|
|
|
A while back I was asked by a friend to review a set of DVDs entitled "What Would Muhammad Do?" narrated by noted "pro life" activist* Randall A. Terry. Initially, I declined, because I think I know enough about Islam already to know that, if I were interested, but my friend persisted. He alternately accused me of having a "closed mind" and suggested that it might be a work of charity if I gave him the benefit of my more informed opinion. My friend is a lawyer, so he's good at convincing people of stuff.
"OK," I finally said, "Because you are my friend, I'll take a look at it."
The lecture was pretty much as I feared!
The entire set consists of 4 DVDs with a total recorded time of 8 hours and 16 minutes. The first episode starts with a short video clip of President George W. Bush saying, "I also want to speak tonight to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. Its teachings are good and peaceful. And those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah."
A second clip shows Prime Minister David Cameron claiming, "Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters."
A third clip shows President Barack Obama before the United Nations General Assembly. In it, he proclaims, "At the same time, we have reaffirmed again and again that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam!"
Well, so far, so good - so far!
Mr. Terry then appears against a featureless white background (heaven?). Nice haircut, expensive suit, crisp shirt; very professional. I was therefore somewhat unprepared for his introduction.
"No," he intones. "We are at war. And if we hope to be victorious, we must know our enemy, Muslim Terrorists. Whether it's ISIS, El Queda, the Muslim Brotherhood, or so-called "lone wolves," devout Muslim terrorists are spreading terror and death in our communities world wide. We're at war with them because they have declared war on us. They've declared war on us based on an ancient historic narrative or story line which is foundational in Muslim philosophy, theology and law, the caliphate."
He then goes on to describe the concept of the caliphate as a succession of leaders of one, single Islamic nation based on Islamic ideology. It is not, I think, unlike the Catholic idea of one, single, universal church led by a succession of popes, based on Christian ideology.
The difference here is that he uses the terms, "Muslim terrorists" and "Muslims" interchangeably! His first statement, "No," directly follows the assertions that we respect Muslims' faith, that the terrorists are not Muslims, and that the US is not at war with Islam, all of which is true. The conclusion at this point is inescapable. Mr. Terry, perhaps unwittingly, claims that "we" are at war with Islam itself, and that the terrorists are "devout" Muslims. His subsequent arguments reinforce that mistaken opinion.
At this point, I was reminded of my step grandmother, Nina. Nina was a "devout Christian," who believed passionately in the absolute truth of the Bible, which says that the universe consists of a "firmament of heaven" above a "firmament" below (Genesis 1:7). It also claims that the moon is not a solid body but a "lesser light" to rule the night, the sun is a "greater light to rule the day" and is fundamentally different from the "stars" (Genesis 1:16). As a consequence of all this, she knew that the earth was flat, not round, and fundamentally different from anything seen in the "firmament of heaven." Nina's belief was based on the foundation of Christian philosophy, theology and law, the Bible.
Actually, the earth is not flat, regardless of who or what says otherwise, or what kind of argument they propose. "Devout" Muslim's aren't terrorists, either. Grandma and Mr. Terry are both wrong, for the same reason. Just because some Christians justify their belief in a flat earth by reading the Bible, doesn't mean that all Christians, or Christianity itself, believes that. Similarly, just because some terrorists base their terrorist justifications on the Koran, doesn't mean that all Muslims, or Islam itself, do likewise.
Mr. Terry goes on to assert that we must "know our enemy," and points to Winston Churchill studying everything he could find about Hitler, including Mein Kampf. His point is well taken, but misplaced. Mohammed is dead. He is not our enemy now any more than Hitler, Bloody Mary, Attila the Hun, Genghis Kahn, Nero, or Ramses I, who are also all dead! Their history and teachings are all available in libraries and the Internet. How they are applied, pro or con, do not make them different from what they are, inextricably frozen in the unbreakable matrix of the past.
