Theresa Corbin, CNN, and the Myth of the Muslim Feminist

Here's a recent episode of "Jesus or Muhammad?" discussing Theresa Corbin's claim to be a "Muslim feminist."

The Muslim Feminist vs. Islam, Part Two: Theresa Corbin Rewrites the History of the Battle of Badr

Self-proclaimed "Muslim feminist" Theresa Corbin has given us her list of the "Most Misinterpreted Verses" of the Qur'an. Today we'll take a look at Corbin's attempt to rewrite Islamic history. In defense of Surah 8, verse 12, Corbin gives us this bit of outright deception:

2. Qur'an 8:12—Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

This verse was revealed about the Battle of Badr. The pagans of Mecca travelled more than 200 miles to Madinah with an army of about 1000 to kill the Muslims who numbered around 300. The Prophet Muhammad and fellow Muslims had suffered severe persecution, torture and even murder of their brethren for 13 years in the city of Mecca at the hands of these very same pagans.

And once the Muslims had fled Mecca and found a sanctuary in the city of Madinah, they were followed by the pagans of Mecca. By this verse God gave the order to Muslims to fight to defend their lives and faith, as they had previously been forbidden from defending themselves.

Another verse in the same chapter (8:61) that is often overlooked states:

But if the enemy incline towards peace, you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that hears and knows (all things).

Another oft-ignored verse is Qur'an 2:190:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah does love not transgressors.

Corbin must have seen Qur'an 8:12 elsewhere, because it's the only verse she tries to reinterpret that wasn't copied from my article. Many sites have appealed to the verse to account for recent beheadings, because "smite ye above their necks" is also translated as "strike off their heads," as in Shakir's translation:

When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Corbin doesn't respond to what critics are actually claiming about the verse (namely, that it's one of many Islamic teachings that inspire ISIS to behead people), so perhaps she agrees that enemies of Islam should be beheaded. In either case, she attempts to justify the command in 8:12 by lying (knowing that she can start shouting "Islamophobe!" when someone exposes her). Here's my outline of Corbin's assertions concerning the background of the Battle of Badr (and the command to behead the Meccans):

(1) Muslims wanted to live in peace in Mecca.
(2) The pagans tortured and killed Muslims anyway because they hated Islam.
(3) Muslims fled because they wanted to live in peace.
(4) The pagans pursued them to continue the persecution.
(5) Muslims had no choice but to defend themselves by chopping off their pagan heads.

What happens when we actually read the Muslim sources? We find that events went more like this:

(1) The pagans had no objection to Muhammad preaching Islam in Mecca.
(2) Instead of peacefully preaching Islam, Muhammad decided to mock and ridicule the beliefs of the pagans and to raise an army so that he could violently subjugate Arabia.
(3) In response to Muhammad mocking their beliefs and attempting to raise an army, the pagans persecuted Muslims.
(4) Muhammad vowed to slaughter the pagans.
(5) Muslims fled because they wanted to launch attacks from a more secure location.
(6) Muslims began terrorizing the pagans by raiding their caravans, going so far as to kill a man during a holy month (when there was a pact of non-violence).
(7) The pagans learned that Muhammad was preparing to attack a caravan returning from Syria, so they sent an army of 1000 to protect the caravan.
(8) Allah ordered Muslims to chop off the heads of the pagans for trying to guard their property.

Why did Corbin completely distort the background of Qur'an 8:12? Does she think that, if people know the truth, they will conclude that Islam is violent? Does she believe that she can only defend Islam from criticism by concealing the truth and deceiving her readers?

Let's turn to Islam's most trusted sources, so we can see why Corbin and other Muslim apologists are forced to rewrite history.

I. MUHAMMAD IN MECCA

According to Muslim sources, the pagans of Mecca were quite comfortable allowing Muhammad to preach Islam. They only became upset when Muhammad began insulting their gods:

At-Tabari, Volume VI, p. 93—The Messenger of Allah proclaimed Allah’s message openly and declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way . . . until he spoke of their gods and denounced them. When he did this, they took exception to it and united in opposition and hostility to him, except for those of them whom Allah had protected from error by means of Islam.

Here's a description of what the pagans had to put up with, in their own words:

At-Tabari, Volume VI, p. 101—"We have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man. He has derided out traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him."

