hate that the Quran and Hadith do, including things like punishing apostates of Islam with the death penalty [13], which again is in conflict with liberalism.

So how do we solve this problem? What the moderates should be doing is standing up to the extremists by condemning their anti-peaceful actions. They should be condemning the Muslims that say that Jews are not human, that call for death to all unbelievers, and that call for Israel to be pushed into the sea. But instead of this, most so-called moderate Muslims spend their effort condemning people who insult their prophet, while saying absolutely nothing to condemn the evil committed by their fellow Muslims. So they are condemning pro-peaceful actions in the form of non-hate speech, while not condemning anti-peaceful actions in the form of terrorism, honor violence [14], and hate speech. Where is their sense of morality? Whose side are they on? 

Well, their sense of morality is enshrined in the Quran — at least for those Muslims who uncritically follow it. The Quran and Hadith do not draw a line between pro-peace and anti-peace. Instead, the Quran and Hadith say that Muslims have the right to have their honor protected, which means that they have the right to not be insulted/dishonored/disrespected [15]. This is part of their honor-based culture, which I talk about in detail in the 'honor violence' essay that I linked above [14]. So basically a Muslim can interpret this to mean that insulting a Muslim is a sin, which can then be used as justification to punish the sinner, which many Muslims do by killing those who insult their prophet. Take note that even this essay that you are reading right now can be perceived as an insult to their prophet since I'm saying that his ideas and actions are evil. So Muslims who take this position consider themselves morally justified in killing me as punishment for having insulted them. This kind of evil is further clarified in the Quran which says that Muslims should initiation violence on people who criticize Islam [16]. But what am I doing? I'm just telling the truth as I understand it! I'm condemning anti-peace. So my actions are peaceful. I've hurt no one! If Muslims feel hurt by my words, that is their fault not mine! They are responsible for their feelings and I am responsible for mine. If they want to stop feeling bad, they can change their feelings about my opinions, or they can ignore my opinions altogether. When I speak the truth as I know it, this is not an act of war. When you kill me for speaking the truth as I know it, that is an act of war!

So by calling Islam a religion of peace, moderate Muslims are helping the extremists in their effort to defend Islam from criticism, against the West's effort to help Muslims reform Islam to become peaceful. Why would anything in Islam need to be reformed if there's nothing wrong with it? First you have to declare that something is wrong, then you can begin making it right!

What’s wrong is that Islam, as it exists today in the minds of so many Muslims around the world, is that it sanctions anti-liberal traditions. It sanctions submission, violent intolerance of dissenters, inequality under the law, no separation between religion and politics, and not least of all, they see themselves as adversaries of modern societies. This is evident in the views of extremist Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir who was interviewed by Scott Atran [2]:
Scott Atran: "What are the conditions for Islam to be strong?" 
Abu Bakar Bashir: "The infidel country must be visited and spied upon. If we don't come to them, they will persecute Islam. They will prevent non-Muslims converting." 
So his worldview says that the West is preventing conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. But how? No explanation is given. It's simply not true. In the West we don't care what religion people follow. In fact lots of Westerners voluntarily convert to Islam. But what we do care about is separation of religion and politics. And if that's what Bashir believes is preventing conversion, well what that really means is that we are preventing forceful, involuntary conversion. And he's right about that. We will not be tolerant of intolerance! We will defend against violent intolerance of dissenters by meeting force with force!
Atran: "What can the West, especially the US, do to make the world more peaceful?" 
Bashir: "They have to stop fighting Islam. That's impossible because it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam."
Let's be clear about what he means. He's saying: There will be peace as long as you submit to us, and if you disobey, then we will initiate violence on you as a means to force you to obey, and if obedience is restored, then we will ceasefire — but don't get any ideas because this is only a temporary ceasefire that will last as long as you continue to obey us. Notice how it does not respect individual or national autonomy. It does not pass the standard I explained earlier. This is anti-peace not pro-peace! Using the word peace, in an explanation that includes under threat of violence as a condition of peace, is dishonest. Peace doesn't work that way.
Atran: "What if they persist?"
Bashir: "We'll keep fighting them and they'll lose. The batil [falsehood] will lose sooner or later. I sent a letter to Bush. I said that you'll lose and there is no point for you [to fight us]. This [concept] is found in the Koran." 
Atran: "So this fight will never end?" 
Bashir: "Never. This fight is compulsory. Muslims who don't hate America sin. What I mean by America is George Bush's regime. There is no iman [belief] if one doesn't hate America."
Atran: "How can the American regime and its policies change?" 
Bashir: "We'll see. As long as there is no intention to fight us and Islam continues to grow there can be peace. This is the doctrine of Islam. Islam can't be ruled by others. Allah's law must stand above human law. There is no [example] of Islam and infidels, the right and the wrong, living together in peace."
So his worldview is that there should be no separation of religion and politics ("Allah's law must stand above human law").