To pursue Mr. Terry's point, there are people inspired by their misunderstanding of Islam (like Mr. Terry) who are very much our enemies. These include: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Abu Fatima al-Jaheishi, Abu Ali al-Anbari, Abdel Baqer Al-Najdi, Abu Saleh al-Obaidi, Abu Arkan al-Ameri, Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, Abu Omar al-Shishani, Gulmurod Khalimov, Wa'il Adil Hasan Salman al-Fayad, Abul-Hasan Al-Muhajir, Hibatullah Akhundzada, Abu Musab al-Barnawi, Abubakar Shekau, and Mullah Muhammad Rasul, terrorists all. He didn't mention any of these in the first two episodes. Why?
I think the reason is because Mr. Terry is himself confused about the difference between Islam and its perverted interpretation by terrorists and ignorant self-styled Christians. There is much the same difference between Christianity and flat earthers (and the terrorist fraction of the "pro-lifers"). One is simply not the other, regardless of belief otherwise.
Mr. Terry states that Europe is currently being overrun by terrorists "in the guise" of refugees or legal immigrants. I have to wonder what "in the guise" means. Does he really believe that all these displaced escapees from war-torn Iraq, Syria and other countries or immigrants from the Middle East actually volunteered to leave perfectly good homes in their own homelands? Does he really think they spent years in squalid refugee camps for the sole purpose of invading Europe to wreck havoc? Really? This seems to be what he is saying.
I've been in war-ravaged countries, and I would much rather have lived elsewhere. I guarantee that if I had survived for years as a refugee from countries as devastated as Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, I would be tougher and meaner than the other guy. I would probably be fully as tough and mean once I settled somewhere else. People who deliberately annoyed me, especially anyone who claimed that he was at war with my religion, would be committing suicide! And I'm not even a Muslim!
Nina visited us last on Christmas, 1968, when astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders enthralled the entire world by circling the moon in Apollo 8. She knew it was all a big lie, because there is no such thing as outer space. She was absolutely convinced that all the television networks were working assiduously in a vile conspiracy to destroy her brand of Christianity "in the guise" of reporting the news!
Mr. Terry is correct, of course, about what the terrorists have made no secret. They base their beliefs and resulting actions on their grossly distorted interpretation of all that is written by and about the Prophet Mohammed. There is a lot of that. His was the first religion to develop squarely in the public light of history. More is known about what he believed, taught and did than any other religious leader ever, including Jesus Christ, Moses and Gautama Buddha.
Moreover, monotheistic Islam began in Mecca, a wealthy and powerful city state the main income of which was its colossal revenue from fleecing polytheistic pilgrims. After Mohammed was summarily exiled from Mecca with a price on his head, he became the political and spiritual leader of Medina. The two cities were thereafter engaged in constant war, involving most of surrounding Arabia, to a varied extent, as well. Both sides fought for their very survival, often giving and receiving no quarter. Eventually Islam won by conquering Mecca, destroying all the idols, and dedicating the entire city to Allah, to this very day.
Small wonder, then, that the main social environment of developing Islam was almost constant warfare of one kind or another. The Koran greatly resembles the Book of Joshua, written under much the same circumstance, in this regard. Also, the political, social and family customs of the time are almost fourteen centuries less evolved and sophisticated than our own. Seventh century beliefs and norms of conduct do not apply today without modern interpretation any more than the stories in Genesis explain modern cosmology. Apologists for "Islamic terrorism" are just wrong.
The rest of what I reviewed of Mr. Terry's first DVD is dedicated to an elucidation of the savagery of events recorded in the Koran, Sunnah and Hadith, which constitute the historical foundation of Islam. These admittedly were every bit as brutal, cruel and horrific as those in the Old Testament, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Reformation and the Holocaust. These atrocities were not perpetrated, it should be noted, by Muslims. Associated visuals show demonstrations (riots) of extremists, provocative historical graphics, and archival photographs of terrorists doing terrorist things. According to his argument, modern Muslims all should be bloodthirsty terrorist conquerors!
Why aren't they?