But Muhammad wasn't satisfied with mocking the religious beliefs of the pagans. He also tried to raise an army. One day, some of Muhammad’s tribesmen went to his uncle, Abu Talib, because they wanted to arrange a truce with Muhammad. Their only request was for Muhammad to stop criticizing their gods. Here's what happened:

At-Tabari, Volume VI, p. 95—Abu Talib sent for the Messenger of Allah, and when he came in he said, "Nephew, here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe. They have asked for justice against you, that you should desist from reviling their gods and they will leave you to your god." "Uncle," he said, "shall I not summon them to something which is better for them than their gods?" "What do you summon them to?" he asked. He replied, "I summon them to utter a saying through which the Arabs will submit to them and they will rule over the non-Arabs." Abu Jahl said from among the gathering, "What is it, by your father? We will give you it and ten like it." He answered, "That you should say, 'There is no deity but Allah.'"

Notice that Muhammad, while he was in Mecca and had very few followers, was already planning to conquer Arabia (and beyond). What does he need in order to make the both Arabs and non-Arabs submit to him? He needs an army. And so he asks his tribe to convert to Islam to help him wage jihad. They rejected his offer, but they never forgot his intentions.

Because Muhammad wouldn't stop attacking their beliefs, the pagans responded by ridiculing him. In response, Muhammad vowed to slaughter them:

At-Tabari, Volume VI, pp. 101-2—I said to him, "What was the worst attack you saw by Quraysh upon the Messenger of God when they openly showed their enmity to him?" He replied, "I was with them when their nobles assembled one day in the Hijr and discussed the Messenger of God. They said, 'We have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused devision among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him,' or words to that effect. While they were saying this, the Messenger of God suddenly appeared and walked up and kissed the Black Stone. Then he passed by them while performing the circumambulation, and as he did so they made some slanderous remarks about him. I could see from the Messenger of God's face that he had heard them, but he went on. When he passed the second time they made similar remarks, and I could see from his face that he had heard them, but again he went on. Then he passed them the third time, and they made similar remarks; but this time he stopped and said, "Hear, men of Quraysh. By Him in whose hand Muhammad's soul rests, I have brought you slaughter.' They were gripped by what he had said, and it was as though every man of them had a bird perched on his head; even those of them who had been urging the severest measures against him previously spoke in a conciliatory way to him, using the politest expressions they could think of, and said, 'Depart in true guidance, Abu al-Qasim; by God, you were never ignorant.'

"The Prophet left, and the next day they gathered in the Hijr, and I (Abdallah b. Amr b. al-As) was again present. They said to one another, 'You were talking about the unpleasantness which you have endured and the things which Muhammad has done to you, but when he openly said something disagreeable you shrank from him.' While they were saying this, the Messenger of God suddenly appeared, and they leapt upon him as one man and surrounded him, saying, 'Is it you who says this and that?' repeating what they had heard of his denunciation of their gods and their religion. The prophet said, 'Yes, I am the one who says that.'"

"Then I saw one of them grabbing his cloak, but Abu Bakr stood in front of him weeping and saying, 'Woe upon you all! Would you kill a man because he says, My Lord is God?' Then they left him, and that is the worst thing I ever saw Quraysh do to him."

Notice that the narrator says that the worst thing he ever saw the Quraysh do to Muhammad was grab his cloak. And this was after Muhammad promised to slaughter them. Notice also that Abu Bakr immediately lied about what happened. The pagans grabbed Muhammad because he had insulted their gods and had threatened to slaughter them, but Abu Bakr claimed that they were attacking him simply for saying that Allah is his Lord. The deception, misrepresentation, and exaggeration we see from people like Corbin goes back to the earliest stages of Islam.

The pagans of Mecca did persecute Muhammad and his followers, but we can't ignore the fact that these pagans were vastly more tolerant than Muhammad and his followers were when their situations were reversed. (Muhammad eventually received Qur'an 9:5, commanding Muslims to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them.") Muhammad preached openly in Mecca for a decade, while ridiculing the beliefs of the pagans and even promising to slaughter them. Would I last ten years in Mecca if I went there today and started preaching Christianity? Would I last ten minutes if I mocked the beliefs of the current inhabitants of Mecca and threatened to kill them? Why do Muslims complain about intolerance when Islam is far less tolerant than any other religion?<

II. THE NAKHLAH RAID

Muhammad and his followers left Mecca and moved to Medina. Instead of living in peace, however, they began robbing the Meccan caravans. Since the caravan trade was one of the only sources of income for many of the Meccans, robbing the caravans was a direct threat to their livelihood. Attacking the caravans was thus a form of terrorism, for families would starve to death if the caravans did not return.