The 9/11 hijackers adopted the same worldview that Bashir did. They believe that freedom is evil because it is based in man-made law. They believe that initiating a war on the West is morally right, and that martyrs will be rewarded by Allah in heaven.

Now, an important question that this raises is: How are so many Muslims learning this anti-peaceful brand of Islam? Well, according to a wikileaks report, it's being exported by rich guys in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States to the whole world. They are funding terrorist groups in the millions of dollars annually. Now I'm not saying that the governments themselves are doing the funding, but they're not doing enough to stop it! It's basically lip service [17].

What these Gulf States must do is figure out which side they are on — are they on the side of the "holy war" Muslims or are they on our side? Will they publicly condemn the terrorist brand of Islam and do everything in their power to stop the funding of terrorist groups within their borders? If not, then they are on the side of the terrorists, against us.

And what the West must do is to take a stance with each of these states. If their actions (or inaction) help spread terrorist philosophy, then we must make sure our actions align with that fact, say but cutting funding, or else we are acting on the side of the terrorists too — acting against ourselves — helping terrorist philosophy spread.

On a final note, for Islam to reform from within, reformist Muslims must be able to have a voice, to have an audience, while having protection from the violent retaliation from the non-reformists. And in order for them to be able to do that, we in the West must stand up for the good. We must stand up to the non-reformist Muslims by joining the reformists in their effort to reform Islam such that it reaches a state where it is no longer in conflict with liberalism. And we must stand up to the moral relativists within our own societies who say that all cultures are morally equal and that we should not judge. If we don't do this, if we pressure pro-peaceful people from criticizing the evil within Islamic societies and within the most aggressive Islamic interpretations, then we are helping the evil Muslims in their effort to preserve Islam as it exists today in the minds of Muslims.

If we don't stand up for the good, then who will? If we don't stand up for the good, then the evil will prevail, and the good — the peaceful Muslims and non-Muslims — will be in danger of being wiped out!


[1] _Debate: Is Islam a religion of peace?_, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

[2] _The Emir: An Interview with Abu Bakar Ba’asyir_, interviewed by Scott Atran.

[3] "You shall believe in Allah and His Apostle, and struggle hard in Allah's way [Jihad] with your property and your lives; that is better for you, did you but know!" Quran 61:11.

[4] _Liberalism: The Classical Tradition_, by Ludwig Von Mises.

[5] _Why is Reason Important?_, by Elliot Temple.

[6] _The Beginning of Infinity_, by David Deutsch.

[7] _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Chapter 8: How does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society, by Ayn Rand.

[8] _Understanding Mohamed_, by Ali Sina.

[9] _Wife-beating in Islam_, by me.

[11] _The Illusion of Reforming Islam_, by Ali Sina.

[12] "Save the chosen slaves of Allah (faithful, obedient, true believers of Islamic Monotheism)." Quran 37:40, translated by Muhsin Khan. [link:]

[13] “He who changes his religion [i.e. apostates] kill him.” Hadith, narrated by Ibn 'Abbas (RAA), related by Al-Bukhari. Book 9, Hadith 1242.

And... "They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.'' Quran 4:89.

[14] _Honor Violence_, by me.

[15] “Truly your blood, your property, and your honor are inviolable.” Hadith, narrated in Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #1739, and Mosnad Ahmad, #2037.

[16] "(11) But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers in religion; and We detail the verses for a people who know. (12) And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease." Quran 9:11-12, translated by Sahih International. [link:]

[17] WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists 

1 comment: