The problems posed by the scripta defectiva of early versions of the Koran inevitably led to the growth of different centers with their own variant traditions of how the texts should be pointed or vowelized. Despite ‘Uthman’s order to destroy all texts other than his own, it is evident that the older codices survived.

Charles Adams says, "It must be emphasized that far from there being a single text passed down inviolate from the time of ‘Uthman’s commission, literally thousands of variant readings of particular verses were known in the first three (Muslim) centuries. These variants affected even the ‘Uthmanic codex, making it difficult to know what its true form may have been."

Some Muslims preferred codices other than the ‘Uthmanic, for example, those of Ibn Mas’ud, Uba ibn Ka’b, and Abu Musa. Eventually, under the influence of the great Koranic scholar Ibn Mujahid (died 935), there was a definite canonization of one system of consonants and a limit placed on the variations of vowels used in the text that resulted in acceptance of seven systems.

But other scholars accepted ten readings, and still others accepted fourteen readings. Even Ibn Mujahid’s seven provided fourteen possibilities since each of the seven was traced through two different transmitters, viz,

1. Nafi of Medina according to Warsh and Qalun

2. Ibn Kathir of Mecca according to al-Bazzi and Qunbul

3. Ibn Amir of Damascus according to Hisham and Ibn Dakwan

4. Abu Amr of Basra according to al-Duri and al-Susi

5. Asim of Kufa according to Hafs and Abu Bakr

6. Hamza of Kuga according to Khalaf and Khallad

7. Al-Kisai of Kufa according to al Duri and Abul Harith

In the end three systems prevailed, those of Warsh (d. 812) from Nafi of Medina, Hafs (d. 805) from Asim of Kufa, and al-Duri (d. 860) from Abu Amr of Basra.

At present in modern Islam, two versions seem to be in use: that of Asim of Kufa through Hafs, which was given a kind of official seal of approval by being adopted in the Egyptian edition of the Koran in 1924; and that of Nafi through Warsh, which is used in parts of Africa other than Egypt.

As Charles Adams reminds us:

It is of some importance to call attention to a possible source of misunderstanding with regard to the variant readings of the Quran. The seven (versions) refer to actual written and oral text, to distinct versions of Quranic verses, whose differences, though they may not be great, are nonetheless substantial. Since the very existence of variant readings and versions of the Quran goes against the doctrinal position toward the Holy Book held by many modern Muslims, it is not uncommon in an apologetic context to hear the seven (versions) explained as modes of recitation; in fact the manner and technique of recitation are an entirely different matter.

Guillaume also refers to the variants as "not always trifling in significance." For example, the last two verses of sura LXXXV, Al Buraj, read: (21) hawa qur’anun majidun; (22) fi lawhin mahfuzun/in. The last syllable is in doubt.

If it is in the genitive -in, it gives the meaning "It is a glorious Koran on a preserved tablet"—a reference to the Muslim doctrine of the Preserved Tablet. If it is the nominative ending -un, we get "It is a glorious Koran preserved on a tablet." There are other passages with similar difficulties dealing with social legislation.

If we allow that there were omissions, then why not additions? The authenticity of many verses in the Koran has been called into question by Muslims themselves. Many Kharijites, who were followers of ‘Ali in the early history of Islam, found the sura recounting the story of Joseph offensive, an erotic tale that did not belong in the Koran.

Hirschfeld questioned the authenticity of verses in which the name Muhammad occurs, there being something rather suspicious in such a name, meaning ‘Praised’, being borne by the Prophet.

The name was certainly not very common. However the Prophet’s name does occur in documents that have been accepted as genuine, such as the Constitution of Medina.

Most scholars believe that there are interpolations in the Koran; these interpolations can be seen as interpretative glosses on certain rare words in need of explanation.

More serious are the interpolations of a dogmatic or political character, which seem to have been added to justify the elevation of ‘Uthman as caliph to the detriment of ‘Ali.

Then there are other verses that have been added in the interest of rhyme, or to join together two short passages that on their own lack any connection.