Let's face it, the terrorists are at war, but the people they are at war with are Muslims! Turks. Arabs. Afghanis. Persians. The United States has more military personnel in England than we have fighting ISIS. Islamic terrorists are no more than a minor annoyance in the United States. To dignify their cowardly and militarily ineffective tactics as war betrays a startling ignorance of the meaning of the word. The reason that a few of them are here is that they can take advantage of a society that subsidizes abject social failures. They aren't worth a damn as real fighters in actual combat against anyone, or anything else, for that matter. (They are a problem in France, however, because the militarily impotent French suffer from a collective inferiority complex. They attempt to assurage this national shame with their habit of denying Muslims their civil rights and harassing, persecuting and infuriating them. The French, in my opinion, richly deserve the predictable results of their bigoted government-sponsored bullying.) The overwhelming number of murders, rapes, armed robberies and gang-related activities in our country are the work of self-proclaimed Christians, not Muslims. Check the "wanted" posters in your local post office. Watch the news!
According to Jacob Bronowski in his book, The Ascent of Man, Islam took the southern world by storm. In a hundred years, "It captured Alexandria, established a fabulous city of learning in Baghdad, and thrust its frontier to the east beyond Isfahan in Persia. By AD 730, the Muslim empire reached from Spain and Southern France to the Borders of China and India, an empire of spectacular strength and grace, while Europe lapsed in the Dark Ages."
This mighty empire was threatened 365 years later by arrogant religious intervention from Europe. The Crusade invaders tested their dedication to their religion against that of adherents of Islam for another three and a half centuries, with disastrous consequences. Put simply, they lost - big time! The Muslims thoroughly vanquished the combined ignorant, sanctimonious, superstitious military coalition of primitive, Dark Age Europe. They kicked the European invanders back home to consume themselves in unending internecine squabbles ever since. These culminated, so far, in two world wars fought with such decidedly Christian weapons as napalm, white phosphorus and the atomic bomb. The Islamic world was largely uninvolved.
If the "Muslim world" were really bent on world conquest, as Mr. Terry claims, they would surely have accomplished it by now. After all, they constitute one fifth of the human population, they love science and technology (especially that with military application), and they've certainly had enough time. They're also dedicated fighters and military strategists. They're much more devoted to their religion than the Western world is to Christianity, too. Islamic cultural and political influence naturally filled the political and social vacuum left by the fall of the Roman Empire. It made little headway otherwise against established Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism. In spite of a few pathological malcontents, the overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims want what everybody else wants; a more perfect society, justice, domestic tranquillity, promotion of the general welfare, liberty, equality, fraternity, peace, land, bread, mail delivery, defense of their shores, and personally being left the hell alone!
To judge Islam by the actions of the terrorists is just as ignorant as judging Christianity by the flat earthers and the world-wide actions of "Christian" terrorists such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Westboro Baptists and the "pro-lifers" who murder obstetricians in cold blood. Mr. Terry is as wrong about Islam as Grandma Nina was about space travel.
Having reached my crap saturation threshold long before the end of Mr. Terry's first episode, I decided that my friend's interests would be better served if I attempted actually to answer the question, "What Would Muhammad Do?" instead of the more prejudiced "the earth is really flat!" style of Mr. Terry's ranting. To this end, I found a website with the same title that contains a matrix following the question, "Would Muhammad...?"
In checking the references cited in the matrix, I noted a significant departure from the English translations of the Koran with which I am familiar. I suspect that the references to the Haddith are similarly prejudiced. The quotations reminded me of the fictitious "Unbiased History of European Judaism by Adolph Hitler." For this reason, I have added references to my own Internet translation, which contains additional commentary.
