An Account by Fr. Zakaria Botros

Part 1

Father Zakaria Botros recently ran a show dedicated to answering the question, "Was Muhammad a messenger from God or Satan?" As usual with these shows, viewers were asked to call in and respond to this question, with poll results revealed at the end of the show.

His co-host in this particular show was an ex-Muslim woman turned Christian, who, a few shows earlier, used to still wear a hijab, but not today—as Zakaria Botros put it, in English, her "new look." She said that such an offensive question—ascertaining the divine or demonic source of Muhammad's prophethood—would have enraged her in former days, and how, till today even, it makes her feel awkward, uncomfortable. Such was her conditioning.

Botros was quick to respond by saying that it is not he that insults Muhammad but rather Islam's books. He, once again, insisted that he's merely a reader, who is bringing to the table what he reads—"So don't be angry with me!" he says, somewhat tongue in cheek. "If you don't like it, then go and burn all those books that portray him so and leave me alone!"

He then spent some time making a valid point: that in Islam, it seems that Muhammad's honor is to be more zealously guarded than even Allah's. To prove this, he quoted from a famous Arabic manual of law calledKitab Ahkam Al-Koran ("Book of Koranic Rulings") by the famous scholar al-Jassas: according to this manual, the apostate must not be killed until he has been given several chances to repent and return to Islam. This same book, however, clearly states that whoever offends the name of the prophet (Muhammad) must be killed right where he stands, not given a chance to repent or take back his words.

So, wondered Botros, while the person who offends Allah by essentially rejecting him and trying to break away from his religion gets several chances to repent, not the one who offends Muhammad—thus, according to Botros' logic, "In Islam, Muhammad has a higher place than Allah."

As for the question of the show, Botros asked a more pivotal question: how does one differentiate prophets from false prophets? He came up with three prerequisites of prophethood as well as three characteristics of prophets. Today we will examine the prerequisites.

PREREQUISITES: 1.A prophet typically receives direct revelations from God 2.A prophet usually does just that—prophesy, usually about the future 3.A prophet's claim to prophethood is usually supported by miracles

As for receiving direct revelations from God, Botros provided several examples from the Bible, such as Exodus 3:10, where God not only directly communicates with Moses, but also sends him out on his mission. Likewise, the Koran confirms this, by saying that Allah spoke directly to Moses (4:164).

"So, what about Muhammad?" asked Botros; "Did God speak to him direct? Not at all; instead, he was visited by a creature [that is, a created, lesser being], who Muhammad himself was convinced was a demon or Jinn." (Botros ran an entire episode revealing the many anecdotes in Islamic tradition that indicate that Muhammad was in fact visited by a Jinni, which I hope to translate shortly).

As for the second prerequisite, prophecy, again Botros provided several examples from the Bible of prophets prophesying, such as Psalms 22: 16, which Christians believe foretells the sufferings of Jesus, by nearly two millennia.

Asked Botros: "So, what prophecy did Muhammad bring?" He then quoted from the Koran verses which plainly indicate that Muhammad had no inkling of the future (see 6:50 and 7:188).

To the third prerequisite of prophethood: miracles. Botros indicated the miracles of Moses (e.g., Ten Plagues) and Jesus (raising the dead), which are recorded in both the Bible and Koran.

"So," asked again, rather dryly, the Coptic priest, "what miracles did Muhammad perform?"
Here his co-hostess said that, from childhood, she, as a Muslim, was taught that the Koran is the miracle of Islam and Muhammad—to which Botros gave a chuckle, only to implore the viewers to not be angry with him, that he is not laughing in mockery but rather dismay.

He then insisted that discussing the problems of the "divine" Koran are manifold—linguistically, contextually, grammatically, etymologically—and that he had already dedicated several shows examining these problems. "However, let's let one single Islamic book that exposes this issue suffice for today."

After giving the title of the book, Haqa'iq Al Islam ("the Truths of Islam"), he boomed: "Quick, leave the TV set, or send your sons to the stores to buy this book, because we all know from previous experience that whatever Islamic book is used as evidence against Islam on this show is often immediately pulled off the market!"

He then read from page 200 of that book: "The Koran is most magnificent and perfect in language and structure; thus, if something appears wrong, it is not the Koran that is wrong but rather our understanding of language. As for obvious problems or contradictions, we are obligated to overlook these, for faith will resolve these matters."

He also quoted Sunni Islam's most authoritative institution, Al Azhar, saying "We must always strive to discover why in certain instances the Koran appears to not follow correct Arabic grammar. If we cannot find an answer, however, then we must leave the matter to Allah."