Bell and Watt carefully go through many of the amendments and revisions and point to the unevenness of the Koranic style as evidence for a great many alterations in the Koran:

There are indeed many roughness of this kind, and these, it is here claimed, are fundamental evidence for revision. Besides the points already noticed—hidden rhymes, and rhyme phrases not woven into the texture of the passage—there are the following:

abrupt changes of rhyme
repetition of the same rhyme word or rhyme phrase in adjoining verses
the intrusion of an extraneous subject into a passage otherwise homogeneous
a differing treatment of the same subject in neighbouring verses, often with repetition of words and phrasesbreaks in grammatical construction which raise difficulties in exegesis
abrupt changes in length of verse
sudden changes of the dramatic situation, with changes of pronoun from singular to plural, from second to third person, and so on
the juxtaposition of apparently contrary statements; the juxtaposition of passages of different date, with intrusion of fare phrases into early verses.


In many cases a passage has alternative continuations which follow one another in the present text. The second of the alternatives is marked by a break in sense and by a break in grammatical construction, since the connection is not with what immediately precedes, but with what stands some distance back.

The Christian al-Kindi (not to be confused with the Arab, Muslim philosopher) writing around 830 C.E., criticized the Koran in similar terms:

The result of all this (process by which the Quran came into being) is patent to you who have read the scriptures and see how, in your book, histories are jumbled together and intermingled; an evidence that many different hands have been at work therein, and caused discrepancies, adding or cutting out whatever they liked or disliked. Are such, now, the conditions of a revelation sent down from heaven?


Is such a book trustworthy?




MORGANITE

KAOSKTRL

But that was history, we live in the modern world

Hindu, Enemy Of Islam'
These are extracts from government-sponsored textbooks approved by the National Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education.

"Before the Arab conquest people were fed up with the teachings of Buddhists & Hindus." "Before Islam people lived in untold misery."

"European nations have been working during the past three centuries...to subjugate countries of the Muslim world."

Class IV

* The Muslims of Pakistan provided all facilities to the Hindus and the Sikhs who left for India. But the Hindus and the Sikhs looted the Muslims in India with both hands and they attacked their caravans, buses and railway trains. Therefore, about one million Muslims were martyred on their way to Pakistan.
* The Hindus treated the ancient population of the Indus Valley very badly. They set fire to their houses and butchered them.
* The religion of Hindus did not teach them good things, Hindus did not respect women.

Class V

* After the war of 1965, India with the help of Hindus living in East Pakistan, incited the people of East Pakistan against West Pakistanis. In December 1971, the Indians themselves also attacked East Pakistan. As a result...East Pakistan separated from us. We should all receive military training so that we can foil the designs of the enemy in the future.
* The Hindu has always been an enemy of Islam.

Class VI

* In the middle of the city of Deebal (Sindh), there was a Hindu temple. There was a flag hoisted on top of it. The Hindus believed that as long as the flag kept flying, nobody could harm them. Mohd bin Qasim found out about this.... The Muslims began to catapult stones at the temple and at the flag, ultimately making it fall to the ground. The whole city became tumultuous and the Hindus lost heart. Some Muslims clambered up the walls of the temple and forced open the door. Qasim's army entered the city and after conquering it, announced peace. The Muslims treated the vanquished so well many Hindus converted to Islam.
* Before the Arab conquest the people were fed up with the teachings of Buddhists and Hindus.
* The foundation of the Hindu setup was based on injustice and cruelty.
* The Hindus who had always been opportunists cooperated with the British.
* The Hindus used to please the goddess Kali by slaughtering people of other religions.

Class VII

* Some Jewish tribes also lived in Arabia. They lent money to workers and peasants on high rates of interest and usurped their earnings. They held the whole society in their tight grip because of the ever-increasing compound interest.
* History has no parallel to the extremely kind treatment of the Christians by the Muslims. Still the Christian kingdoms of Europe were constantly trying to gain control of Jerusalem. This was the cause of the Crusades.
* European nations have been working during the past three centuries, through conspiracies or naked aggression, to subjugate countries of the Muslim world.

w Hindus always desired to crush the Muslims as a nation. Several attempts were made by the Hindus to erase Muslim culture and civilisation.
* The Hindus too wished to ruin Muslim civilisation and culture by destroying Urdu which has been closely associated with the Pakistan Movement.

