Read the Quran Online

Lots of web sites have the entire Quran available to read in English online:

A Chronological Qur'an

NobleQuran

The Koran

The Quran

Pickthall's Quran

Yusuf Ali Quran

Rodwell's Koran

Quran

The Project Gutenberg Ebook of The Koran

Read more...

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Lied

I KNOW THAT sounds like a harsh thing to say, but please bear with me for a moment. I'm reading the book, Infiltration. I've had the book for awhile, but didn't start reading it until last night. On the first page of the first chapter, I was surprised to see something about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque proposal. Infiltration was published in 2005, long before the mosque controversy. Here are the first three paragraphs of the first chapter:

A year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the FBI invited the head of an influential Arab-rights group to speak about Islam to about four hundred new agents in the auditorium of the FBI Academy, the bureau's high-security training campus hidden in the woods of Quantico, Virginia, about an hour south of Washington. The lecture by Dr. Ziad Asali, then-president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, was mandatory and lasted one hour. Asali, a Palestinian refugee, "talked about how peaceful their religion is, and how not to offend Muslims...showing respect for their culture, things like that," says FBI Academy spokesman Kirk Crawford.

And at least four times the following year, the FBI's New York field office held all-day sensitivity training sessions, not far from Ground Zero, featuring Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Masjid al-Farah mosque. Speaking for about two hours each session, "he gave an overview of Islamic culture and some of the differences between what fundamentalist terrorist groups say are the teachings of the Quran and what he believes, as a student of religion, the Quran actually says," says special agent James Margolin, spokesman for the FBI New York office.

For example, Rauf asserted that the Quran, the sacred book of Muslims, "certainly doesn't counsel terrorism, murder, or mayhem," Margolin says. And he said terrorists have misinterpreted the Quranic term jihad to mean violent, or armed, struggle against nonbelievers. Rauf claims it means internal struggle.

Jihad means "struggle in the way of Allah," as Rauf certainly understands. But to say it doesn't mean warfare and really means "internal struggle" is a blatant lie. I can say it's a lie rather than he is merely misinformed or has misinterpreted the writings or taken them out of context, because he is an imam. He has surely not only read the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sira, he has studied them. He knows full well what is in those texts.
And in the Hadith, which is the bulk of Islamic doctrine (see graphic), 97 percent of the references to jihad refer to armed warfare against unbelievers. Three percent refers to an internal struggle.
He knows this. And yet what did he tell FBI agents in New York? When he was brought in to educate FBI agents about Islam, for security reasons, what did he tell them? That jihad does not mean armed warfare or violence against unbelievers. It means inner struggle. What do you think — would accepting Rauf's statement help or hinder people in national security to inhibit jihadist activities?
Let this sink in. Ninety-seven percent versus three percent, and he is saying jihad does not mean armed struggle, it means an internal struggle? That is a blatant, bald-faced lie.
Why would he do this? To protect Islam. To advance Islam. It's part of his struggle in the way of Allah.

In other words, his statement to the FBI is jihad.
This is our representative of a "moderate Muslim leader?" He's smooth, I'll concede that much. He knows how to effectively use phrases like "interfaith dialogue," "building bridges," and "religious tolerance." But he clearly hindered American security when he had a chance to do so. And his lie is a deliberate deception, meant only to serve Islam's prime directive.

Read more...

"You're Taking the Verses of the Quran Out of Context"

THIS IS ANOTHER in our series, Answers to Objections. On one of my articles, I received a comment I've heard many times:

I have been a Muslim all my life. Westerners in general love to take the verses of the Quran out of their historical context and just blindly accuse Islam and the Quran of violence. For your information, many of the "violent" verses were revealed to prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) when he was at state of war with the pagans of Makkah. So read the reason of revelation very carefully. Then you will understand what those verses were intended for.

I posted several responses, and I thought they might give you some good ideas of how to approach this objection. Here is part of my response:

I'm going to answer you in several ways, not because I believe I will change your mind, but because everyone who comes after you to read these comments may learn something from our interaction.

First of all, I have gotten many comments like yours. In fact, I've gotten so many that I wrote a "standard" answer which you can read here:

Message to Peaceful Muslims

My more specific response to what you're saying is this:

1. According to mainstream Islam since the time of Mohammad, the Quran is the perfect, unalterable, eternal word of Allah.

