Salim Mansur Writes a Book on Islam and Ignores Parts of the Koran He Just Doesn't Like

Salim Mansur, associate professor at the University of Western Ontario and columnists for several national papers, has just published a book on Islam titled: Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim. His book is excerpted in two articles at the National Post, here and here.

Mansur makes an incredible statement in this quote below excerpted from his book. It is absurd because it is coming from someone who professes to be a Muslim, and who must have at some point read the Koran.

The Koran's command about there being no coercion in religion was cast aside [during the skirmishes between Muslims soon after Mohammed’s death], and Islam in its Arabian environment came to be inseparable from the power and sweep of the sword.

This clearly defies explicit verses by the Koran where, according to Robert Spencer’s latest book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran "Muslims have the responsibility to fight the Infidels (4:89, 2:191, 9:5) and subjugate the People of the Book under the rule of Islamic law (9:29)."

Not only are Muslims mandated by Koranic verses to subjugate (Spencer doesn’t say coercion but subjugation, but isn’t that just splitting hairs?) the infidels, but the message in the Koran is clear; it is a book of subjugation, of bringing everyone into the religion of Mohammed. Such totalitarianism is surely a precursor to violence, since if everyone has to be Muslim, then those that have no desire to be Muslim can only be forced to do so.

I don’t know what version of the Koran Mansur reads - his version could be lost in translation - and what type of Islam he practices (he calls himself Ismaili, who profess to be the "peaceful" Muslims, which then means they don’t agree with the Koran, which means they are not Muslims – that circular argument we have with "moderate" Muslims).

But the danger here is that his book will be widely read by the Canadian public eager to call Islam a religion of peace, and who now have it on record, by a "Muslim" no less, that it is indeed so.

Another dangerous book that shouldn’t be on the shelves in our bookstores.

Spencer's Absurdities, Again

Robert Spencer was recently interviewed on Frontpage Magazine, where he talks about his new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran. As usual, Spencer is adept at quoting Koranic verses and explaining them to some extent, and I believe he has made tremendous contributions in that regard. But there’s always a catch to Spencer’s interpretations, despite his diligent scholarship.

Spencer talks about the Arabic nature of Islam, and how the Koran needs to be read and understood in Arabic only – the language of Mohammed. All Muslims, irrelevant of their native tongues, have to recite the Koran in Arabic. Spencer mentions a funny (and poignant) quote from a Pakistani Muslim in his interview who says "I am very proud of my religion, and have memorized almost all of the Koran. And one day I plan to get one of those translations and find out what it means."

Now this gives Spencer license to say absurd things. It is as though Spencer is unable to believe his original – factually sound – findings, but has to make up his own interpretations instead. Perhaps that is why Mohammed wanted his Koran read in Arabic only, as "lost in translation" is a phrase that comes to mind, and of which Spencer is frequently guilty.

This is what Spencer says about the dangers of "peaceful" Muslims not understanding the Koran:

[W]hen the Koran is not immediately understood – and its seventh-century Arabic can be difficult even for native Arabic speakers – those who believe in it understand it by means of how it is preached and presented in the local mosque. If the imams there do not preach hatred of Infidels and the necessity to fight and subjugate them, then these probably won’t be live ideas in the minds of the devout – and such has long been the case in many areas of the world.

At the same time, however, the Koran says what it says, and so jihadist movements do point to chapter and verse to attempt to recruit peaceful Muslims to their cause, and to justify their actions within the Islamic community.

I suppose the biggest mystery about Islam could be how it has remained latent for so long, mostly stuck in Middle Eastern and South Asian countries, and parts of Africa. There is no mention of outright jihad in the past several centuries, until it suddenly came to full force in our era. In Spencer’s view, this could be because imams "there" - as Spencer ambiguously refers to non-Western Muslim lands - had decided in previous centuries not to emphasize the jihadist verses to their non-Western followers.

First, Spencer needs to provide concrete evidence that imams never preached jihad in non-Western Islamic countries until contemporary political issues, which he calls terrorism, started to occur. But, second, and more likely, surely they didn’t need to put that aspect of Islam front and center, since jihad had been accomplished successfully with the Islamization of these countries.