Class VIII

* During the Khilafat Movement Hindus and Muslims were completely united and like brothers and they started to cooperate and live in peaceful togetherness. But as soon as this movement ended, Hindu hatred of the Muslim re-emerged.
* Before Islam people lived in untold misery all over the world.

Class IX

* The Hindus and the Muslims...could not amalgamate each other's way of life to become one nation.The main reason for this difference of cultures, civilisation and outlook was the religion of Islam which cannot be assimilated in any other system as it is based on the principle of...oneness of God....On the other hand, Hinduism is based on the concept of multiple Gods....There lies the difference between the Hindu and Muslim way of thinking.
* In connivance with the (British) government the Hindus started communal riots and caused loss of life and property.At the time of prayers the Hindus tortured the Muslims by playing music in front of the mosques. Before the commencement of classes the students saluted the portrait of Mahatma Gandhi and Muslim students were also forced to do so.
* Muslims promoted equality and social justice as against the division (created by) the (Hindu) caste system.

Class X

* (The ideology of) Pakistan...was a revolt against the prevailing system of India in which Hindu nationalism was imposed on the Muslims....
* Islam gives a message of peace and brotherhood.... There is no such concept in Hinduism. Moreover Islam preaches brotherhood, equality and justice.... On the other hand, the Hindu society is based on caste system which downgrades the entire mankind.
* After the establishment of Pakistan the Hindus and Sikhs created a day of doom for the Muslims in East Punjab.
* The Hindus were encouraged by the (British) government to force the Muslims to join the Congress.



(These extracts have been translated from Urdu which is the standard medium of instruction in government schools in Pakistan.)

KAOSKTRL

Sorry link for prior
http://acage.org/articles/?id=0088

Oh well that source is a hate site and bigotted, yak. yak. yak.
Here,s another.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...ves/007743.php


August 19, 2005

Fitzgerald: Telling the truth about India

Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald sheds the light of truth on another subject about which there is a great deal of misinformation and disinformation: the treatment of Hindus (and Sikhs) by Muslims in India.

In sheer numbers, no group of Believers has suffered from Islam like the Hindus. It is amazing that few Indian-Americans, and few Indo-British, seem to know the history of their own ancestors and of what the Muslim conquest -- or perhaps one should say the Early Conquest and then the Later Conquest -- did to India, which Naipaul accurately described as a "wounded civilization." K. S. Lal writes of the 60-70 million Hindu victims murdered by their Muslim masters. When those Muslim masters ceased the mass killings, it was not out of any sense of mercy, but only to extort the jizya from people who would now be treated in a manner akin to Jews and Christians: dhimmis who would be allowed to live, but would be subject to a series of economic, political, and social disabilities that guaranteed a permanent status of degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity. There are those who are morally indifferent to how the Mughal conquerors ruled, or to what happened to the Hindus (or the Sikhs). One thinks of the deplorable William Dalrymple (who is apparently not deplorable enough for the TLS to cease assigning him books to review on the subject) in his popular accounts of the luxury and love-intrigue at Mughal courts, or that other, more scholarly apologist for Islam, Francis Robinson. A number of factors have contributed to the indifference of Hindu intellectuals in India, and outside India, to the real nature of Islam. For the first, there is the common desire to ape the attitudes of so-called intellectuals in London and New York. It would not do, it does not do, to be too exercised about Islam. And of course, all things pertaining to Hindutva, to a sense of Indian nationalism connected to Hinduism, is mocked in the world, though it offers not the slightest threat or menace (unlike Islam) to anyone – anyone, that is, but the Muslims who continue to procreate and "gain market-share" as a percentage of the population in India, even as they harry or persecute or murder the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan and Bangladesh and, whenever they can, in Kashmir and elsewhere in India.

