It is not about balls...rather they support Saudi for subversive and sinister means....
The cat is out the bag....now you will hear more of this even in other countries, either change or ban the Quran.
Royal we.
True. But this reveals what their hearts have been concealing...*YAWN*
Allah Himself protects The Quran
inka baap bhi kuch nahi badal sakta! araam say bautho aur apna khoon na jalao!
You are not a Christian ,are you ? You are the follower of
This is a declaration of war on Islam. Any jihad against them will be farz henceforth.Muslims Recoil at a French Proposal to Change the Quran
A manifesto published in the French daily Le Parisien on April 21—signed by some 300 prominent intellectuals and politicians, including former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Minister Manuel Valls—made a shocking demand. Arguing that the Quran incites violence, it insisted that “the verses of the Quran calling for murder and punishment of Jews, Christians, and nonbelievers be struck to obsolescence by religious authorities,” so that “no believer can refer to a sacred text to commit a crime.”
Although it’s not entirely clear whether “struck to obsolescence” means wholesale deletion of verses, the manifesto was perceived as a call to abrogate Muslims’ holiest text. And although pushing for a theological reform of Islam in France is nothing new—everyone from leading imams to President Emmanuel Macron have made plans to restructure Islam—demanding that scriptural verses be deleted is another thing altogether. In Islam, the Quran is considered divinely revealed; because it’s deemed to be the word of God, altering or deleting any part of the text would be blasphemous.
The manifesto came a month after the grisly murder of Mireille Knoll, an octogenarian Holocaust survivor who was stabbed to death in her apartment in an act authorities are calling an anti-Semitic crime. Last year, Sarah Halimi, a 67-year-old, was beaten to death and thrown out of her window, in the same area where Knoll lived. Her attacker yelled “Allahu Akbar!” as he committed the act; Knoll’s reportedly did the same. It took judicial authorities nearly a year to label Halimi’s death an anti-Semitic crime.
France is home to the largest Jewish community in Europe. Since the early 2000s, French Jews have seen a rise in anti-Semitic acts, and although 2017 saw fewer overall incidents than 2016, those that did occur were more violent in nature. This wave of violence is part of what the manifesto’s signatories call a “new anti-Semitism”—new in that it is perpetrated not by the far right, but by French Muslims. The manifesto denounced what it characterized as the government and media’s refusals to recognize this “Muslim anti-Semitism.” It also labeled as “low-volume ethnic cleansing” the trends that have forced Jewish families to change neighborhoods, leaving suburbs, or banlieues, that are home to significant immigrant populations, and to pull their children from public schools.
The manifesto generated an immediate outcry among Muslims in France and beyond, with critics labeling its usage of the phrase “low-volume ethnic cleansing” hyperbolic and accusing it of homogenizing all Muslims. Days after the manifesto’s release, 30 imams signed a counter-letter in Le Monde. The Observatory for Islamophobia, an organization affiliated with the Egyptian government, described the manifesto as “hateful racism” that proves that “France is not a land that welcomes Islam.” The proposal to abrogate certain verses of the Quran was most controversial of all.
Tareq Oubrou, the prominent French imam who oversees the Grand Mosque of Bordeaux, called the characterization of the Quran “nearly blasphemous.” Viewing the scripture as anti-Semitic, he told me, is the falsified interpretation promoted by the very radicals France seeks to combat: “ignorant Muslims who remove texts from their historical context.” Furthermore, the notion that anti-Semitism is built into Islam is “theologically false,” he added. As monotheistic “People of the Book,” Jews and Christians enjoy a special status in Islamic law. Historically, they were considered protected dhimmi communities, which meant they were allowed to practice their own religions, although they were subject to a tax and various indignities that symbolized their subordination to Muslims.
Rather than calling for absolute violence, Oubrou said the Quran advocates for a “defensive combat, against aggressors, within a historical context.” For instance, one verse says, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture—[fight] until they give the jizya [tax] willingly while they are humbled.” The Quran, like many scriptures, is internally inconsistent on this and other matters. Oubrou argued that the problem is not religion itself—it’s that through radical, literalist interpretations of the Quran, “delinquents use the religion as a veneer for cheap crimes.” By demonizing the Quran as a text that contains anti-Semitism, he said, the manifesto casts a shadow on an entire religion, glossing over the role of interpretation and the other factors driving some young Muslims to develop hatred toward Jews.
That response didn’t sit well with the manifesto’s defenders. “The problem is that Islamists refer to the same texts as ordinary Muslims,” said signatory Pierre-André Taguieff, a research director at the French National Centre for Scientific Research who has published extensively on anti-Semitism. Samy Ghozlan, a signatory who formerly served as police commissioner in the Paris banlieues and who founded a hotline for anti-Semitism, defended the manifesto’s willingness to “name the problem,” and its call for theological reform. “In Islam,” he said, “believers are instructed to respect the Quran—there’s no room for commentary.”