After a number of unsuccessful raids, Muslims had their first important victory at Nakhlah, when they attacked some unsuspecting traders, killed a man during a holy month (thus violating a truce), and seized men and property. Here's what happened:

At-Tabari, Volume VII, pp. 18-9—The Messenger of God wrote him (i.e., Abd Allah b. Jahsh) a letter, but ordered him not to look at it until he had travelled for two days. Then he was to look at it and to carry out what he was commanded in it but not to compel any of his companions to do anything against their will. When Abd Allah b. Jahsh had travelled two days, he opened the letter and looked at it, and it said, "When you look at my letter, march until you halt at Nakhlah, between Mecca and al-Ta-if. Observed Quraysh there, and find out for us what they are doing." When Abd Allah looked at the letter he said, "I heed and obey." Then he said to his companions, "The Messenger of God has commanded me to go to Nakhlah and observe Quraysh so that I can bring him news of them. He has forbidden me to compel any of you against your will, so whoever of you wishes and desires martyrdom, let him come with me, and whoever does not, let him go back. As for myself, I am going to carry out the command of the Messenger of God." He went, and his companions went with him, and not one of them stayed behind. He made his way through Hijaz, until, when he was at a mine above al-Fur, called Buhran, Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas and Utbah b. Ghazwan lost a camel of theirs which they were taking turns to ride. They stayed behind to search for it, but Abd Allah b. Jahsh and the rest of his companions went on until he reached Nakhlah. A caravan of Quraysh went past him carrying raisins, leather, and other goods in which Quraysh traded. Among the Quraysh in it were Amr b. al-Hadrami, Uthman b. Abd Allah b. al-Mughirah and his brother Nawfal b. Abd Allah b. al-Mughirah, both of the clan of Makhzum, and al-Hakam b. Kaysan the mawla of Hisham b. al-Mughirah (also of Makhzum). When they saw (the Muslims) they were afraid of them, since they had halted very close to them. Then Ukkahshah b. Mihsan came into view and he had shaved his head, and when they saw him they felt safe and said, "They are on their way to the umrah (or lesser pilgrimage); there is nothing to fear from them." The (Muslims) consulted one another concerning them, this being the last day of Rajab, and said, "By God, if you leave these people alone today, they will get into the Haram (the sacred territory of Mecca) and be out of your reach there; and if you kill them (today) you will have killed them in the sacred month." They hesitated and were afraid to advance upon them, but then they plucked up courage and agreed to kill as many of them as they could and to seize what they had with them. Waqid b. Abd Allah al-Tamimi shot an arrow at Amr b. al-Hadrami and killed him, and Uthman b. Abd Allah and al-Hakam b. Kaysan surrendered, but Nawfal b. Abd Allah escaped and they were unable to catch him. Then Abd Allah b. Jahsh and his companions took the caravan and the two captives back to the Messenger of God in Medina.

At first, Muhammad was upset with his followers for killing a man during the holy month. But then Allah calmed him down by revealing Surah 2, verse 217:

Qur'an 2:217—They ask you concerning fighting in the Sacred Months (i.e. 1st, 7th, 11th and 12th months of the Islamic calendar). Say, "Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allah is to prevent mankind from following the Way of Allah, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-al-Haram (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 (Islamic 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."

Hence, according to Allah, even though it would ordinarily be bad to kill during the holy month, it was okay to kill a peaceful caravan trader and violate a truce in this case because the pagans were unbelievers and were trying to convince Muslims to leave Islam.

III. THE BATTLE OF BADR

The pagans of Mecca finally realized what they were up against. Muhammad was going to make good on his promise to slaughter them. They needed to protect themselves and their property, so they became more cautious when sending out caravans. Eventually, Muhammad learned that a caravan was returning from Syria to Mecca, and he decided to attack. Read the following passage carefully and see if it lines up with Corbin's assertion that the "pagans of Mecca travelled more than 200 miles to Madinah with an army of about 1000 to kill the Muslims who numbered around 300."