My interpretation of this resurgence of jihadist preaching – non-peaceful preaching, as Spencer would call it - is that Islam has reached a new phase, where it has now entered the West filled with infidels, including Christians and Jews. The jihadist component of Islam has to click in naturally to Islamize, or at least fight and subjugate, the infidels in these countries, as it is written in the Koran. Peaceful preaching is no longer sufficient, and the jihadist mode is necessary for the great task at hand.

This is why I wonder about Spencer’s true understanding of Islam, despite his many years studying it. He can read the words, but misses the meanings, it seems to me. I wonder if Spencer reads the Koran in the original Arabic, and if not, perhaps that is why he cannot understand Mohammed’s glorious message as presented in the Arabic (true) Koran. Or maybe some infidels just don't get it, which is perhaps why so many countries fell so swiftly and quickly to the mighty sword of Allah.

There is a warning here, somewhere.

Westergaard's Bombshell, So To Speak...

The YouTubes of Michael Coren interviewing Lars Hedegaard and Kurt Westergaard are up [here]. Here is another interesting part of that interview for me. Michael Coren, who is a proponent of the "moderate Muslim," and who has many Muslim friends – all moderate, I would imagine – asks Westergaard the following, with Westergaard’s unexpected (to Coren) response:

[This section is around the 1:40 point in part 3 of the hour-long interview].

Coren: Did you hear from many Muslims who said to you: “I don’t like the cartoon, but I do defend you right to draw it and have it published.”?

Westergaard: Well I heard from many Muslims who didn’t like the cartoon, but they didn’t accept it as a part of the debate in a democratic society, in a secular democratic society. I was always greeted with curses. It’s very difficult, I think, for a Dane today to discuss a matter if the arguments from the other side are curses: "Go to hell and stay there, and so on."

Now, there is a fraction of a pause on the part of the agile Coren, who then fluidly goes on to ask Westergaard how he heard about the dangers to his life.

This is fascinating. I don't think Coren has a list of questions he follows to a "t." He is too independent and enjoys arguing too much to reduce his questions to pre-determined sequences. The most interesting follow-up question to Westergaard’s dramatic revelation would have been: "Why do you think no Muslim defended your actions?"

But, such an approach would have blown Coren's thesis that "moderate" Muslims exist out there, and would have directed the argument into another, much more fruitful, discussion. Of course, this didn't happen, and won't happen any time soon with Coren.

Muslims in the West: A Simple Case of Cause and Effect

Kurt Westergaard and Lars Hedegaard - President of the International Free Press Society - were on Michael Coren's show tonight in a pre-taped interview. Most of what Hedegaard and Westergaard said is found in various other interviews, some on YouTube. But in this particular interview, one thing stood out for me.

Hedegaard, discussing the ambushed Western world by Muslims, started talking about the unique circumstances of our age when non-Muslim countries are being forced to adhere to Islamic principles and laws.

I've always thought that it was strange that the Danes were forced to follow Islamic mandates, and had to fight to publish their own stories (and images) in their own papers and books, in their own country. How could a Western country be under the thumb of Islamic laws?

Well, that is exactly what Hedergaard commented upon, giving examples of other harsh representations of Mohammed in, for example, Dante's Inferno. This depiction never unleashed the kind of furor we see now. The point is, in that era, Muslims did their own thing in their own regions, as did the European countries. The two regions were as far apart geographically as culturally.

The problem now is not that Europe (or America and Canada) is especially aligned, or close, to Muslim countries; there is still a big disconnect. The problem is that Muslims have entered Europe (and the Americas) in such large numbers that they are dictating the rules of the game. They are turning Western countries into their own.

Sharia is thus no longer confined to Muslim countries, but is being forced upon non-Muslim countries as well, with, of course, the full intention that these non-Muslim countries become Muslim eventually.

The problem is serious, but the solution is simpler. Rather than continuously confront the determined Muslims within their own countries, Europeans, and North Americans, need to find ways to reduce their numbers and their strength so that sharia doesn't become an overriding (or competing) reality. The more Muslims there are, the stronger they become, and the more demands they will make on their host countries to embrace their culture, society and religion. The cause and effect is quite logical, really. Now, it is time to do something about the cause.

Ezra Levant and Kurt Westergaard: Fate

It looks like all the forces are joining together to convene at the right time and right place. Westergaard has been in Toronto around the same time that Ezra Levant is testifying before Parliament on the Human Rights Commissions' abuses. The common factor is of course the cartoon, which has irrevocabley changed Westergaard's life, and which cost Levant three years of his life and much money out of his pocket.