That’s not how many imams see it. “The text might be the same, but the way it’s understood varies, as is the case for any text,” Abdallah Dlioueh, the imam of Valence, told me. “The Quran doesn’t tell anyone to be racist or anti-Semitic—in fact it expresses deep respect for Jewish figures such as Moses. But a minority of Muslims fall into a misreading,” he went on. “By promoting one vision of those verses, the manifesto makes the same error as terrorists.”
Oubrou and Dlioueh were among 30 imams who signed a letter in Le Mondevoicing indignation with “the confiscation of [their] religion by criminals,” a reference to those who preach violence, from certain Salafi imams to online recruiters associated with groups like the Islamic State. The authors expressed the consternation they feel—as both French citizens and Muslims—as they watch “Islam fall into the hands of an ignorant, disturbed, and idle youth” who have become “easy prey for ideologues” preaching hatred and inspiring anti-Semitic violence.
Although the letter was published amid a heated debate over anti-Semitism, the conversation about Islam’s theological role in driving terrorism isn’t new. As France has struggled to grapple with terrorist attacks—often at the hands of nationals—scholars have clashed over what exactly prompted young men to kill concertgoers at Paris’s Bataclan theatre in November 2015 or drive a truck into a packed promenade in Nice the following July. Are jihadis devout Muslims who see violence as a religious obligation, or are they rebels—petty criminals and dropouts dismayed by their socioeconomic hardships—in search of a cause?
The answer is likely some combination of both; jihadist terrorism neither has nothing to do with Islam—as some have said following attacks while urging against scapegoating of Muslims—nor is it an exclusively religious phenomenon. This debate aside, the Le Monde letter was a recognition that, despite the nonreligious factors driving violence in the name of Islam, religious authorities have a role to play in fighting it.
But that needn’t mean abrogating certain verses of the Quran. Some Muslim scholars encourage believers to approach the Quran through a critical lens, putting it in historical context and recognizing its limitations. “A lack of human intelligence is blocking Islam today,” Razika Adnani, a scholar of Islam and member of the Foundation for Islam of France, told me. “Conservatives promote an idea that everything is in the texts, blocking human thought,” she added, and urged Muslims to “work to make Islam a religion of today.”
Dlioueh stressed the importance of an “enlightened Islam”—and he considers it his daily job to foster that. “Imams are a shield against radicalization,” he said, and “we’re already working to that end—to promote tolerance, on the ground in rough neighborhoods, in our Friday sermons.” Rather than deeming certain verses dangerous, he said, Muslims should consider the entire text open to interpretation, and look to history as a reference for peaceful coexistence among Jews and Muslims (for example, in the Ottoman Empire).
Oubrou promotes what he terms a “preventive theology” that takes into account why so many young people are vulnerable to what he calls “erroneous interpretations of the Quran.” He acknowledges that any religious text can be used to justify violence; the goal is to recognize the source of that manipulation, and why it becomes so compelling.
Yet even if imams successfully promote a critical, contextualized reading of the Quran, the ability to fight anti-Semitism purely on the basis of religion is limited. Although many of the recent perpetrators of violence against French Jews have been Muslim, it would be overly simplistic to chalk the phenomenon up to religion alone. The gang leader who kidnapped 23-year-old Ilan Halimi in 2006, and held him hostage for two weeks, said he did it because “Jews have money,” drawing on the anti-Semitic tropes that have long plagued Jews. Those stereotypes are alive and well in France today: Survey data from 2016 reveal that 35 percent of French people believe Jews “have a particular rapport with money;” 40 percent think that “for French Jews, Israel counts more than France;” and 22 percent think that “Jews have too much power.”
The Quran, Oubrou said, can become a “pretext” to legitimize deeper feelings of disdain for Jews, which themselves can be fueled by a host of external factors—including social exclusion, a sense of being dominated, conspiracy theories, and a misinterpretation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The last one, he said, “has been transformed into a religious cause by both sides,” enabling it to be grafted onto the way Muslims and Jews see each other in France.
“Even if we delete verses that are being interpreted problematically, that won’t eradicate anti-Semitism if those concerned have hatred toward Jews,” Oubrou told me. The challenge, he added, is to “change the perception, not the text.”
Yes. We will subjugate the infidels by force.
‘Go to Hell!’ Egypt Responds to French Call to Revise Koran
BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM MAY 3, 2018
Recently I explained how, by Muslims’ own (inadvertent) logic, various Koran verses stand to be banned on the basis that they defame and incite violence against non-Muslims. Two days later, the French newspaper Le Monde published a letter signed by some 300 French public figures across party lines, including former president Nicolas Sarkozy. In it, they “ask that the verses of the Qur'an calling for the killing and punishment of Jews, Christians and unbelievers be obsoleted by theological authorities.”