At-Tabari, Volume VII, pp. 34-5—The Messenger of God heard that Abu Sufyan b. Harb was coming from Syria in a great caravan belonging to Quraysh containing money and merchandise of theirs and including thirty or forty horsemen of Quraysh . . . When the Messenger of God heard that Abu Sufyan was coming from Syria, he called the Muslims, both Emigrants and Ansar, to go against them, saying, "This is the caravan of Quraysh, containing their wealth; so go out against it, and it is to be hoped that God will give it to you as booty." The people went out in answer to his urging, some eagerly and some reluctantly, as the latter did not suppose that the Messenger of God would take any booty. Abu Sufyan had been seeking information and questioning the riders whom he met as he approached Hijaz, being fearful for his people's wealth. Finally he received news from some riders: "Muhammad has called his companions together to fight against you and your caravan." He was on his guard after that, and he engaged the services of Damdam b. Amr al-Ghifari and sent him to Mecca, telling him to go to Quraysh and summon them to come out to fight to protect their property, and to inform them that Muhammad and his companions had set off to intercept the caravan. So Damdam b. Amr set off swiftly to Mecca.

So did the pagans head to Medina to kill Muslims? Or did they go out to protect their property from Muhammad and his band of robbers? Even Muhammad himself declared that the pagans were simply protecting their property when he said, "Quraysh have come to protect their horseman" (At-Tabari, Volume VII, p. 31). So if Muhammad said that the pagans were simply guarding their caravan, why does Corbin insist that they had traveled there to kill Muslims?

It seems that Corbin has been a Muslim long enough to learn the art of taqiyya, and CNN is acting as her "taqiyya megaphone," helping her spread deception to far more readers than she could have hoped to deceive otherwise.

As for the two verses Corbin quotes to show that Islam is peaceful, she apparently thinks her readers are too stupid to open up a commentary. Here is Tafsir Jalalayn on Qur'an 8:61 and 2:190:

Tafsir Jalalayn on 8:61—And if they incline to peace (read silm or salm, meaning, 'settlement'), then incline to it, and conclude a pact with them: Ibn Abbās said, 'This has been abrogated by the "sword verse" [Q. 9:5]'; Mujāhid said, 'This [stipulation] applies exclusively in the context of the People of the Scripture, for it was revealed regarding the Banū Qurayza; and rely on God, put your trust in Him; truly He is the Hearer, of words, the Knower, of actions.'

Tafsir Jalalayn on 2:190—After the Prophet (s) was prevented from [visiting] the House in the year of the battle of Hudaybiyya, he made a pact with the disbelievers that he would be allowed to return the following year, at which time they would vacate Mecca for three days. Having prepared to depart for the Visitation [umra], [he and] the believers were concerned that Quraysh would not keep to the agreement and instigate fighting. The Muslims were averse to becoming engaged in fighting while in a state of pilgrimage inviolability in the Sacred Enclosure [al-haram] and during the sacred months, and so the following was revealed: And fight in the way of God, to elevate His religion, with those who fight against you, the disbelievers, but aggress not, against them by initiating the fighting; God loves not the aggressors, the ones that overstep the bounds which God has set for them: this stipulation was abrogated by the verse of barā'a, immunity' [Q. 9:1], or by His saying: And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you, that is, from Mecca, and this was done after the Conquest of Mecca; sedition, their idolatry, is more grievous, more serious, than slaying, them in the Sacred Enclosure or while in a state of pilgrimage inviolability, the thing that you greatly feared. But fight them not by the Sacred Mosque, that is, in the Sacred Enclosure, until they should fight you there; then if they fight you, there, slay them, there (a variant reading drops the alif in the three verbs [sc. wa-lā taqtilūhum, hattā yaqtulūkum, fa-in qatalūkum, so that the sense is 'slaying' in all three, and not just 'fighting']) — such, killing and expulsion, is the requital of disbelievers.

As I said in a previous article, I would ordinarily think that such a horribly inaccurate defense of Islam was the result of ignorance. However, even when I send Corbin the sources that prove that she is wrong, she conceals them, which means that her inaccuracies aren't merely the result of ignorance. She is actively covering up the reality of Islam in order to deceive her readers.

Welcome to the world of the "Muslim feminist," where women believe what they're told to believe, and then lie to defend it.

