“It’s Their Interpretation of Islam”

“It’s Their Interpretation of Islam”

by Michael Copeland

“Ah, but it’s their interpretation of Islam”, we are assured by smooth-talking muslim speakers. Journalists have picked this up, and dutifully write about “an extremist interpretation” that lies behind the latest atrocity. This assurance about interpretation is surprisingly successful. It is designed to make us doubt what Islam’s source texts mean, including — and this is the crafty part — those whose meaning is clear and obvious. We can easily be taken in by this appealing and fair-sounding assertion. It puts us off the scent. That is the idea.

First, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by an “interpretation”. If an instruction says “give away one tenth of your income to charity”, that does not require an interpretation. The meaning is quite clear, and the instruction can be exactly followed. An “interpretation” is different. Say a politician repeatedly evades an interviewer’s question with some bland generalisation. Eventually the interviewer says, “I’ll take that as a ‘No’”. That is an interpretation. It is quite a different matter from the straightforward following of what a text says.

Bearing in mind that the Koran — all of it — forms part of Islam’s law, how does the “interpretation” allegation stand up to the test?

Let us see. We can take commands and instructions from the Koran and Hadith and compare them with what muslim leaders and speakers say.


Koran 60:4 praises the “excellent pattern” shown by Ibrahim when he said (to the Jews):

“Between us and you enmity and hatred forever….”.

How do the spokesmen treat that?

  • Osama bin Laden: “Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us.”
  • Osama bin Laden: “Battle, animosity, and hatred — from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion.”
  • islamqa.com: “Muslims in the West must have … enmity and hatred of the kaffirs.”
  • Alminbar.com: “You should hate them, disown them and their religion.”
  • Abu Usama, Birmingham: “No one loves the kuffaar. We hate kuffaar.”
  • Anjem Choudary: “As a muslim I must have hatred for everything non-Islam.”
  • Yousuf Makharzah, muslim cleric: “Animosity towards the Jews is an obligatory religious duty, and one of the signs of the believers.”


The Koran commands:

  • “Kill the non-muslims wherever you find them” 9:5
  • “Kill them wherever you overtake them, and expel them from wherever they have expelled you….” 2:191

What do the clerics say?

  • Ayatollah Khomeini: “Islam says: Kill all of the kafirs. Put them to the sword. Cut them in pieces. Islam is a religion of blood for the infidels.”
  • Haj Amin al Husseini: “Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Murder the Jews! Murder them all!”
  • Mufti M Hussein: “Islam’s goal is to kill Jews.”
  • Al-Aqsa TV: “Allah, strike the Christians… count them and kill them to the last one.”
  • Prayer on Mecca loudspeaker: “O Allah vanquish the unjust Christians and the criminal Jews, … end their lives in humiliation and oppression…”

Forced conversion

The Koran commands muslims to force kafirs to convert on pain of death:

  • “Kill the non-muslims wherever you find them. ….but if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakat, let them [go] on their way.” 9:5
  • “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 jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” 9:29

  • Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt: “Muslims must kill kafirs wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.”
  • Abu Askar: “Convert or be killed.”
  • Ibn Khaldun: “…a religious duty to convert everybody by persuasion or by force.”
  • Osama bin Laden: “Does Islam or does it not force people by the power of the sword to submit…? Yes!”
  • Abu Qaqa, of Boko Haram: “…all Christians must convert to Islam. Allah has tasked all Muslims in Quran 9:29 to continue to attack Jews and Christians who refuse to believe in him and his messenger, Prophet Mohammed.”
  • Al Baghdadi: “Conversion to Islam or death.”


Mohammed is recorded as saying:

“I have been made victorious with terror.”

The Koran commands muslims:

“Terrorise them!” 8:60

What do muslims say?

  • Ragab Hilal Hamida MP: “The Quran directly commands us to commit terrorism…”
  • Gen. S. K. Malik: “…to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies”.
  • Abu Izzadeen: “Terrorism is part of Islam!”
  • Nassim ben Iman: “Every Muslim is a potential terrorist.”
  • Zakir Naik: “Every Muslim is a terrorist.”
  • Islamic State manual: “The Management of Savagery”.
  • Child with dagger, singing: “Our terrorism is blessed, a divine call”.

Impose Islamic rules on all mankind

The Koran commands muslims to “fight” — that is, slaughter — non-muslims until all the “deen” — the governance — is Islam, namely Sharia law. The Arabic word “deen” is normally and artfully translated “religion”, but that is inadequate. In the West, quite unlike in Islam, religion is understood to be restricted to private conscience: it is not government. In Islam from Mohammed’s time to the present there is no distinction between religion and governance: religion is government. The mosque is an arm of the state:

“Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims.”

Dr. Ja’far Sheikh Idris, Sudanese Muslim Philosopher

The Koran’s instruction is at 8:39:

Fight the kafirs until the “deen” [governance], all of it, is Islam.

What do Islamic clerics say?

Musa Cerantonio, Australia “The answer is, as the Prophet said, to fight the infidels until the religion belongs to Allah.”

Jihad Watch, December 2012

What is the conclusion to draw about the “interpretation” assertion?

It is a red herring, and a dishonest one at that.

Lt-Col Allen West sums it up succinctly:

“They are doing exactly what this book says.

For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.

11 thoughts on ““It’s Their Interpretation of Islam”

  1. Anyone who studies Sharia will notice a common referencing to a “scholarly consensus”. What this is, is that the scholars that founded a school of jurisprudence got together, came to an agreement on what the scriptures mean. This agreement is then codified into sharia. Thus, sharia can be seen as the official interpretation of scriptures for a particular school.
    In particular, quoting from the “reliance of the Traveller”, sharia manual for the Shafi’i school.