The co-hostess said that Muslims believe Muhammad performed other miracles, according to the hadith. Botros responded by saying that that is simply another contradiction with the Koran, which flatly declares that even though the people demanded a miracle from Muhammad, the only one he could provide was the Koran:

"They say: We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth. Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water…. No, we shall not even believe in thy mounting until thou send down to us a book that we could read. Say: Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man—a messenger?" (17:90-93).

Part 2

Earlier, Father Zakaria Botros discussed the three prerequisites of prophethood—direct revelation from God, the ability to prophesize, and the ability to perform miracles to support the claim of prophet. Here he discussed the three characteristics of prophethood, which are:

1.Lead a righteous life in order to be a good example before others 2.Make sacrifices for others, not vice-versa 3.Dedicate one's life to the service of God

For the first characteristic regarding prophethood, Botros opened by quoting Jesus' famous saying: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matt 7:15-16).

However, since Muslims may think that verse has been "corrupted"—the accusation of tahrif being commonplace when wanting to avoid biblical debates—Botros also went on to quote from none other than Ibn Taymiyya himself, radical Islam's most favorite son, in regards to the characteristics of prophets.

According to Sheikh al-Islam's Minhaj Al Sunna Al Nabawayya, Taymiyya said that false prophets, such as Musailima the Liar, were exposed by the fact that they were liars, oppressors, and possibly possessed by demons and jinn. However, when sober minded individuals studied their lives and deeds, they were able to discern that they were false prophets, that they were exposed.

After reading the relatively long quote from Taymiyya, Botros put his book down, looked directly at the screen, and flatly said that everyone of those negative characteristics indicative of false-prophethood mentioned by Taymiyya in fact apply to Muhammad. As but one example, he pointed to the fact that, even though the Taymiyya excerpt condemned lying, Muhammad himself justified lying in three circumstances—during war, to reconcile people, and husband to wife.

As for oppressive qualities of false prophets, Botros, reading from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, revealed to the viewers that Muhammad, after raiding innocent villages, would take into concubinage women he found desirable, and then send off to be sold in the market less than attractive women as well as children. With the money he'd make from this slave trade, he would purchase war horses and weaponry, in order to conquer other villages.

After reading such accounts, the good priest again put the books down, looked directly into the camera, and asked the predominantly Muslim viewers: "Does this sound like a real prophet to you? Remember: Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Botros next considered what he called "Muhammad's sexual escapades." After listing them—all which should be famous by now to Jihad Watch readers—he proceeded to read from Kitab Al Tabaqat A Kubra, quoting a Muhammadan hadith, wherein the latter said "Of this world, the most things Allah has made me love are"—here Botros interjected with "What? Salvation of souls?! Doing good to others? What?!" only to continue quoting Muhammad's conclusion—"women and perfume," the latter to lure the former.

As for the second characteristic Botros listed as being indicative of prophethood—making sacrifices on behalf of others—the Coptic priest listed some biblical examples, such as Paul saying "I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved" (2 Cor 12:15). He also pointed to the "ultimate sacrifice" of Jesus. Here, his co-hostess objected saying that Jesus was not a prophet, but Son of God, to which the father roared "I'm speaking according to their beliefs!"

He then looked at the viewers asking, "So, what 'sacrifices' did Muhammad make?" He confessed he knew of none, but instead read various quotes of Muhammad asking others to sacrifice themselves for him and his religion—in the jihad and as shuhada—promising them a sensual heaven in return, one filled with sexual orgies and rivers of wine.

He next moved on to the final point, the final characteristic of a prophet: dedicating one's life to God, exhibited by a life of good deeds, advocating peace, and above all love. He spend some time insisting that a prophet should lead mankind to love God unconditionally, so that believers would want to worship God voluntarily, not as an act of obsequiousness or fear.

He quoted from John 14:21: "He that has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me: and he that loves me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

"Well, what of Muhammad? What was his approach to making humanity worship their Maker?" Botros insisted that Muhammad, doing away with grace and love as typified by the New Testament, tried instead to usher mankind back to an era of law and fear. "Instead of love and mercy, Muhammad brought death and punishments."

As example, he read from al-Shinqiti's works an entire chapter dedicated to proving that in Islam, whoever refuses to perform the obligatory prayers should be killed. Writes Shinqiti: "Those who refuse to pray, stand above them with a sword or stick, and command them—'Pray!'—and if they refuse, smite them until they either pray or die."