| Would Muhammad... | References | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Question | In his references to the Quran and Hadith, Mr. Terry almost always quotes the supposed opinions of unnamed "scholars" or inserts his own words to significantly change the meaning of what is actually there to what he wants it to say. Sad! | |
| Have sex with a 9-year-old girl? | Hadith: Sahih Muslim (8:3309), (8:3310), and (8:3311) | Child marriage was common in Arabia at the time, as it was in Christian Europe some centuries later, both as a practical matter, to get rid of daughters as soon as possible, and in accordance with the belief that menstruation before sex was tantamount to murder of the unborn. Ayesha was, in fact, engaged to another man before Mohammed asked for her hand. Both Ayesha's mother, Umm Ruman, and her father, Abu Bakr, approved the marriage, as did Ayesha herself. Although she was married at age six, it appears that Mohammed did not have sex with her until she was close to, or had arrived at, sexual maturity. Mohammed's senior wife, Sawda, was said to have volunteered to forego his conjugal visits in favor of Ayesha. Mohammed married Ayesha for the same reason that people get married today, because he found her attractive, loved and cherished her, and wanted to "cleave unto her until death parted them," which he did. He died in her arms. There is no minimum age for marriage in the Bible. The belief otherwise is a product of perverted modern Western prejudice. |
| Advocate beheading? | Quran Sura 8:12 | Koran: Sura 8 Introduction and Ayat 12 and following |
| Require women to cover their faces? | Quran 24:31, 33:55, and 33:59
Hadith: Sahih Bukhari (6:321), (60:282), (52:250), (8:395), Sahih Muslim (26:5395), Abu Dawud (32:4092), (2:641) |
Ayats 24:31, 33:55 and 33:59 His interpretation of the Hadith references clearly indicates his prejudice for what he wants it to say, rather than what it says. |
| Befriend Christians and Jews? | Quran, 5:51, 5:80, 3:28, 3:118, 9:23, 53:29, 3:85, 3:10, 7:44, 1:5-7 | Ayats, 5:51, 5:80, 3:28, 3:118, 9:23, 53:29, 3:85, 3:10, 7:44 and 1:5-7 |
| Own slaves? | Quran 33:50, 23:5-6, 70:29-30, 4:24, 8:69-71, 24:32, 2:178, 16:71-75
Hadith and Sira: Sahih Bukhari (80:753), (52:255), (41:598), (62:137), (34:432), (47:765), (34:351), (72:734), (47:743), (59:637), Sahih Muslim (3901), (4345), (4112), Abu Dawud (2150), (1814), (38:4458), (1:142) (693) and unreferenced sources Ibn Ishaq (734) and Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveler) (o9.13) | Note at 4.3, Ayats 33:50, 23:5-6, 70:29-30, 4:24, 8:69-71, 24:32, 2:178, 16:71-75 The Hadith and Sira quotations clearly demonstrate a bias to make them say what Mr. Terry wants them to. Slavery was an accepted practice that Mohammed nonetheless abhorred. The Koran sets down rules for the humane treatment of slaves that were absent in the Bible and in contemporary Arabic custom. Freeing a slave is the Islamic equivalent of a plenary indulgence in Catholicism. |
| Marry his daughter-in-law? | Quran 33:37 | Note at Sura 33 and Ayat 33:37 |
| Approve of prostitution | Quran 4:24, 5:87, Hadith, Sahih Muslim (8:3252) | Ayats 4:24 and 5:87 See also the note following 4:3. |
| Gluttonize | WikiIslam.net | This reference is really grasping at straws! The reference clearly states that "He had become heavy by reason of his age, and moreover he had put on two coats of mail." |
| Recommend wife-beating? | Quran 4:34 and 38:44 Hadith and Sira: | Ayat 4:34 and the note following. His translation of ayat 38:44 appears to be incorrect, since the subject matter has nothing to do with wives, but with reiterating the story of Job. |
| Hit his own wife? | Sahih Muslim, (4:2127) | Although Ayesha was the Prophet's favorite wife, the difference in their ages made their relationship less than idyllic. Ayesha was known sarcastically to criticize her husband when she thought he needed it. In this case, her smart aleck response to his question about her sneaking out of the house and running back seems to have sparked a fit of pique, hardly something unique to him, other Arabs, modern Muslims, or, for that matter, Christians. From all accounts of Ayesha's sassy temper, he was made deeply to regret the incident for long afterward. |
| Kill prisoners of war? | Hadith: Abu Dawud (38:4390 and following | The "Lex Talonis,", Exodus 21:23 and following, was the contemporary standard for justice in Arabia. With respect to the treachery of the Jewish Banu Qurayza after the Battle of the Trench, they were allowed to select their own judge, Sa'ad ibn Mua'dh, who imposed the Jewish judgment of Deuteronomy 20:10-14 upon them. See the introduction to Sura 33, "The Confederates |