Titled “Manifesto Against the New Anti-Semitism,” the signed letter focuses especially on the rise of Muslim violence against France’s Jewish minority:
French Jews are 25 times more likely to be attacked than their fellow Muslims. 10% of the Jewish citizens of Ile-de-France -- that is to say about 50,000 people -- were recently forced to move because they were no longer safe in some cities and because their children could not attend the schools of the Republic anymore. This is a low-noise ethnic cleansing …
Of course, the notion that Muslims will willingly strike out certain verses from the Koran because they upset or threaten infidels is a nonstarter.
From a Muslim perspective, because the Koran is Allah’s word, it cannot be tampered with or altered in any way. If Sarkozy, et al made these claims in certain Muslim countries, they would either be incarcerated on blasphemy charges or killed outright.
But while more forthright Muslims base their rejection of the French call on this simple fact, those more skilled in “dialoguing” with the West follow a different strategy.
Enter Al Azhar. Located in Cairo and attached to the government of Egypt, it is the Muslim world’s most prestigious “university” (that is, madrassa) and regularly hosts -- and engages in “dialogue” with -- the likes of Barack Obama and Pope Francis. Responding to the French letter, the deputy chief of Al Azhar, Dr. ‘Abbas Shuman, said:
The call from 300 French persons to freeze verses in the Noble Koran, which they claim urges the killing of non-Muslims, is unjustifiable and unacceptable. (emphasis added)
And if that wasn’t clear enough, he exclaimed:
No to freezing one letter from the Koran -- and those calling for it can go to hell!
As usual, however, whereas entities such as the Islamic State proudly embrace the fact that the Koran does call for enmity and violence directed against non-Muslims, Al Azhar went into apologetic mode:
For we have no verses that command the killing of others, unless they commit one of the crimes that do earn the death penalty, such as murder, or raising weapons against us. Nor are we responsible for those [e.g., ISIS] who do not correctly understand the verses, who take them at face value without referring to the tafasir [exegeses] of the ulema.
Perhaps he had forgotten Koran 9:29:
Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden [i.e., embrace sharia law], and who do not embrace the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the jizya [extortion money] with willing submissiveness and feel themselves utterly subdued.
All authoritative exegeses see this verse as enshrining Islam’s “messianic” mission of subjugating infidels by force.
Not only is Allah’s command here rather straightforward in meaning, but for a millennium, Muslims executed it -- and conquered some three-quarters of the original Western world in the process (as recounted in my new book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West).
It is only now, when Muslims are militarily/economically weaker than and vulnerable to the Western world, that claims that such verses don’t really mean what they say have become popular among Muslims.
Especially those involved in “dialogue” with the West.
I have an authoritative Arabic manual called Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw' al-Kitab wa al-Sunna (“The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna”), written by Dr. Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil. After providing several proofs, he concludes that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and then they refuse.” In other words, Koran 9:29, as it is.
As for Al Azhar’s reliance on the ulema and their exegeses, the book contains terse summaries of the word “jihad” as defined by the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence, which have the final say as to how Islam -- or in this case, jihad -- is articulated:
- According to the Hanafis -- the madhhab (school) Egypt follows -- jihad is “extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one's life, wealth, and tongue -- a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to whoever refuses to accept it.”
Needless to say, fighting infidels in the name of Islam leads to killing infidels -- untold millions over the centuries -- in the name of Islam, which is precisely what Al Azhar denies.
- According to the Malikis, jihad is “when a Muslim fights an infidel [non-Muslim] in order that Allah's word reigns supreme.”
- According to the Shafi'is, jihad is “fiercely fighting infidels.”
- And according to the austere Hanbalis, it is “fighting infidels.”
During his dissembling, Al Azhar’s Shuman went so far as to insist:
Those [French] who think that there are [Koran] verses calling for their killing are unaware that those are really verses of peace. All verses that call for fighting are done in the context of self-defense ... and this is a principle that even those calling for the freezing of Koran verses do not dispute. For all religions confirm the right to self-defense.
Here again is another falsehood. While the Koran does have defensive verses, it has even more offensive verses. As the great Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) explained centuries ago:
In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force ... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense ... But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.
Even so, despite the clear words of the Koran and hadith, and the clear words of the ulema and their tafasir -- to say nothing of the continuum of violence committed against infidels at the hands of Muslims across centuries and continents -- Al Azhar, like all apologists, still insists that it’s all a misunderstanding. Or, as Shuman reiterated in closing:
So let them [the French signatories] understand the book of Allah correctly. But if they rely on their own, mistaken understandings, then let them go -- with their understandings and requests -- to hell!
Bhagavat Gita is the Hindu book. You are right. Idolatry and paganism. Not worth considering it as a.religious book even.
