Fake Attributions
Dean
You know, it's fun sometimes to find quotes that seem spooky on the internet, but it's really annoying when you find that people have simply made crap up. Take this thing I recently got in email:
Koran ( 9:11 ) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, wh ile some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.
(Note the verse number!) Hmmm mmmm?! God Bless you all Amen !
Nice thought. I'd love it to be true. But it's a bunch of crap. I've got four translations I've checked and that entire section of the Koran is about how to deal with non-Muslims, and basically says that as long as unbelievers are honorable and keep their word and/or treaties with you you should leave them in peace and even offer them protection if they ask for it. There's not a single reference to eagles or birds or even Arabs in it.
Why do people just make crap like this up? This may not be quite as egregious as Noam Chomsky's pernicious assertion that anyone who questions his patriotism is working in the tradition of Stalin or Hitler--I mean at least this is meant to be a nice thought and not a smear--but it's still a lie. Yeesh.
Last time I heard this one -- quite a while back -- the verse number wasn't 9:11, and the Eagle lost to the glorious armies of Allah. Some LGF-style nutjob was claiming it was a Koranic verse that motivated the jihadis to believe it was their destiny to fight us.
It has mutated in quite an unexpected direction!
Does the Koran even use "it is written"? I'd think that would be what people say when they are quoting the Koran, not out of the Koran itself.
Which entire section? The entire section is 9:Repentance and talks about much more than just how to deal with non-Muslims. For instance it tells you what to think of them in several places. Example:
It also makes all sorts of derogatory statements about non-Muslims like they are liars and evil.
... and lies about disbelievers
in various places
Pretty damn charitable interpretation on your part. It starts out with ...
That doesn't sound like it's advocating the honoring of treaties.
That's referring to the four holy months.
Wow, more claiming that Muslims need not live by their treaties with non-Muslims.
Here it seems to indicate that they might have to obey some treaties but with some huge exceptions. Exceptions you could drive a truck through. After all what does "supporting anyone against you" mean. Seems it can merely mean taking sides on the issue of whether Mohammed is a real prophet or not. What does "abated nothing of your right" mean. Well this depends on what your rights are. Mohammed claims the right to worship at other peoples holy places. So it seems like if they were blocked from some other religious holy sites that would lead to a dissolving of the treaty.
Well this seems to indicate that once the four months are up well anything goes. Not just anything goes but Muslims are commanded to slaughter, with the exception if the "repent and establish worship". Of course this means that they convert to Islam, as is clear from many other places in the Qur’an. We must remember the context; this is the Qur’an, not a guide by Miss Manners.
Note the obscenity of this. There is no indication that they inform their former treaty partners that they intend to break the treaty. There is no real moral obligation to be fair here at all. Heck if one guy from the other side attacks someone, makes the slightest show of support for someone you don't like then, well, "Have at em".
How noble! What a protection racket! This just says to give refuge to traitors of the other side and then to indoctrinate them in Islam.
Muslims don't have to honor treaties that you didn't happen to make in a place of worship. I wonder if they still expect the other side to honor them. I also wonder whether only Muslim places of worship count.
More easily avoided claptrap about being true to the treaty if the other side is true. Given all the exceptions and caveats it's easy to see the non-Muslim side with suspicion. In fact this surah just spent two sentences spreading needless suspicion on the non-believer.
More suspicion. This is a howler. How can you trust those damn non-Muslims to honor a treaty if you don't have your foot on their throat.
What kind of a twisted mind comes up with this kind of stuff?
More lies about non-Muslims. Derogatory lies that would tend to influence someone to violate their treaties.
This merciful sounding part doesn't even apply to non-Muslims. After all if they repent and establish worship then they aren't non-believers anymore are they?
Wow. This tends to indicate that these "treaties" contained blaspheme clauses. Thus treaty violation could consist merely of saying "Hey, that Mohammed prophet guys a fake so I don't worship his Allah". Tends to support that 9:4 was indeed a very low bar to meet before you can violate treaties. Seems quite one sided. Mohammed can go around deriding the polytheist deities and invade their places of worship as he pleases with his blaspheme and if anyone object well then they are treaty breakers and must die.
Hardly likely! Mohammed was almost always the first to attack.
I could go on this way but let me skip around a little to make some points.
That certainly does not indicate any form of tolerance, although I agree it does sound like providing "protection". Protection in the sense of a Mafia racket. "You sure have some nice merchandise here. You wouldn't want anything to happen to it" kind of protection.
Dean you seem to have forgotten to mention this part. Apparently, Christians and Jews are little more than idolaters, hypocritical ones at that, polytheists in monotheist clothing. Well all those nasty things that are laid out for idolaters might just also apply to them; depending on the mood of the Muslim.
Wage war on all idolaters! Immediately after claiming that they also include Jews and Christians! That only three passages back and lest you think this is unrelated consider that two of the intervening passages being slurs against Jews and Christians, and the last a claim that Islam will prevail over all religion.
That certainly doesn't seem like sage advice, nor does it seem a recommendation for reasonable behavior. Must they war against all? In fact it seems like an insane over generalization worthy of the worse crazed Internet flamer.
Let's repeat that to let it sink in.
That's the mindset of this book the Qur’an. One guy on the other side or a few oppose you and therefore it's the whole world against the Muslims in a bloody war. That meshes just nicely with the conditions for violating treaties. Muslims are not bound to treaties if the other side attacks. Since everyone is at war against them then, apparently, treaties don’t bind Muslims at all, according to the Qu’ran.
To paraphrase what some guy once said, "You can find justification to do anything between the pages of the Quran".