Theresa Corbin Deliberately Conceals Facts about Allah, Muhammad, and the Qur'an

I just sat down to write Part Two of my response to Theresa Corbin's article on misinterpreted verses of the Qur'an. But there's an important point that needs to be addressed first, because it affects our interpretation of Corbin's claims.

Until now, I had assumed that Corbin was ignorant and gullible. I thought that she accepted Islam without bothering to study it, and that her teachers are spoon-feeding her false information about Muhammad and the Qur'an.

This, of course, is the most generous interpretation of her articles. The alternative is that she is deliberately lying about Muhammad and the Qur'an, which would be a much more serious problem. Ignorance can often be dispelled by sharing information. But when a person is deliberately deceptive, there's a deeper issue involved: a moral failing that cannot be repaired by simply sharing information.

Yesterday, I was happy to see that Corbin had responded to part of my article. I knew that she wouldn't simply abandon Islam after a single article proving that her claims were false, but the fact that she responded seemed to indicate that she was willing to dig deeper into the issues.

That's how things seemed yesterday. Today, everything changed when I saw that she had rejected the comment I posted last night. After I had addressed her radical reinterpretation of Allah's command not to be friends with Jews and Christians, I sent her the link in a comment, so that she would know that her god, her prophet, her prophet's companions, and Islam's greatest scholars completely reject her reinterpretation. Here's the comment and link I posted:

I have no objections to comment moderation (I moderate comments myself). Some people want to post threats or obscene language, and others love to spam articles. But that's not how Corbin is moderating comments. She has posted claims about Islam that are demonstrably false. Instead of acknowledging her errors and correcting them, however, she chooses to deliberately conceal the facts that refute her. Thus, she rejected my comment linking to direct quotes from Islam's most trusted sources (though she's happy to post comments that praise her).

This means that Corbin isn't merely ignorant and gullible (though she is undeniably both). She is also misleading and deceptive. She knows that there are facts that refute her claims, but she wants to keep her readers from these facts, so that they continue to believe the lie she has posted.

I'll continue my response to her article tomorrow. Right now, I have to think about why misrepresentation, deception, and concealing evidence are so common among Muslim apologists, and what this tells me about their religion. I think I feel an episode of "Jesus or Muhammad?" coming on.

The Muslim Feminist vs. Islam, Part One: Theresa Corbin Commits Shirk

Theresa Corbin read my response to her CNN article claiming to be a "Muslim feminist." She wrote a reply to the Qur'an verses that I quoted, but her interpretations show that she is no closer to actually studying an Islamic source than when she converted to Islam. Since she addressed nine Qur'an passages, let's take a look at one passage per day for the next nine days, to give her plenty of time to digest what her religion actually teaches. (When we're done, I'll put everything together into one long article.)

Corbin begins with Surah 5, verse 51, which commands Muslims not to be friends with Christians or Jews. Corbin writes:

1. Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

In this verse, the words "Awliya"- plural- or "wali" - singular- has been (badly) translated as "friends" or "friend"; however, the more appropriate translation would be a "guardian, protector, or advocate". Muslims are to be advocates and protectors for each other. And friends with everyone.

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was kind to the pagans of Mecca and fought them only when they fought him. He made treaties with the Jews of Madinah and honored the treaties until they broke them. He received the Christians of Najran with kindness in Madinah. They argued with him about Islam, but he treated them with honor and respect.

Apparently, Corbin has never stopped blindly accepting what her Muslim instructors tell her to believe about Islam. (We saw this repeatedly in her CNN article.) When we actually examine this verse to see what it means, a few interesting things come to light.

First, for the sake of argument, suppose we go along with Corbin's translation. This verse, according to Corbin, commands Muslims not to take Christians or Jews as "guardians, protectors, or advocates." Interesting. So Muslims can't allow Christians or Jews to become police officers, government officials, doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc., in areas where Muslims are present, since doing so would violate the Qur'an. How moderate of our Muslim feminist!

Second, by saying that "awliya" and "wali" should not be translated as "friends" and "friend," respectively, Corbin just committed shirk. How so? Let's read another Qur'an verse in which the word "awliya" occurs:

Qur’an 10:62—Lo! verily the friends of Allah are (those) on whom fear (cometh) not, nor do they grieve!