The astounding ignorance of Indian history that one finds in the Western world, and the supplanting of that history by the ooohing and aahing over Mughal emperors, should stick in everyone's craw. And some sympathetic attention to the claims of Hindus to Hindustan, and to the other non-Muslim populations in that most naturally tolerant of civilizations, should be given in Western universities and in the Western media. Even those newspapers in the Western world that are aimed at an Indian immigrant audience tend to pull their punches about Islam, or perhaps ignore the subject altogether (save in a few cases where the readership is definitely Hindu or Hindu and Sikh). This is done, one supposes, because the newspaper owners do not wish to alienate Muslim Indians in the West who might also read the paper, even if it means ignoring the major issue of our time and possibly of our century: the issue of the world-wide Jihad, from which Indian civilization suffered, and from which Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India itself (including Indian Kashmir), and now in Great Britain, also suffer. Hindus and Sikhs in Britain, having come to the West with its freedoms and opportunities, and who once here have not given any occasion for alarm or offense, now find themselves, thousands of miles from India, subject yet again to the implacable hatred and menace of Islam. Whenever an Indian (Hindu or Sikh) intellectual becomes known outside of India, he is quick to demonstrate his abhorrence of what is called "communalism" (which always means: those silly Hindus, and Sikhs, who may be too much attached to their own traditions and faiths, and of course are to be regarded with lack of sympathy should they dare to demonstrate any lack of sympathy themselves for Islam). One can see the phenomenon, for example, in the attitudes and rhetoric of Amartya Sen, who has written about the "democracy" within Islam. Sen’s is an entirely ahistorical piece that makes one wish to insist that this particular shoemaker should stick to his last profession, though now he appears to have decided to make shoes for the whole wide world.

Readers should go to the historians of India -- K. S. Lal, Sir Jahundath Sarkar, those who contributed to the 19th-century volume edited by the Englishmen Dowson and Elliot -- as well as to the modern non-Indian scholars Koenraad Elst and Francois Gautier. They will be surprised what they will learn about the history of India. They might even begin with that book with the old-fashioned title "The Wonder That Was India," about pre-Islamic India, written by A. L. Basham. Others might choose to look at the grim list of Hindu temples, thousands of them, destroyed by Muslims, a list compiled by Sita Ram Goel (another author, who along with Ram Swarup is regarded by many Bright Young Indian Things as simply beyond the pale -- and they make this judgment without ever having bothered to read his works), and published in two volumes.

Among those of Indian descent well-known to the outside world, and who cannot be ignored as "Hindu fanatics" (a term thrown around a good deal, even though the most fanatical of Hindus would not come close, in the menace that his worldview would present to non-Hindus, to what the mildest and most "moderate" of Muslims presents to non-Muslims), the only one to tell the truth about Islam has been V. S. Naipaul.

There should be many more.

KAOSKTRL

Various Islamic conquerers wreaked great havok upon the Hindu and Buddhist cultures of India. Mahmud of Ghazni swore to make war against the idolators every year of his life--he led about 17 invasions, and faithfully followed the Qur'anic directive to kill the idolators wherever they could be found. The slaughter he wrought at the temple of Somnath alone, at which Muslim chroniclers claim a toll of 50,000 Hindus, appoints him a place of infamy in Indian history. After his conquests of Varanasi, Ujjain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi, and Dwarka, not one temple was left standing. In Kangra, besides over 10,000 other temples destroyed by Mahmud:

* In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan [Mahmud] was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included "five of red gold, each five yards high," with eyes formed of priceless jewels. The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground.[VA Smith p207]

Tarikh-i-Yamini of Utbi, Mahmud’s court historian, recorded Mahmud's conquest of Thanesar in 1011:


* The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count. Praise he to Allah for the honour he bestows on Islam and Muslims.