2. It says in the Quran 91 times a Muslim must follow the example of Mohammad.

3. Mohammad was intolerant and violent toward non-Muslims, repeatedly and consistently, as soon as he had the power to do so. He ordered the assassinations of those who insulted him or Islam. He ordered and personally oversaw the beheading of his political prisoners. He raided and plundered and conquered for the last ten years of his life. This is not history as told by his enemies, but history as told in the Sira and the Hadith, written by devout Muslim believers.

4. There are not many peaceful passages in the Quran, but what few exist have all been abrogated by more intolerant and even violent verses revealed to Mohammad later in his prophetic career. Read more about that here: Definition of Abrogation.

My next response quotes from an excellent article entitled, Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?:

"[Although] Islam's original enemies were...historical (e.g., Christian Byzantines and Zoroastrian Persians), the Qur'an rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—'until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled' and to 'slay the idolaters wherever you find them.'

"The two Arabic conjunctions 'until' (hata) and 'wherever' (haythu) demonstrate the perpetual and ubiquitous nature of these commandments: There are still "people of the book" who have yet to be 'utterly humbled' (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and 'idolaters' to be slain 'wherever' one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa). In fact, the salient feature of almost all of the violent commandments in Islamic scriptures is their open-ended and generic nature: 'Fight them [non-Muslims] until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely.' Also, in a well-attested tradition that appears in the hadith collections, Muhammad proclaims:

"I have been commanded to wage war against mankind until they testify that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God; and that they establish prostration prayer, and pay the alms-tax [i.e., convert to Islam]. If they do so, their blood and property are protected."

And my final response to the objection was this:

And finally, whether you believe the Quran commands you to be intolerant or violent towards non-Muslims, many Muslims do obviously believe it, and they are using the Quran to justify their violence against non-Muslims all over the world, and they have been doing so for 1400 years.

It has been such a consistent theme, a web site keeps track of all the violence committed in the name of Islam around the world, and has been doing so since 9/11. As of today, September 2nd, 2010, fifteen thousand, nine hundred and sixty-six attacks on non-Muslims have been committed since 9/11, and most of these attacks have killed and wounded many people.

Citizen Warrior is a web site devoted to helping non-Muslims understand where this perpetual hostility against them is coming from and figuring out what to do about it. If you'd like to start a web site for Muslims that would convince them of what you're trying to convince me of, I would applaud your efforts.

But if you're trying to convince me that because you don't believe the Quran encourages violence against non-Muslims then none of the rest of the Muslims do either (or that the Quran really doesn't encourage intolerance and violence toward non-Muslims), I think your task is hopeless. I have read the Quran cover to cover.

So that's how I handled this particular objection. I would love to hear what you have done, or how you might answer it, or if you have anything you could add. Either post it right into the comments, or email me and I can post your response for you.

Read more...

A Quick Conversation About Islam and the Ground Zero Mosque

I was talking with a woman I work with, and I was saying something about mosques when one of my workmates walked up. He and I have talked a bit about Islam, so he was interested in knowing what I thought about the Ground Zero mosque controversy. So he asked me. It was almost like a challenge, but in a friendly way. I could tell he was curious how I would respond.

I said, "I don't think they should be allowed to build mosques anywhere in the United States."

He looked taken aback. This was an unexpected answer. Now, he and I like each other even though we have sometimes strongly opposing viewpoints on things. I asked him, "Why do you think it's okay for them to build mosques in the U.S.?"

It's always good, if you don't know what to say next, to ask a good question. He said, firmly, like he was standing on solid ground, "Because I believe in freedom of religion. I believe that's what America is about."

I said, "I believe in freedom of religion too, and one of the fundamental principles of Islam is that freedom of religion is a sin and a crime, and as soon as orthodox Muslims gain some political power they will take it away, as they have already done in every Muslim country. If you believe in freedom of religion, you should definitely not want them building mosques in the U.S. In at least seventy-five percent of the mosques in America, they preach the undermining, sabotaging, and ultimately overthrowing the government of the United States. This is sedition. We shouldn't allow any more mosques to be built until we have a way of preventing this kind of undermining sabotage within our borders."