| Advocate suicide attacks? | Quran 4:74, 9:111, 2:207, 61:10-12 and 17:33, Hadith: Sahih Bukhari (52:54), (52:53), (52:46), (64:211), Sahih Muslim (20:4678), (20:4655), (20:4681), (20:4635), (55:93), (19:4450), Jami' At-Tirmidhi, Vol. 3, No. 1663, p. 410, Sunan Ibn Majah | Koran:, 4:74, 9:111, 2:207, 61:10-12 and 17:33 Dying in the pursuit of a noble cause, including battle, has been considered deserving of eternal reward in many cultures and religious, Christians cite the example of Jesus and the early Christian martyrs. |
| Kill apostates? | Quran 4:89, 9:11-12, 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, 9:66. Hadith: Sahih Bukhari (52:260), (83:37), (84:57), (89:271), (84:58), (84:64-65), (11:626), Abu Dawud (4346) and unreferenced sources al-Muwatta of Imam Malik (36.18.15) and Reliance of the Traveler (Islamic Law) o8.1 | Koran:, 2:256, 4:89, 9:11-12, 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54 and 9:66. There is a profound difference between professing another religion and repudiating Islam. The former is considered a sacred civil right, the latter a mortal sin, much like "falling away" from Christianity. In addition, the early Islamic community was plagued by traitors who pretended to be converts but in fact were working for the Prophet's enemies. The penalty for treason has often been death in many cultures, including our own. |
| Tell sick persons to heal themselves by drinking camel urine? | Hadith: Anas bin Malik 8/82/797 | Ancient Arabia was home to many medicinal practices that would seem strange today. In the case cited, "...they went and drank it and... became healthy." Maybe they were on to something. |
| Beat children for not praying? | Hadith: As-Saburah (2:0494) | As in modern religions, there is a minimum "age of accountability" in Islam, in this case, seven years, the same as for Catholic children. Muslim children were expected to pray until age ten, when they were required to do so. |
| Have boys as young as 13 beheaded? | Hadith: Atiyyah al-Qurazi 38/4390 | See the introduction to Sura 33, Al-Ahzab. The punishment imposed on the "males" of the treacherous Banu Qurayza was required by the Bible, specifically Deuteronomy 20:13. Male children, those who had not reached sexual maturity, were allowed to survive as slaves. |
| Have eleven wives at one time? | Hadith: Sahih Bukhari (5:268) | According to WikiIslam, Mohammed married fifteen women, eleven at one time. Two of these were never consummated. He also had four concubine slaves. No doubt there were stories of him visiting all of them each night, but it was known that Sawda bint Zam'a gave up her "turn" to Ayesha, so it is likely that the various wives took "turns" with their husband, a common practice in Arabia at the time. Given his popularity, there were no doubt exaggerated rumors of his sexual prowess (and apparent ability entirely to forego sleep). |
| Approve of sex with children? | Quran 65:4 | Koran: 65:1-4 The reference here is to sex after divorce, not with children. |
| Lie? | Quran 16:106, 3:28, 9:3, 40:28, 2:225, 3:54, 8:30, 10:21 Hadith and Sira: Sahih Bukhari (52:269), (49:857), (84:64-65), (50:369), Sahih Muslim (32:6303), and an unreferenced source "Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2)" | Koran:, 16:106, 3:28, 9:3, 40:28, 2:225, 3:54, 8:30 and 10:21 Given the tactical advantage of disinformation in a society often at war, it is no surprise that it is permitted and, in some cases, required by the religion that was developing in that atmosphere. Given current practices of "disinformation" "alternate facts," "false information," "non literal understanding," and outright lies at the highest levels of our own society, modern Americans, including Mr. Terry, are hardly in a position to condemn this practice. |
| Enslave women and children? | Hadith: Ibn Ishaq | See the introduction to Sura 33, Al-Ahzab. |
| Stone adulterers to death? | Hadith and Sira, Sahih Bukhari (6:60:79), (83:37), Sahih Muslim (17:4191-2), (17:4196), (17:4206), (17:4209) and an unsupported reference to Ibn Ishaq (970) and "Islamic Law." | Stoning to death was the accepted method of capital punishment for adultery in Leviticus 20:10 and following and Deuteronomy 22:21-24. Stoning "with stones" is mentioned 22 times in the King James Bible. When presented with a woman caught in adultery, Jesus did not condemn the practice, but allowed "the one among you who is without sin" to cast the first one. |