And Nandana in 1013:


* The Sultan returned in the rear of immense booty, and slaves were so plentiful that they became very cheap and men of respectability in their native land were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers. But this is the goodness of Allah, who bestows honour on his own religion and degrades infidelity.

Mahaban 1018:


* The infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river, but many of them were slain, taken or drowned. Nearly fifty thousand men were killed. The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground.

Kanuaj:


* In Kanauj there were nearly ten thousand temples. Many of the inhabitants of the place fled in consequence of witnessing the fate of their deaf and dumb idols. Those who did not fly were put to death. The Sultan gave his soldiers leave to plunder and take prisoners.

Shrawa:


* The Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshippers of sun and fire. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of the slain for three days in order to obtain booty… The booty amounted in gold and silver, rubies and pearls nearly to three hundred thousand dirhams, and the number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazni and merchants came from distant cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them, and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor, were commingled in one common slavery.


Faithfully following the example of the prophet, whom upon entering Mecca had the idols of the Kabaa smashed and ordered the Quray****es to destroy their own private idols, the various Muslim conquerers, from Qasim to Mahmud, Muhammad Ghuri, Firuz Shah, Timur, Akbar the Great, Aurangzeb and others, utterly devestated India's Hindu and Buddhist cultural heritage. The great wealth of India has led many apologists to claim that the Hindu conquests were not religious in nature, but fortunately for the rest of us the Islamic conquest were well documented by their undertakers. Timur speaks of his motivations for invading India:

* About this time there arose in my heart the desire to lead an expedition against the infidels, and to become a ghazi; for it had reached my ears that the slayer of infidels is ghazi, and if he is slain he becomes martyr. It was for this reason that I formed my resolution but I was undetermined in my mind whether I should direct my expedition against the infidels of China or against the infidels and polytheists of India. In this matter I sought an omen from the Koran and the verse to which I opened was this: 'O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them with severity'.


Thus, archeological evidence shows that thousands of mosques in the former Hindu empire are built on the foundations of, and, in many cases, from the debris of, demolished Hindu temples. Idols were smashed or mutilated and trampled on before Muslim places of worship, or, if they contained precious metals, were melted down and re-used. Some were turned into toilet seats or handed over to butchers to be used as weights. Sacred Hindu texts were defiled or burnt, and cows were slaughtered upon the temple sites so that Hindus could never use them again.

The magnitude of Muslim attrocities in India is so great that I grossly understimate their scope simply by attempting to describe them, particularly in one chapter of one book. By the sword of Islam, an entire civilization was destroyed and the number of dead easily number in the millions over several decades. The value of the booty--'jewels and unbored pearls and rubies, shining like sparks or like wine congealed with ice, and emeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates'[Smith p207]--can never be measured. As a result of [this] fanaticism, thousands of temples which had represented the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. [Will Durant] This rich cultural heritage, like the foundations and materials of Hindu temples used to erect Muslim mosques, were highjacked by Islam. Indian mathemeticians conceived algebra and the number zero, which were translated to the Muslim world through its conquests, and then brought to the West through conquest; Islamic civilization now mistakenly recieves credit for these innovations. India before Islam was one of the most advanced civilizations of all time.

KAOSKTRL

Are we clear now?

G4-450

ha ha ha LOL

Jihad watch is a Zionist racist website, the Pro Israel religious fanatical are no different then the Neo Nazis where about there Jew hatred,

Zionists are NOT "Jews" anymore then Nazis are not "Christians or Socialists".
This is the same for those who call themselves Egyptians and at the same time Muslims.

They are ignorant Racists who make up 99.9 percent of there stories, you better get out your history books before Hitler's clans suck you into there lies.

Here are some facts about where racism was invented;
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

No wonder you where suckered by Bush.