Jonathan Kay, the Feeble Spokesman for the National Post

Jonathan Kay has written a report on Kurt Westergaard's visit at the National Post. Only the last sentence is worth quoting, and taking apart. Kay writes:

I don't blame Canadian politicians for courting Muslim voters, or any other ethno-religious group. But I'd urge them to think about Westergaard's test when they do so. Welcoming newcomers into our society in exchange for their embrace of liberal values is the essence of the Canadian social contract. Welcoming them without any conditions at all, on the other hand, means living behind steel doors.

Kay's ignorance and liberalism is at display for all to see. Muslims will enter Canada with "conditions," and once they enter under the false promises of keeping these "conditions," will resume their natural activity of being Muslims.

Kay is of course advocating assimilation - or policies that demand assimilation of immigrants. But, no true Muslim will want to assimilate into Canadian culture. In fact, his very religion prohibits it. So Kay, behind his rose-colored glasses, is essentially condemning us to live behind steel doors for eternity.

Plus, one final point. What does Kay mean by "I don't blame Canadian politicians for courting Muslim voters, or any other ethno-religious group."? What feeble logic, and spineless argumentation. Isn't it the job of a journalist, who has the benefit of freedom of the press (so far), to make stringent demands on leaders and politicians? In every little way, the liberalism of Canadians, even within the so-called right-leaning National Post, becomes painfully evident.

Freedom in Denmark?

I've had a hectic, but thoroughly enjoyable, trip to New York City, where I attended events relating to the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, who drew the satirical portrait of a turbaned Mohammed with a bomb. The events I attended were at Princeton University, and later on at a private Manhattan residence mentioned here.

Westergaard is an elderly man in his mid-seventies, who walks with a cane, and who has a soft-spoken voice and a gentle demeanor. He is the last person one would expect to be embroiled in this kind of affair. Yet, that fateful day, which he calls "just another day at work," sealed his life forever, with armed guards now protecting his every move.

I would just like to comment on the Manhattan event. The group I was with in Princeton kindly asked me to join them after the Princeton trip to the Manhattan residence, which was right in front of the grand Plaza Hotel at the entrance of Central Park. The view from the apartment was spectacular - it was not facing the park, but rather the twinkling lights of the New York skyline (we arrived there when it was dark, and later than expected because of awful traffic getting into the Lincoln Tunnel). There was nice wine, delicious hors d'oeuvres and a beautiful home, but the topic was extremely serious.

After Westergaard made is introductory speech, there were the usual comments and questions about freedom of speech, the bravery and persistence required of Westergaard to refuse apology for what he "did," the terrible state of events with the ever-growing numbers of Muslims, and hence possibilities for retaliations like the one against Westergaard, etc.

I'm afraid I lost my patience at one point and interrupted a concerned woman who kept dwelling on the awfulness of everything. I started asking if there was any figure like the Netherlands' Wilders who has emerged in Denmark. For some reason, the gist of my question was not understood, so I succinctly asked what Denmark was doing about preventing Muslims from entering the country.

And here is the shocker. Denmark has been cutting down on immigration levels into the country even before the cartoon incident, which by 2004 had been reduced to 80% of its 2001 levels. On top of that, other restrictions have been made, including banning Danish citizens from bringing in their non-European Union wives into Denmark. This policy was mostly aimed at Muslims from bringing in their spouses from arranged marriages, who generally entered the Danish welfare programs once they came into the country.

Well, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) has been repealing or amendings these policies to the advantage of the (mostly Muslim) immigrants. It was shocking to hear this enunciated during the meeting, when clearly the answer to my question had already been worked out, and to some extent the problems solved, by the Danish government. And the EU made unequivocal decisions to undermine and dismantle, or at least render innocuous, the policies of the Danish nation.

That is the current state of affairs in Europe, something unimaginable (yet) here. There is really nothing more to say. However brave and resilient Westergaard is, however much he espouses freedoms (of speech, of expression, of the press), there is the behemoth of the EU which can step in at any time and clamp in its restrictions, and demolish anything the Danish people and their goverment have decided.

There is no freedom in Denmark.