| Torture someone out of greed? | Muhammad and the Death of Kinana | This narrative is about the one-sided Battle of Khaybar between Medina and the Banu Nadir, who lost. Part of the peace treaty required their treasurer, Kinana, to give up the tribal treasure, but Kinana claimed that he didn't know where it was. He was tortured until his memory about it returned, and then beheaded as punishment for his duplicity. See the introduction to Sura 62: Al-Jumu'ah, |
| Consider men and women equal partners? | Quran, (4:11), (2:282), (2:228), (5:6), (24:31), (2:223), (4:3), (53:27), (4:24), (33:50) Hadith and Sira: Sahih Bukhari (6:301), (6:301), (2:28), S(54:464), (62:81), (62:58), Sahih Muslim (4:1039), Abu Dawud (2:704), (2155), and unreferenced sources Ishaq 593, Ibn Ishaq (693), Al-Tirmidhi 3272, Tabari VIII:117, Tabari IX:137, Ishaq 969 and Tabari Vol 9, Number 1754 | Koran: (4:11), (2:282), (2:228), (5:6), (24:31), (2:223), (4:3), (53:27), (4:24), (33:50). It is certain that women were considered property in ancient Arabia, and this fundamental relationship was not abrogated by Islam. However, Sura 4, An-Nisa sets down certain regulations that were, at the time, remarkably progressive. Saint Paul tried something similar with the Corinthians and Ephesians almost six centuries previously. |
| Steal? | Quran, 5:38, 2:85, 66:9, 8:69, 48:20, 33:27 Hadith and Sira:, Sahih Bukhari (81:780), (44:668), (81:792), Abu Dawud (38:4373), Ibn Kathir (vol. 3, p.430), and unreferenced source Ahmad 4869, *Ibin Ishaq 327, 503 and 764. | Koran: 5:38, 2:85, 66:9, 8:69, 48:20, 33:27 *Mecca obtained its municipal income from polytheistic worship, while Medina had accepted the idea of one God, Allah. As a result, Mecca and Medina were at constant war. The Jewish Banu Nadir were active allies of Mecca, secretly raising an army against Medina. Thus, they were anything but "a peaceful community of Jewish farmers." The reason they "did not even know they were at war until Muhammad led his men against their town one morning" was that they ignorantly underestimated the Medina forces' ability quickly to maneuver, and had foolishly neglected even the most basic tactical security. After their disastrous loss, they signed a peace treaty to pay reparations in return for being uncharacteristically allowed to survive and keep their land. In direct violation of the treaty, however, their treasurer, Kinana, refused to honor the deal until he was tortured into changing his mind and doing his duty. His widow was part of the reparation package, originally claimed by a lieutenant from whom Mohammed purchased her. All of this was standard military practice at the time. See also the introduction to Sura 62: Al-Jumu'ah, |
| Kill someone for insulting him? | Muhammad's Dead Poets Society: The assassinations of satirical poets in early Islam | This website contains historical anecdotes and commentary by James M. Arlandson, another islamophobe. The incidents cited demonstrate that it was manifestly unwise in Arabia publicly to ridicule one's conqueror during a period of total war. |
| Preach love for people of all religions? | Quran Sura 9:30 and following | Koran: Sura 9:30 and following It is important to remember that Mohammed was driven out of Mecca by people dedicated to the total destruction of his religion, not the other way around. |
| Extort money from religious minorities? | Quran Sura 9:29 Hadith and Sira: Sahih Muslim (19:4294), (1:33), Sahih Bukhari (53:386), (41:19), Abu Dawud 3006 and unreferenced sources Ishaq 956 & 962. | Koran: Sura 9:30 Jizya is a tax on non-Muslim members of a Muslim community, somewhat equivalent to "nonresident alien tax status" in the United States. Payment by a conquered people is an admission of surrender and requires a cessation of hostilities on both sides. Withholding it dishonorably violates the agreed upon terms of surrender. See the introduction to Sura 9: Al-Tawba and Sura 62: Al-Juma'ah |
| Keep women as sex slaves? | Quran:, 4:24 | Koran:: 4:24 |
| Force conversions to Islam? | Quran, 8:38-39, 9:29, 2:256, 9:5, 9:11, 9:56-57, 2:193, 3:83, Hadith and Sira: Sahih Muslim (1:33), (19:4294), The al-Qaeda Reader p. 19-20), Sahih Bukhari (8:387), (53:392), (2:24), (60:80), (60:40), (59:643) and unreferenced sources Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959 and Ibn Kathir (Commenting on Quran 2:256 in the unabridged version of his tafsir) | The fundamental difference in all the conflicts noted, from mild arguments to total war, was that one side was Muslim and the other side was not. These wars were not fought over land or resources or political power, they were fought over ideology. The goal for each combatant was to kill or, preferably, convert the enemy. Every soldier (on either side) could win, run away, die, or convert. There were no other options. |