G4-450

very funny guy

by the way,

the number zero came from the earliest arabs just like the wedding ring came from egypt, not from the muslims in the 9th century,

the number zero was re introduced by arab Hindus aka pakistan area before islam came around, and today all numbers are arabic which took europe about 500 years to accept after literaly living in the dark ages, which they keep trying to go back into thanks to greedy leaders who know how to take advantage of the most inbred ignorant ethnic morans who also slept for that long while muslims told them the world was round.

and the above is a fine example of the lies these "jihad watch" web sites feed haters, if you like hatred start with facing your very own enemy with in.... cause you have nothing to stand on but that your admitting to been a sore loser like the nazis who rather blamed the world when they cold not live in it while they had the hate disease.

i take it that you think you found peace in blame games?

Here is something you should consider to reconize who is been truthfull in there speach.[SIZE=3]Men of little or no faith always put down the law and tell better people what to do, incase of refusal they shower insults and injuries, no attention is to be paid to them., it is there way.[/SIZE]

KAOSKTRL

Like I said I knew you would attack JW,
a site that like the drudge report they ,
collect news and opinion pieces that ask

the Question
If Islam has been jihacked by extremist prove it with scripture ?

Guess what you cant because that is what I set out to prove 3 years ago.

False claims of racism and bigotry are simply not a suffciant answer for the genocide and subjegation coming from the Quran.

Muslims do not get to appropriate any innocence that goes to jews because of hitler and nazism ,
as muslims were fighting shoulder to shoulder
with nazis and were often the them Neimoller was talking about.
Islamic Script proves Islams guilt .


2.216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.

2.217. They ask you concerning fighting in the Sacred Months (i.e. 1st, 7th, 11th and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar). Say, "Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allâh is to prevent mankind from following the Way of Allâh, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah), and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion (Islâmic Monotheism) if they can. And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever."
http://infidels.kafirnation.com/english/surah2.html




Tafsir Ibn Kathir

http://www.tafsir.com/Default.asp

Shirk is worse than Killing

Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing. Abu Malik commented about what Allah said:

[وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ]

(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) Meaning what you (disbelievers) are committing is much worse than killing.'' Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that what Allah said:

[وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ]

(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) "Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing.''

G4-450

Your first big mistake is inventing arabic definitions, or are you trying to lie your way through?

Jihad means struggle, both inner and outer, the fighting for Allah's cause is ordained in the bible too, with the torah, the same laws in islam called the "Sharia" and called "Tenack" in Hebrew or simply the "Ten Commandments" , they where coded in a way no man could of corrupted them.

Same for the rest, your propagating lies kid., All teh laws of the bible are the same exact laws in the Koran, only nothing was left out at all and clear, read it for yourself before going to racist websites.

Its simple, Muslims picked up where Jews left off worshiping according to them and to jesus, that is so simple but hard to believe for the people in deep sin who claim to be doing what the "Sharia" and called "Tenack" or Ten Commandments so to speak orders them to do, do you do this, if you do not then i would suggest you stay away from the subject cause it proves your legit hypocrite, think about it.

KAOSKTRL

Too anyone playing along at home,
please make noet of all the documentation and scriptural evidance G4-450 uses to refute me
Are his posts attacks on me other people and websites or are they consice arguments that reveal how Isalam has been Hijacked and twistied by extremists?

Noble Qur’an 2:190 Footnote: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.”


The passage itself can be found in two places. It is on page 39 of the Noble Qur’an translation by Muhammad Khan and distributed by “King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an—The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. It is a footnote to Qur’an 2.190 and is designed to explain Jihad according to Allah as this is the first time the word is used.
And it can be found on page 580 of the Islamic University of Medina’s translation of Sahih al-Bukhari’s Hadith. There it opens Bukhari’s Book of Jihad.

In both cases, the Islamic scholars are condensing Allah’s and Muhammad’s teachings on Jihad to a single paragraph.

G$ did you noit get the memo at the bomb factory ?
Your Iman told you , "you cannot defend or promote Islam on the internet any more, the cat is out of the bag ,
islam is a pig in a poke!"

KAOSKTRL

Are you insane?

I provided the consice defination of the Jihad
YAK YAK YAK.
Irreleavent and untrue.
funny though
Stay away from the subject ?
Google my user name , roll up your're tent, and move on.
Your finished here.