Finally, Father Zakaria Botros closed the program with an overall comparison of the life and deeds of Jesus and Muhammad, the founders of the two largest religions. He said that Jesus' words and life example would lead to peace on earth, and mercy, whereas the words of Muhammad and his life example—here he quoted several Koranic verses, such as 9:5, 9:29, and 8:60—lead only to warfare and terrorism.

"Jesus came to save souls, Muhammad came to sacrifice the souls of others in order to create a worldly empire for himself."

At the end of the program, Botros revealed the end poll results regarding the question "Was Muhammad a messenger from God or Satan?" 89% said Satan, 11% said God.

Was ist tödlicher?

Englischer Originaltext: Islamist Perfidy and Western Naivety

In einem Blogeintrag für Islamist Watch zeigt David J. Rusin, wie das Wort "Jihad" im Westen weiterhin beschönigt wird. Trotz der eindeutigen Darstellung durch das islamische Gesetzt als militärisches Unternehmen zur Machtverbreitung des Islam wird der Jihad immer noch als "nichts anderes gehandelt als ein Schüler, der seine Mathearbeit zu bestehen, eine Mutter, die ihre Kinder zum Fußballtraining bringt oder – in den Worten der Studie aus Cambridge – ein aufgeschlossener Mensch, der sich für 'Lobbyarbeit, Aktivismus und Schreiben' engagiert – so einer Art Sozialarbeiter". Rusin schließt mit der Beobachtung: "Warum Islamisten mit solch besonderen Definitionen hausieren gehen, sollte klar sein. Unergründlicher und verstörender ist, warum sie bei Westlern derart viel an Boden gewinnen."

Darin liegt tatsächlich die Ironie: Die islamistische Perfidie ist nur zu erwarten; die westliche Naivität andererseits, die, wenn schon, in unserer Welt nach 9/11 hätte abnehmen sollen, ist bis zu einem Punkt aufgeblüht, die das Erstere unnötig macht. Denn während es keinen Zweifel daran gibt, dass die Islamisten (und ihre fehl geleiteten westlichen Kumpane) die Bedeutung des Jihad verfälschen, versagen die amerikanische Führung und Medien immer noch darin, selbst wenn die wahre Bedeutung offen vor ihnen liegt, sie zu erkennen. Mit anderen Worten: Apathie – oder gewollte Blindheit – bezüglich des Jihad ist inzwischen so tief im Westen verankert, dass die Islamisten das nicht länger aktiv heucheln müssen.

Man bedenke: Als Präsident Barack Hussein Obama sich am 4. Juni 2009 von Kairo aus an die islamische Welt wandte, sagte er: "Wie der Heilige Koran uns sagt: 'Seid euch Gottes bewusst und sprecht immer die Wahrheit' [Sure 9,119]. Das ist das, was ich zu tun versuchen werde – die Wahrheit zu sprechen, so gut ich kann, bescheiden gemacht von der Aufgabe, die vor uns liegt." Lassen wir einen Augenblick die Tatsache beiseite, dass Sure 9, von der Obama zitiert, die gewalttätigsten und intolerantesten aufrufe im gesamten Koran beinhaltet (was schon etwas heißen will). Das Problem hier ist, dass der arabische Originaltext von Sure 9,119 absolut nichts von "die Wahrheit sprechen" sagt. Das Wort "sprechen" befindet sich nirgendwo in diesem Text und "Wahrheit" ist als Kurzfassung eine falsche Übersetzung für sadiqin, das sich auf Personen bezieht. Der Vers ist so wortwörtlich wie möglich als "Fürchte Allah und halte dich an die Wahrhaftigen" zu übersetzen. Mit anderen Worten: Muslime sollten sich fest auf die Seite ihrer Glaubensbrüder stellen ("wahrhaftig" dient in der gleichen Art als koranisches Beiwort für "Muslime", wie es "Gläubige" oft tut). Es ist, wie immer, ein Aufruf zur Teilung – von Muslimen (den "Wahrhaftigen") gegen die Ungläubigen (die "Falschen").