This verse refers to the "awliya Allahi," which is translated as "friends of Allah." Corbin, however, says that "awliya" shouldn't be translated as "friends." Instead, she prefers "protectors." So the verse, according to Corbin, should be translated as:

Qur’an 5:51—Lo! verily the GUARDIANS OF ALLAH are (those) on whom fear (cometh) not, nor do they grieve!

So Corbin has just assured her readers that Allah has bodyguards! But surely these bodyguards must be more powerful than Allah if they're guarding Allah. This means that there are beings more powerful than Allah. Thus, Corbin has committed shirk.

Third, Corbin is correct that the word "awliya" can be translated as "guardians," "protectors," etc. Here are the possible translations according to Muhammad Mohar Ali's A Word for Word Meaning of the Qur'an:

Corbin seems to think that when a word has multiple meanings, you simply pick the one you like best and say that's the meaning. But that's not how Islam works. Allah claims that his commands are perfectly clear (see Qur'an 6:114, 11:1, 12:1, 16:89, 24:46, 27:1, 41:3, 57:9, etc.), so when he commands Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as "awliya," he's obviously aware of the fact that one of the most common meanings of the word is "friends." If he had meant something more specific, he could have clarified, but he didn't.

Thus, by claiming that she speaks more clearly than Allah speaks in his perfectly clear Word, Corbin is claiming to be a better communicator than Allah. This is yet another instance of shirk on her part.

Fourth, we know exactly how Muhammad's companions interpreted 5:51. Here's Ibn Kathir's commentary on the verse:

Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 5:51—Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them. Allah then states that they are friends of each other and He gives a warning threat to those who do this (And if any among you befriends them, then surely he is one of them.)

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Umar ordered Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari to send him on one sheet of balance the count of what he took in and what he spent. Abu Musa then had a Christian scribe, and he was able to comply with Umar's demand. Umar liked what he saw and exclaimed, "This scribe is proficient. Would you read in the Masjid a letter that came to us from Ash-Sham?" Abu Musa said, "He cannot." Umar said, "Is he not pure?" Abu Musa said, "No, but he is Christian." Abu Musa said, "So Umar admonished me and poked my thigh (with his finger), saying, 'Drive him out (from Al-Madinah).' He then recited, (O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends...)"

Then he reported that Abdullah bin Utbah said, "Let one of you beware that he might be a Jew or a Christian, while unaware."

So we have Ibn Kathir, the most respected Qur'an commentator in history, saying that "Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them." (I guess Ibn Kathir didn't get Corbin's memo that Muslims are to be "friends with everyone"!) Ibn Kathir then goes on to give an example of how this verse was interpreted by Umar (one of Muhammad's closest companions, the father of one of Muhammad's wives, and the second of the "rightly-guided" caliphs). When Umar heard that Abu Musa had a Christian scribe, he ordered Abu Musa to expel the Christian from Medina, and he quoted 5:51 to justify his command. This Christian wasn't a "guardian" or a "protector" of Abu Musa. He was simply close enough to work for Abu Musa, and this was unacceptable.

The meaning of "awliya," then, for the early Muslim community, included any sort of close relationship apart from marriage. Instead of picking and choosing which meaning of "awliya" he liked best, Umar realized that Allah means what he says, so he didn't allow Muslims to associate closely with non-Muslims.

Hence, if we read the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Tafsir, the meaning of 5:51 is perfectly clear. Muslims aren't allowed to be friends with Christians and Jews, because Christians and Jews are enemies.

Corbin, of course, will have none of this. Rather than read the Muslim sources and conclude, based on a careful investigation of the matter, what a verse commands her to do, she prefers to believe that the verse means whatever she wants it to mean. She then vilifies and demonizes anyone who attempts to correct her.

The only possible influence of feminism on Corbin is that she seems to be convinced (despite a complete lack of studying on her part) that she understands Islam better than Allah, Muhammad, Umar, Abu Musa, and Ibn Kathir.

Tomorrow, we'll take a look at Corbin's next "misinterpreted verse" of the Qur'an: Chapter 8, verse 12. Until then, I invite everyone to watch my "Three Stages of Jihad" video again, since it clears up some of the silliness in Corbin's defense of 5:51. Corbin points out that Muhammad had non-Muslim friends, as if this somehow proves that 5:51 can't mean that Muslims aren't allowed to have non-Muslim friends. She ignores the fact that jihad proceeds in stages, and that the rules when Muslims are not in control are quite different from the rules when Muslims are in control. (Corbin's teachers, who filter her information for her, didn't tell her that. But I will.)