He said, "What about fundamentalist Christian groups?"

I said, "If there is a fundamentalist Christian group preaching the overthrow of the United States government, they should be tried for sedition! Absolutely. The difference, however, is that political action is not really a fundamental part of Christianity. But it is a fundamental part of Islam."

He didn't seem to know what to say. Then he said, "Well what do you think we ought to do about it?"

That's a great question. Now we were getting somewhere. Often, people don't want to hear this stuff because they can't think of any good resolutions to it, and what solutions they can think of are completely unacceptable, like internment camps or "exterminating Muslims." I said, "In Japan, after World War II, the U.S. had a kind of provisional government until they got their own government going."

He nodded as if he was familiar with this.

"...and they did something interesting. The Shinto religion was militant and was the driving force behind the Japanese aggression that got the war started. But the McCarthur government said, 'You go ahead and practice your Shinto religion of you want, and all you want. But it will not be allowed in the government or in the schools.' In other words, even though the religion didn't have that disctinction between political action and personal religious devotion, the distinction was imposed from the outside. And it worked. Maybe something like that could be done with Islam."

"But we already have a separation of church and state!" he said.

"Well, they're pretty good at keeping Christianity out of schools, but they've been allowing Islam in. Schools have been giving Muslims prayer time, some schools have changed the food served in the cafeteria to comply with halal standards, and most significantly, they've allowed Muslims to change what gets said in history books about Islam in American public schools."

He looked really surprised at this.

"Yeah, they set it up so that if any history textbooks in America mention Islam, it has to be approved by Muslims. A group of Muslims set themselves up as historical experts on Islam, and made it sound pretty reasonable — you know, let Muslims take a look at how Muslim history is portrayed, making sure it's accurate or balanced or whatever, but the Mulsim group scrubbed the image of Islam clean, presenting this benign, totally inaccurate picture of Islam's history. They would never allow Christians to do something like that! But Islam pushes and pushes until they find ways to get accomodations. That's what they do. Political action is a religious duty for them."

I could tell this conversation was going to have to end soon, so I said, "I remember once you said you would read the Quran. Have you read it?"

"No," he said, looking a little embarrassed.

"You've got to read it," I said. "It will surprise you. It says 91 times in the Quran that a Muslim should follow Mohammad's example. And you will be amazed at what kind of an example he set. I'll tell you what, there is a really good version of the Quran I recommend. I can send you a link to it if you want."

"Yeah, send me that."

"Okay." And I did. I sent him a link to the versions I recommend, and told him why they're better than other versions.

I thought about this conversation afterwards and I realized that one of the most important questions about the proposed mosque is whether the support of the mosque serves the freedom of religion or impairs it. And the question hinges on what the mosque represents, and what will be taught in the mosque. If it is orthodox Islam, it is necessarily supremacist and has the ultimate purpose of undermining, sabotaging, and ultimately overthrowing the government of the United States, and then doing away with "freedom of religion" altogether, just as can be demonstrated by the example of the existing Muslim countries today. The more strictly those countries follow Islamic doctrine, the less freedom of religion they have.

In other words, the question is more fundamental — for this mosque and any other mosque in the free world — than the particulars of this particular mosque, its location, its symbolism, etc.

If the mosque represents orthodox Islam, building it is a strike against freedom of religion. Preventing it being built, however, will serve the principle of freedom of religion. To get that point across (and explain it) would teach your listener a lot about Islam.

Read more...

An Index for the Quran

PETER FRIEDMAN, owner of Friedman Aviation Enterprises in Concord, California, has created an index for the Quran. Most books have an index, which makes it a lot easier to find what you're looking for. Peter made one for the Quran. And he's allowing us to make this freely available to everyone. It is on Google Docs as a PDF document.

We've got two different versions here, depending on which numbering system your Quran uses, Roman or Arabic. Download and print the one that matches your Quran:

Index for the Quran with Roman Numerals

Index for the Quran with Arabic Numerals

Look up chapter (sura) and verse to find what you're looking for in the Quran. Thank you, Peter Friedman, for this useful tool.

Read more...