The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)
This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Thursday, 4 July 2013

“If anyone slew a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people."




“If anyone slew a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as he saved the life of the whole people.” – The Koran, Sura 5:32 

The passage above is one which Muslims often – very often! - quote at non-Muslims. Basically, you hear it all the time at Interfaith meetings, in The Guardian, on the BBC, etc. In addition, try Googling the title phrase and you went get literally dozens of references to it; almost  all will be from Muslims or Islamic groups.

Here, however, is the passage in full:

 “… We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land [my italics]– it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to then our messengers with clear signs, yet even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

I had noted this passage (i.e., the first Interfaith two-liner version) for a long time and have frequently commented on how the middle clause is artfully and deceitfully circumcised from the larger passage to which it belongs. And then, later, I discovered that the opening clause is also always deleted by Muslims when they quote it at non-Muslims. That is, for a while I didn’t even know, because deliberate  misquotations of Muslims (or at least their use of Kitman) that the passage begins with the clause ‘We ordained for the Children of Israel’, which, of course, is followed by ‘that if anyone slew a person...’. In other words, all non-Muslims usually gets is: ‘If anyone slew a person…”

So not only is this ‘peaceful’ and pacifist passage not aimed at Muslims in the first place (it was aimed at Jews), on only a tiny bit of analysis it can be seen to be not very peaceful or positive in the first place!
Here’s another equally positive translation used by Muslim:

‘That whosoever killed a human being, it shall be deemed as though he had killed all mankind.’

The actual version, again, is:

‘That whosoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy [sometimes ‘mischief’] in the land, shall be deemed as though he had killed all mankind…’ [my italics.]

So let’s forget about the clause ‘We ordained for the Children of Israel’, which opens this passage, and talk about ‘villainy in the land’ instead. This, of course, prompts the question: What would be deemed as ‘villainy’ by Muslims? One can only guess! Actually, guesswork isn’t needed. Here’s a list of what has been and still is classed as ‘villainy in the land’ by Muslims:

apostasy, churches, the possession of Bibles, homosexuality, preaching a religion other than Islam, all criticism of Islam, Muhammad, the Koran, etc., not going to the mosque, sex outside marriage, atheism, ‘Zionism’, materialist philosophies and political views, secularism… basically, anything non-Islamic and certainly everything anti-Islamic.

Let’s not mess about here. Millions upon millions of Muslims today believe the very existence of people who are not Muslims, or lands that are not Islamic, are all examples of ‘villainy in the land’.
Finally, that passage is from the Torah (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5) anyway. It was stolen from Jewish Scripture, as Muhammad did so often.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now take this quotation (which can be found on the BBC’s ‘Bitesize’ website page, in the ‘Religious Studies’ section):

“All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve, an Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab; a white person is not better than a black person, nor is a black person better than a white person except by piety and good actions.”

Again, this actually began life, according to Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni (writing in the 9th Century), as Mohammed (possibly) saying this:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.”

Aquil Ahmed, BBC's Head of Religion & Ethics
The BBC actually introduces the first BBC-version in this way:


“… there is no reason to treat people of different races differently. The Prophet Muhammad showed how important this teaching was in his last sermon, when he said…”

That BBC introduction to Islam (which can be accessed in Paul Weston's article) is one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever read. It's outright dawah on behalf of Islam. It’s hard to know where to begin.

It says that Muhammad said all this:

“All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve, an Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab; a white person is not better than a black person, nor is a black person better than a white person except by piety and good actions.”

That is as close to an outright as you can get without being blatantly obvious about it (to non-Muslims). Fair enough, all religious texts are updated into the contemporary idiom; but this is ridiculous because it says Muhammad said these things in that way. It doesn’t claim to be a paraphrase or anything. Indeed much of what is said in that BBC-version couldn’t possibly be seen as a translation or even a paraphrase.

I know for a fact that Muhammad wouldn’t have had the concept of a ‘white person’. Or even of an ‘Arab’ in generic terms. He would have thought of specific tribes, specific religions, and cultures/communities. He wouldn't have even thought in terms of a ‘black person’ either. After all the Liberal-Left has repeatedly been telling us that such ‘racial awareness’ was a product of the 19th century; yet here’s the BBC making Muhammad sound like a graduate from Neasden Polytechnic. This is disgusting stuff.

Muhammad would never have thought in such racial terms at all. He would have thought exclusively in religious and tribal terms. This is the language of the 1960s (and onwards) foisted upon an uneducated warrior who lived in the 7th century. How ridiculous!

Apart from all that, it is historically false in another way. Muhammad and the Arabs hated black Arabs. Nevertheless, it wouldn't have been based on racial grounds (in the manner of the BBC quote above). It would have been based primarily on black Africans not been Muslim and Arabic. Muhammad was a culturalist (proud of the superiority of Arabic tribes, culture and religion/Islam) about black Africans; not a racist. That Arabic arrogance towards black Africans, which underpinned the massive Muslim slave trade, would have been cultural and religious in nature; though it came to be racial too in the 19th and 20th centuries - right up until today.

And just as the original Koranic passage about killing a single person was actually stolen from the Jewish Torah, so the passage used by the BBC was actually stolen – or very likely stolen – from the Bible. More specifically, from Galatians 3:28-29 (King James Version). That passage reads thus:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, what has just been shown are two cases of the Islamic use of taqiyya and Kitman.

Islamic taqiyya (as far as it applies and matters to non-Muslims) is lying, dissimulating, obfuscating, etc. to defend and/or advance Islam. Kitman is the omitting of salient (negative) facts about Islam, or Koranic passages, when communicating with non-Muslims. This latter Islamic device is even more relevant for the first passage discussed; whereas outright taqiyya is more noticeable in the passage about racial tolerance (or political correctness) supposedly uttered by Muhammad.

When Muslim scholars quote the ‘to kill one person’ they know they are lying. Perhaps some Muslims only ever get the doctored version; but I doubt that. The second Muhammad-the-anti-racist passage is even worse to some degree; though, thankfully, it is not repeatedly pushed in our faces as the first passage is. So in the cases of these passages only, the scholars are lying, those beneath them are lying and other Muslims may well just be plainly ignorant about them.
 
*) Note

After finishing this piece, I came to realise that not even the toned-down version couldn't have been said by Muhammad. It too is in the contemporary idiom, both conceptually and expressively, and not something an Arab of that time would have said. Here’s the passage again:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly.”

According to the linguists and Biblical scholars I have consulted, the phrase “Muslims constitute one brotherhood" could not have been said in Arabic. It is an entirely Indo-European (indeed English, but Latin would convey it just as well) construct. It is also doubtful that there was a word in Mohammed's Arabic for 'mankind', unless it was a word similar to the Hebrew ‘Adam’, meaning man/Man.

*) I also noted that the “If anyone slew a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people” soundbite is hardly ever – if at all – used amongst Muslims. It is always quoted at non-Muslims. That means that this severely doctored passage is designed specifically to be read at - or spoken to – people who aren’t Muslims.

No comments:

Post a Comment