Hätten Obama oder seine Nahost-Berater und Redenschreiber sich einfach darum gekümmert diesen Vers im Zusammenhang zu lesen – Sure 9,111, ein Dauerliebling der Jihadis, ragt kurz davor heraus und verspricht den Gläubigen das Paradies im Tausch für ihr Töten und Getötet werden – oder wenn sie sich darum gekümmert hätten muslimische Mainstream-Exegese zurate zu ziehen, hätten sie wissen können, dass dieser Vers Teil eines Koranabschnitts ist, der sich exklusiv mit der Bekämpfung Ungläubiger beschäftigt: Mohammed und verschiedene Muslime bereiteten sich darauf vor in byzantinisches Territorium einzufallen; einige Muslime wollen zurückbleiben. Es war hier, dass Allah/Mohammed ihnen mit diesem Vers drohte, "Allah zu fürchten und sich an die Wahrhaftige zu halten" (d.h. sich in die Reihen ihrer muslimischen Glaubensbrüder auf dem Kriegspfad zu stellen). Wenige Sätze später gipfelt dieser Aufruf in einem der berühmtesten Aufrufe zur Gewalt im gesamten Koran, der regelmäßig von modernen Jihadis beschworen wird: "O ihr, die ihr glaubt, kämpft gegen jene, die euch nahe sind unter den Ungläubigen, und lasset sie euch hart vorfinden; und wisset, dass Allah mit den Gottesfürchtigen ist."[9,123]

Zufälligerweise sind die hier erwähnten Ungläubigen die Christen von Byzanz (oder auf Arabisch al-Rum, "die Römer"). Dass die Jihadis von heute, wie Osama bin Laden, die Vereinigten Staaten oft mit Byzanz vergleichen, das lange Zeit die expansionistische Gestaltung des Kalifats hinein ins Christentum verhinderten; es macht Obamas Wahl des Verses – sich "an die Wahrhaftigen zu halten" – noch ironischer.

Wenn wir schon von Ungläubigen und Ironie sprechen: Hier ist eine jüngere, komischere Anekdote: Am 11. September 2009 sendete NPR eine Story mit dem Titel "Neue Art der Aufmerksamkeit durch die Polizei für Muslime in New York", in der es darum geht, dass "das das New Yorker Polizeipräsidium ein jährliches Ramadan-Programm veranstaltet, während dessen die Polizei Mitglieder der muslimischen Gemeinde kennenlernt und Muslime offen sagen können, was sie denken". Fall jemandem das Thema dieser Story entgangen sein sollte, Begriffe wie "Aufeinander zugehen", "Vielfalt" und "Brücken bauen" waren vorherrschend.

Hier ist das Problem (worauf mich erstmals Diana West von der Washington Times aufmerksam machte): In der Audioversion dieses Berichts (etwa bei Minute 0:25-0:50 der Aufnahme) sagt der NPR-Sprecher: "Man konnte nicht einen leeren Stuhl im Auditorium des NYPD am Police Plaza 1. Die hochrangigen NYPD-Vertreter, muslimische Kleriker und Gemeindeglieder standen alle und hörten den Rythmen des Gebetsrufs des Imams der New Yorker Polizei zu." Das ist Khalid Latif. Während der Sprecher dies sagte, konnte man im Hintergrund einen Teil der arabischen Koran-Rezitation des Imams hören.

Das enthusiastische Reden von NYPD-Oberen, die angesichts des "Rhythmus des Rufes" in Ehrfurcht erstarrt standen, macht es schwierig genau zu erkennen, welcher Vers zitiert wird. Nur die letzten Worte –gawm al-kaffirin, Volk der Ungläubigen" – sind kristallklar und lassen Alarmglocken schrillen. Dank meiner vertrauenswürdigen arabisch-koranischen Konkordanz konnte ich diesen Satz als Teil von Sure 2,286, mit der Allah angefleht wird "uns [die Muslime] über das Volk der Ungläubigen siegreich sein zu lassen". Berücksichtigen wir, dass vom islamistischen Standpunkt aus die USA das "Volk von Ungläubigen" schlechthin sind.

Und hier haben wir es: Von einem amerikanischen Präsidenten, der öffentlich seinen Auftrag definiert, indem er einen mit dem Jihad zusammenhängenden Vers zitiert, zu amerikanisch-muslimischen Führern, die öffentlich für die Unterwerfung der Nichtmuslime predigen (und das auch noch in der Aula des New Yorker Polizeipräsidiums) ist klar, dass die ultimative Drohung mehr westlicher Sorglosigkeit und Gleichgültigkeit – mit einem Wort: Naivität – entstammt, als von aktiven islamistischen Machenschaften. Kurz gesagt: Wenn Islamisten irreführende Interpretationen des Wortes "Jihad" feilbieten, dann ist das nur die Spitze des Eisbergs.

Which Is More Lethal?

Pajamas Media

Translations of this item:

• German

In a blog entry for Islamist Watch, David J. Rusin shows how the word "jihad" continues to be euphemized in the West. Despite Islamic law's unequivocal portrayal of it as a military endeavor to empower Islam, jihad is still being peddled as "nothing more than a student laboring to pass algebra, a mom driving her kids to soccer practice, or, in the words of the Cambridge study, a civic-minded person engaged in 'lobbying, activism, and writing' — a community organizer of sorts." Rusin concludes by observing: "Why Islamists peddle such specious definitions should be clear. More baffling and disturbing is why they gain traction among so many Westerners."

