Islam vs. the world

By Tom Quiner

Another victim of Islamic terrorism

Another victim of Islamic terrorism

World War III rages.
The latest casualties come from Nairobi, Kenya where some 62 men, women, and children were butchered.
Over in Pakistan, 19 more were blown up on a bus by the same aggressor.
Over in Iraq, eight people including women and children were blown into pieces at a Sunni commercial center. For the last week alone, Islam extremists killed 511 people around the world and critically injured another 573. Sixty-two of these deaths came at the hands of suicide Jihad attacks. The Muslim instigators of these suicide attacks are assured of going to heaven, according to Muslim Jihadist theology.
These attacks take place every day in every corner of the world.  Out of political correctness, the world does not label this unrelenting carnage for what it is, a war. Since the attacks touch large swaths of the world, it seems accurate to label it World War III.
How should the world fight back? It’s hard, since we’re not talking about a single nation. We’re talking about an entire religion with adherents residing in nations everywhere.
West coast radio talk show host and columnist, Dennis Prager, presented a novel approach:

“The answer lies with Muslims themselves. Specifically, it means that Muslim religious leaders around the world must announce that any Muslim who deliberately targets non-combatants for death goes to hell.”

Since Muslim who are targeting non-combatants do it because they believe it will send them directly to heaven where they will spend eternity in the company of a bevy of virgins, Prager’s idea is intriguing. He builds on the idea:

” … every imam in the world who is not a supporter of terror, the leaders of the most important Sunni institutions, such as the Al-Azhar Mosque and University in Cairo, and religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and the in Gulf states — must announce that any Muslim who participates in any deliberate attack on civilians goes to hell.
This must be announced as clearly and as repeatedly as, for example, Muslim condemnations of Israel.
Just as the promise of immediate entrance into paradise animates many Muslim terrorists, the promise of immediate hell would dissuade many Muslims from committing acts of terrorism. Just as the promise of 72 virgins animates many Muslim terrorists, the promise of hell would dissuade many Muslims from terrorism.”

Is this really plausible? To find out, I asked Dr. Stephen M. Kirby for his take on Prager’s idea. Dr. Kirby is the author of “Letting Islam be Islam.” He holds a Ph. D. in Foreign Affairs from the University of Virginia. Here is his unabridged response:

51vEG2iVU4L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA278_PIkin4,BottomRight,-61,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_“In response to the Muslim terrorist attack at the mall in Kenya and the subsequent massacre of mall patrons, Dennis Prager wrote an article titled, “Muslims Need to Confront Muslim Evil.”  In this article Prager called for Muslim religious leaders to “announce that any Muslim who deliberately targets non-combatants for death goes to hell.”  He believed this would dissuade many Muslims from committing such acts of terrorism.
It would be ideal for Muslim religious leaders to make such a statement, but does any Muslim religious leader today have the authority to do so?  Perhaps, but only if the subject has not already been addressed in the teachings of Muhammad or the commands of Allah found in the Koran.
Muslims believe that Muhammad was the timeless standard of good conduct for Muslims wishing to get into Paradise.  Muslims also believe that Muhammad spoke for Allah.  So what can we learn from Muhammad about the killing of non-combatants?
Hadiths are reports about the examples, ways, and teachings of Muhammad believed to have come from those who were with him and observed and heard them.  They are second only to the Koran in importance to Islam.  There are authoritative hadiths in which Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children.  However, there are other authoritative hadiths in which Muhammad was asked about attacking locations with the possibility of killing women and children; the women and children were not the target, but they could become “collateral damage.”  Muhammad approved such attacks because the women and children “were from them [the enemy/disbelievers].”
Muhammad himself ordered the killing of a number of non-combatant poets and others who had criticized him and/or Islam.  And after the defeat of the Jewish Bani Qurayzah tribe, Muhammad supervised the beheading of 600-900 males of the tribe; the only prerequisite was that they were post-pubescent.
And there were examples of Muslims killing non-combatant non-Muslims for criticizing Muhammad and/or Islam.  When Muhammad was told of these, he gave his approval.
So we can see that during the time of Muhammad the killing of non-combatants could be, and was, condoned.
At this point you are possibly thinking about all the “peaceful” verses in the Koran that would seemingly prohibit such actions.  So let’s consider the Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation.
The Koran was “revealed” to Muhammad over a period of about 22 years.  The Koran is considered by Muslims to be the infallible, pure word of Allah, eternal and perfect.  But the conditions of the Muslims changed over those 22 years, as they went from being a small group persecuted in Mecca to become a conquering force based in Medina with tens of thousands of Muslim warriors.  There were over 6,000 verses “revealed” during that time period, with some conflicting others.  Consequently, the Doctrine of Abrogation states that when there is a conflict between the messages of two verses, then the most recent “revelation” is the one to be followed.  This means a “revelation” made in Medina would supersede a similar, earlier “revelation” made in Mecca if there was a conflict between the two.
Among the final, unabrogated verses in the Koran is 9:5, referred to by Muslim scholars as the “Verse of the Sword”:
“Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.  But if they repent [by accepting Islam] and perform As-Salat (the prayers), and give Zakat (obligatory charity), then leave their way free.  Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
The Mushrikun are basically all non-Muslims, with no distinction being made here between combatant and non-combatants.  This command of Allah was followed during the time of Muhammad as Muslim warriors attacked unsuspecting towns to the battle cries of Kill! Kill! and O victorious one, slay, slay!.  And this unabrogated verse of the Koran that commands the killing of Mushrikun is still valid Islamic doctrine today, even though most Muslims choose not to abide by it.
And when talking about disbelievers in general, Muhammad supported the message of 9:5 by saying that there was to be no penalty for a Muslim who killed a disbeliever, making no distinction between combatant and non-combatant.
Following the teachings and example of Muhammad, and the commands of Allah found in the Koran are the best way to enhance a Muslim’s chances of getting into Paradise. And Muhammad and the Koran have already addressed the issue of killing non-combatants.  Prager finished his article with an insightful observation:
On the other hand, perhaps not that many Muslim religion leaders do believe that Muslim terrorists are going to hell.