    “b7.3 The proof of the legal authority of scholarly consensus is that just as Allah Most Glorious has ordered the believers, in the Koran, to obey Him and His messenger, so too He has ordered them to obey those of authority (ulu al-amr) among then saying
    ‘O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Prophet and those of authority among you’ (Koran 4:59)
    such that when those of authority in legal expertise, the mujtahids, agree on a ruling, it is obligatory in the very words of the Koran to follow then and carry out their judgement.”

    So, when people go on about “it’s an interpretation”. Ask “what does the official interpretation (sharia) say?”

    Well, what does it say?

    o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation. … If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin.
    o9.4 (Who is obligated to fight in jihad) Those called upon are every able-bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.
    o9.8 (Objectives of jihad) The caliph makes war upon Jews Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax.
    o9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim

    There is a lot more (recommended reading), but you get the gist. Muslims are obligated, as a community, to wage war on non-Muslims until they submit.

    Here is another interesting tidbit.

    o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

    o8.7(20) (Acts that entail leaving Islam) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message to be the religion followed by the entire world.

    In other words, denying Jihad is a capital crime!

    This is all for one school (Shafi’i), but the schools are not very different.

    To sum up. My main point is that when people go on about interpretation, it all bullocks, because official interpretations exist in the form of Sharia.

    • I note that in 09.4 and in 08.1 there appears to be an easy-out for those who are not “sane”…..No wonder I hear the police and lawyers constantly advising us that the latest butcher has “mental health issues” and so his/her motives are ” unclear”and that he/she is not responsible.

  2. In an Al Azhar U approved interpretation of the koran, there is no interpretation allowed! Commands, (verses) are to be obeyed, abrogation of any conflicting earlier verses, from the later-newer verses applies, unless you think you can get away with not obeying the koran. koran is all about murder, rape, pillaging. If you disagree, think you can get away with not obeying, that’s the only choice, not an interpretation. Either you do, or you don’t, suffer the defined consequence! “Don’t” is blasphemy, and automatic death sentence. Do and you’re good, (with allah) and a criminal in civilization, simple as that! After you get suckered into shahada, you submit, to koran, period. If you don’t you are a blasphemer, punishable by death.

    Shahada is one way in, and never out. Although very many do take their chances and walk, exit, or some appear to (lies, deceptions, restrictions, in islam is a defined art form, with instructions, for many styles of lying), or break rules like Huma, with weiner, which is forbidden, but it was for higher good of islam (fake out the enemy infidels, us), so temporarily acceptable.

    • Just stumbled on this, which may be of help clarifying-verifying some of my comments,

      It ultimately is, I believe, the only possible alternate way to prevent mass carnage, which is called “war”, hand to hand, bomb to bomb, beheading to beheading nation to nation. Because theirs is a principle of offensive conquering war, physical harm (1400 years so far), and ours is a Biblical defensive physical fight. It is very well said in our Bible, our word of God, the Creator, through Jesus said, >Luke 22:36, and elsewhere, ‘defend your family, friends, physically, while building protective wall’… as well>Psalm 144:1 https://biblereasons.com/defending-yourself/

      Never forget, Christianity, in all ways is opposite of evil islam, which condemns to death anyone who will not submit-worship allah. No such absurdity has ever existed in Christianity. Jews, and the world, saw prediction in detail, even of the agony, of Jesus, 750 years before, in Isaah53! Christianity predicted the smiling devil, false prophets. This. (+many more verses), applies to islam and other cults, gangs, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 , look it up.

  3. “… when people go on about interpretation, it all bullocks, because official interpretations exist in the form of Sharia.”

    But, but, but … George Dubya told us that “islam means peace”. Nobel Prize Winner Barry Sotero told us that “call to adan is the sweetest sound on Earth” … the list goes on and on.

    The problem is … Luegenpresse will NEVER do any analysis of the Hate Manual, or the Cult itself – that would be (racist, xyz-phobic … simply WRONG).

    So we are left with the daily MSM massage and fake news watershed: day by day, article by article, video by video. The public is brainwashed, apathetic to the real danger, just trying to get by from one day to another.

    It’s hard to tell when exactly the straw breaks camel’s back.

    • Ah, but Condoleezza Rice went even farther than W — she said Islam is “the religion of peace and love.”

      • Ha! And here is what the Orthodox priest wrote to me (which holds friendly football matches between the Orthodox seminary and the Muslim theological school) in response to my words about the system Al-Wala’ wal-Bara’
        … your link to the Qur’an from Kuliyev’s new translation where many meanings are distorted. Look at the translation by Valeria Prokhorova and the commentary on it ”
        You don’t take either Jews or Christians as your patrons

        The hostility of Muslims to Jews and Christians did not in any case stem from their rejection of their religion, which is eloquently indicated in the Qur’an (see S. 2, Art. 62; C. 3, Art. 84; P. 5, Art. 43 -46), but because of their hostility, which sometimes turned into outright aggression, and their categorical rejection of Islam as a religion (see below, Article 57; C. 8, Article 73).

  4. This posting is packed with justification to impose the death penalty on anyone who propagates Islam or refuses to renounce it.

    • Perhaps. However that is the atheist way, the pagan way, not of the way of God, nor especially the way of Christ, Christianity.

  5. A seldom-quoted passage from Jude is relevant today because, tragically, many WITHIN the Christian church have embraced the “Islam is peace” mantra. ” . . . I felt the need of writing at once to encourage you to fight on for the faith which once and for all God has given to his people. For some godless people have slipped in unnoticed among us, persons who distort the message about the grace of our God in order to excuse their immoral ways, and who reject Jesus Christ . . . . ” (Jude 3-4)

Comments are closed.