Theresa Corbin: A Muslim Feminist?

Whenever there's a series of particularly violent jihadist attacks, CNN rushes to defend Islam, typically by telling us over and over again what a wonderful religion it is. I suppose the administrators at CNN mean well. They're probably thinking to themselves, "We need to protect peaceful Muslims from being associated with these violent extremists, and the best way to do that is to tell our readers and viewers that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, human rights, freedom, and democracy."

What CNN ends up doing in their rush to defend Islam, however, amounts to proselytizing for Islam. Some of the articles sound as if they're actually trying to convert people. Moreover, since CNN obviously doesn't bother to check the facts in the articles they post (doing so might be thought "racist" or "Islamophobic"), the network is being used to spread outright deception.

Let's look at an example. CNN's latest attempt to convince us that Islam is the ideal choice for Western readers is Theresa Corbin's "I'm a Feminist, and I Converted to Islam."

Maybe we should go through some of the article.

(CNN)—I am a Muslim, but I wasn't always. I converted to Islam in November 2001, two months after 9/11.

So Corbin was part of the surge in Muslim converts following the 9-11 terrorist attacks. These conversions were the result of three primary factors: (1) politicians and the media bombarding us with pro-Islamic misinformation, (2) a silly tendency among many Westerners to try to be "different" by adopting a controversial position, and (3) a misguided notion that converting to Islam is somehow helping to rescue a peaceful religion from its hijackers.

I was 21 and living in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It was a bad time to be a Muslim. But after four years of studying, poking and prodding at world religions and their adherents, I decided to take the plunge.

Given her defense of Islam, I have serious doubts that any of this "four years of studying" amounted to anything remotely resembling a careful examination of Islam. More on this below.

I am the product of a Creole Catholic and an Irish atheist. I grew up Catholic, then was agnostic, now I'm Muslim.

My journey to Islam began when I was about 15 years old in Mass and had questions about my faith. The answers from teachers and clergymen—don't worry your pretty little head about it—didn't satisfy me.

If she couldn't find a single Christian apologist or a book on Christian apologetics, how hard could she have been looking?

So I did what any red-blooded American would do: the opposite. I worried about it. For many years. I questioned the nature of religion, man and the universe.

Going against the grain! What a rebel!

After questioning everything I was taught to be true and digging through rhetoric, history and dogma, I found out about this strange thing called Islam. I learned that Islam is neither a culture nor a cult, nor could it be represented by one part of the world. I came to realize Islam is a world religion that teaches tolerance, justice and honor and promotes patience, modesty and balance.

A religion that teaches tolerance? I guess her Qur'an doesn't command:

Qur'an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Qur'an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur'an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

Qur'an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain.

Qur'an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Qur'an 48:29—Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.

Qur'an 98:6—Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

And I'm sure her prophet never said the things recorded in these ahadith:

Sahih Muslim 33—It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih Muslim 4366—It has been narrated by Umar b. al-Khattab that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad 1103—Abu Hurayra reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road."

Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Allah's Messenger said, "If anyone changed his Islamic religion, kill him."

Yep, sounds like tolerance. Corbin continues:

As I studied the faith, I was surprised many of the tenants [sic] resonated with me. I was pleased to find that Islam teaches its adherents to honor all prophets, from Moses to Jesus to Mohammed, all of whom taught mankind to worship one God and to conduct ourselves with higher purpose.

Jesus said that we have to honor the Son just as we honor the Father, and that if we don't, we're not honoring the Father:

John 5:22-23—Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Hence, by attempting to "honor" Jesus as a mere prophet, Muslims are honoring neither the Son nor the Father. But Corbin goes further:

I was drawn to Islam's appeal to intellect and heartened by the prophet Mohammed's quote, "The acquisition of knowledge is compulsory for every Muslim, whether male or female."

Oh my goodness! Here's where we can see that Corbin's "studying" amounted to no more than perusing a few websites. If she had bothered to actually read the Hadith, she would know that this quotation isn't an "appeal to intellect" in the sense she imagines. The quotation comes from Sunan Ibn Majah:

Sunan Ibn Majah 224—It was narrated that Anas bin Malik said: "Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim, and he who imparts knowledge to those who do not deserve it, is like one who puts a necklace of jewels, pearls and gold around the neck of swines."