| Encourage acts of terror? | The referenced website, "http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes," appears to have been deleted. | |
| Kill a woman? | The Death of 'Asma' Bint Marwan | This narrative is about the purported murder of two of Mohammed's outspoken enemies, Abu Afak and Asma Bint Marwan, by persons loyal to the Prophet. If true, it demonstrates the unwisdom of sedition during a period of armed conflict. |
| Capture and rape a woman? | Sahih Bukhari (46.718) | This particular example, the only one cited, does not even suggest that the woman was not a willing participant. In any case, as a captive in battle, it was lawful for her captor to have sex with her. The question here is about coitus interruptus, which was discouraged because it inhibits impregnation. |
| Encourage the rape of women in front of their husbands? | Hadith: Abu Dawud (2150) | The Muslims in this case were reluctant to have intercourse with (not necessarily rape) their female captives in the presence (in the same POW camp, but not necessarily in front) of their former husbands, but the fact that the wives were captives from vanquished unbelievers revoked their marriages and made them lawful sexual partners of the captors under Islam. Had the husbands converted (or won, or better protected their families), the outcome would have been decidedly different. |
To make sure I was not judging hastily, I reviewed the second episode, "The Battle of Badr," There is a web page about this event in Wikipedia and a brief synopsis in the Introduction to Sura 8, Al-Anfal. Basically, this was the first major battle between Muslim Medina and pagan Mecca. Motivated by a belief that fighters who died in battle would be rewarded with Paradise, while those who ran away would be condemned to hell, the Muslims unexpectedly won a decisive (some say miraculous) victory over a force three times as large. (Three and a half centuries later, Pope Urban II made the same promise to Crusaders who died in battle murdering Muslims. Their outcome was, ah, somewhat different.) Not surprisingly, Muslims see this event in much the same light as Jews view the Crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:10-31). Mr. Terry's conclusion is that the historical attention to and theological interpretation of this event necessarily and inevitably makes all Muslims warlike.
Grandma Nina's conclusion about the news coverage of Apollo 8 were that the newscasters were all going to hell because they were heathen liars.
I think the foregoing more than fulfills the requirements of friendship, even though I didn't review all of Mr. Terry's prejudiced and misinformed presentation. I don't see any reason to contaminate my mind with any more of this crap! What I did review leads me to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Terry, regardless of his motivation, is basically a clever apologist for terrorism. I am concerned that many, perhaps hundreds, perhaps thousands of his viewers will either: 1) use his remarks as an excuse to commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam, or 2) come to hate Islam and its adherents in direct violation of the commandment of Jesus that we "love one another." In my opinion, Mr. Terry's remarks are like those of the "false prophets" about whom Jesus warned us, who are quite capable of making the unwary viewer lose his soul. I think we should definitely beware of them, and perhaps fear them as well.
I am reminded of the TV series "The X-Files," in which FBI agent Fox Mulder wanted passionately to believe in supernatural and extraterrestrial phenomena. His partner, physician Dana Scully, was assigned to keep him from going off the deep end. Like agent Mulder, too many of us "want to believe" in the supposed evil of Islam and the likelihood of winning a war against them, should we foolishly start one out of ignorance or otherwise. We need to keep in mind, however, that, unlike the 600 million disperate inhabitants of NATO countries, Muslims constitute one-fifth of the world's population, and, unlike westerners, have no problem suffering and dying for centuries, if necessary, in defense of their faith and way of life. The Crusades should have demonstrated the absolute necessity of loving them as Jesus Christ has loved us.