Indeed, therein lies the irony: Islamist perfidy is only to be expected; Western naivety, on the other hand, which, if anything, should have begun to dissipate in our post-9/11 world, has burgeoned to the point of nearly making the former unnecessary. For while there is no doubt that Islamists (and their misguided Western cronies) distort the meaning of jihad, increasingly, even when the true meaning is in plain sight, America's leaders and media still fail to discern it. In other words, apathy — or willful blindness — regarding jihad has become so deep-seated in the West that Islamists need no longer actively dissemble.

Consider: When President Barack Hussein Obama addressed the Islamic world from Cairo on June 4, 2009, he said: "As the Holy Koran tells us, 'Be conscious of God and speak always the truth' [Sura 9:119]. That is what I will try to do — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us." Let us for the moment put aside the fact that Sura 9, from whence Obama quotes, contains the most violent and intolerant exhortations in all the Koran (which is saying something). The problem here is that the original Arabic text of Sura 9:119 says absolutely nothing about "speaking the truth." The word "speaking" is nowhere in the text, and "truth," as an abstract, is a wrong translation for sadiqin, which refers to people. The verse most literally translates as "fear Allah and be with the truthful." In other words, Muslims should stand firm with fellow Muslims ("truthful" serving as a Koranic epithet for "Muslims" the same way "believers" often does). It is, as ever, a call for divisiveness — of Muslims (the "truthful") versus infidels (the "false").

Had Obama or his Mideast advisors and speechwriters simply bothered to read this verse in context — verse 9:111, a jihadi all-time favorite, looms just above, promising believers paradise in exchange for their killing and being killed — or if they had bothered consulting mainstream Muslim exegeses, they might have known that this verse is part of a Koranic segment that deals exclusively with fighting infidels: Muhammad and several Muslims were preparing to invade Byzantine territory; some Muslims wanted to stay behind. It was then that Allah/Muhammad threatened them with this verse to "fear Allah and be with the truthful" (i.e., join ranks with your fellow Muslims on the warpath). Sentences later, this exhortation culminates in one of the most famous calls to violence in all the Koran, regularly evoked by modern-day jihadis: "O you who believe, fight those infidels who dwell around you, and let them find harshness in you!" [9:123].

Incidentally, the infidels mentioned here are the Christians of Byzantium (or in Arabic, al-Rum, "the Romans"). That modern-day jihadis, such as Osama bin Laden, often liken the United States to Byzantium, which for long thwarted the caliphate's expansionist designs into Christendom, makes Obama's choice of verse — "be[ing] with the truthful" — further ironic.

Speaking of infidels and irony, here is a more recent, a more comical, anecdote: On September 11, 2009, NPR ran a story called "For NYC Muslims, a New Kind of Police Attention," which tells of how "the NYPD hosts an annual Ramadan program, during which the police get to know members of the Muslim community and Muslims are free to speak their minds." Lest the theme of this story eludes you, words such as "outreach," "diversity," and "building bridges" predominate.

Here's the problem (first brought to my attention by the Washington Times' Diana West): In the audio version of this report (around 0:25-0:50), the NPR narrator says that "there was not an empty seat to be had at the NYPD's auditorium at One Police Plaza. NYPD brass, Muslim clerics, and community members all stood and listened to the cadences of the call to prayer from the NYPD's imam," Khalid Latif. While this is being said, you can hear part of the imam's Arabic recitation from the Koran in the background.

The narrator's enthusiastic talk of NYPD brass standing in awe of the "cadences of the call" makes it difficult to discern exactly which verse is being recited. Only the last few words — qawm al-kaffirin, "nation of infidels" — are crystal clear, raising red flags. Thanks to my trusty Arabic-Koranic concordance, I have placed this phrase as part of Koran 2:286, which supplicates Allah "to make us [Muslims] victorious over the nation of infidels." Bear in mind that, from an Islamist point of view, the United States is the "nation of infidels" par excellence.

And there it is: From an American president who publicly defines his mission by quoting a jihadi-related verse, to American-Muslim leaders who publicly pray for the subjugation of non-Muslims (in the middle of an NYPD auditorium, no less), it is clear that the ultimate threat comes more from Western carelessness and indifference — in a word, naivety — than it does from active Islamist machinations. In short, Islamists peddling misleading interpretations for the word "jihad" is but the very tip of the iceberg.

Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.