Incidentally, this is not a suggestion! Christians who repudiate the one command of their own God and then count on Him for victory against His other, more dedicated, worshippers are likely in for a nasty surprise!
Finally, if we were at war with Islam, what would be the criterion for winning? I didn't find a specific answer, but from what I did view, the conclusion is obvious. Our world today is one of intercontinental nuclear ballistic missiles and biological weapons. I believe that anyone who advocates elimination of fourteen hundred million people, regardless his arguments, is an enemy of the entire human race, which includes me and mine.
To quote Samantha Bee, "That's why all of us need to start being a little less Mulder and a little more Scully."
Here are some other thoughts that occurred to me. Quotes are from the King James Bible, links are to one American Catholics use.
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Luke 6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 16:3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Matthew 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Luke 12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
By the way, you can download a book containing the most convincing arguments for belief in the flat earth, Terra Firma, the Earth is Not a Planet, Proved From Scripture, Reason and Fact by David Wardlaw Scott from here. Regardless of the arguments therein, the earth is still a planet, and it's round, not flat.
* There is a Wikipedia article about Mr. Terry. I have always been suspicious of people referred to as "pro-life activists," especially those who violate the law. To me, getting arrested for interfering with the lawful activities of other citizens, no matter how repugnant, is no more noble or praiseworthy than getting arrested for child molestation, especially if one is found guilty. I strongly suspect that highly publicized, so-called "pro-life" activities have a profoundly negative effect, just like the ISIS attacks. They may well convince others that the "pro-lifers" are a bunch of self-centered, holier-than-thou, religious fanatics. They certainly seem determined to impose their religious beliefs on others by intimidation, force, violence and terrorism, including murder, if necessary - just like other religious extremists. In lawyer talk, Res ipse dixit!
My own views about abortion are on record. I am second to none in my belief that unborn humans should be "persons" before the law, a consideration examined hypothetically in Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade. However, the fact is that they are not! Believing otherwise, no matter how passionately, is not going to change that fact! I am deeply offended and ashamed that so many of my fellow Catholics spend their time, effort and resources criticizing the Surpreme Court. They thus create public support for legislation like the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act rather than supporting legislation that would recognize the essential humanity of the unborn.
One has to wonder whether all the money spent on anti-abortion "demonstrations," including the annual "March for Life," would be better donated to positive causes. These might include prepartum care facilities like our local Morning Star Pregnancy Care Center, or providing specialized obstetrical care to frightened, abandoned teenage girls like my registered obstetric nurse daughter does.
I might be more inclined to listen to Mr. Terry talk about war if he had any personal experience with it, or considered the lives of soldiers and gynecologists equally as sacred as those of unwanted children. His condemnation of Islam strikes me as having the same moral authority, or lack thereof, as "pro-life" comments about the murder of Doctors George Tiller and David Gunn.
And on another subject...
I was introduced to Muslims during family Christmas dinner in a restaurant years ago. Although I had eaten there many times, I had not seen this particular staff before. Our startlingly attractive waitress informed me that her uncle owned the restaurant and that her family was Muslim. The entire family: brother, sister, mom, dad, aunts and uncles, had come in to run the restaurant so that the Christians who normally worked there could have Christmas day off. Thus began a close friendship with her and her wonderful family that persists to this day. They have inspired me to study Islam and compile what I believe is an accurate translation of and commentary on the scriptural basis of their faith.
As a result of this friendship, I became the godfather of her best friend, a lovely, charming and exceptionally intelligent lady who was left behind when the family emigrated from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Today the family members are all valuable, productive American citizens. Our former waitress is a highly respected family practice physician. My goddaughter was awarded a doctorate in physics from the University of Queensland and is now a lecturer at Swinburne University in Australia. Her success, in my opinion, is due in large part, to the love of truth and knowledge she learned from her Muslim upbringing.
None of them are at war with anybody - and the earth isn't flat, either.