According to Muhammad, however, the only beneficial knowledge is religious knowledge. All other knowledge is superfluous:

Sunan Ibn Majah 54—It was narrated that Abdullah bin Amr said: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'Knowledge is based on three things, and anything beyond that is superfluous: a clear Verse, an established Sunnah, or the rulings by which the inheritance is divided fairly.'"

Notice that all three categories of beneficial knowledge are included in Sharia as part of submission to Allah. Muhammad declared that seeking knowledge for non-religious purposes is enough to earn you a spot in hell:

Sunan Ibn Majah 258—It was narrated from Ibn Umar that the Prophet said: "Whoever seeks knowledge for a reason other than for the sake of Allah, or intends it for a purpose other than for the sake of Allah, let him take his place in Hell."

Hence, Muhammad begged Allah to guard him from secular knowledge:

Sunan Ibn Majah 3837—Abu Hurairah told that the Messenger of Allah said: "Oh Allah, I seek refuge with You from four things: From knowledge that is of no benefit, from a heart that does not fear (You), from a soul that is never satisfied, and from a supplication that is not heard."

And Muhammad ordered his followers to do the same:

Sunan Ibn Majah 3843—It was narrated from Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said: "Ask Allah for beneficial knowledge and seek refuge with Allah from knowledge that is of no benefit."

Why is this important? Because Corbin (who, again, clearly never bothered to read the quotation) interprets Muhammad's command to "acquire knowledge" as a command to seek scientific and mathematical knowledge:

I was astounded that science and rationality were embraced by Muslim thinkers such as Al-Khawarizmi, who invented algebra; Ibn Firnas, who developed the mechanics of flight before Leonardo DaVinci; and Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, who is the father of modern surgery.

This claim certainly isn't based on any studying whatsoever. Instead, it seems that Corbin simply went to the "1001 Inventions" exhibit at the National Geographic Museum. There's no way she would assert that Al-Khwarizmi "invented algebra" or that Ibn Firnas "developed the mechanics of flight" if she had actually read a book on algebra or flight. The only extant source for the claim that Ibn Firnas flew is from seven centuries after his death, and it merely claims that he covered himself in feathers, attached two wings to himself, flung himself into the air, and injured himself when he landed. Is this what qualifies as proof that he "developed the mechanics of flight"? Even if we grant that the story about Ibn Firnas is true, why not give the award for flight mechanics to the Chinese, who invented the kite more than a thousand years before Ibn Firnas and who even developed kites that could lift human beings into the air?

Al-Khwarizmi

As for Al-Khwarizmi inventing algebra, that's sheer nonsense. The Babylonians new some basic algebra a millennium before Al-Khwarizmi was born, and Diophantus of Alexandria took algebra much further in the third century AD. Since Al-Khwarizmi drew much of his work from Hindu mathematicians, we can only wonder why Muslim apologists still circulate the myth that he invented algebra (and why an erudite "feminist" like Theresa Corbin would believe the myth without so much as a 30-second visit to Wikipedia).

While Corbin correctly notes that Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi has been called "the father of modern surgery," she fails to mention that the same title has been given to the Indian surgeon Sushruta (6th century BC), French surgeons Guy de Chauliac (AD 1300-1368) and Ambroise Paré (1517–1590), Italian surgeon Hieronymus Fabricius (1537–1619), Scottish surgeon John Hunter (1728–1793), American surgeons Philip Syng Physick (1768–1837) and William Stewart Halsted (1852–1922), English surgeon Joseph Lister (1827–1912), and German surgeon Theodor Billroth (1829–1894). Why focus on one of the many surgeons who contributed to their field and declare that this has something to do with Islam? Why not convert to Hinduism because Sushruta was a Hindu or to Catholicism because Guy de Chauliac was a Catholic? The answer, of course, is that followers of other religions generally don't make the silly sort of argument that somehow convinced Corbin that Islam is true. Hindus, for instance, don't run around trumpeting that Sushruta was "the father of modern surgery" as if this has anything to do with the truth of Hinduism. Muslim apologists, however, will use just about anything to defend Islam. So when they tell a gullible, uninformed Western "feminist" that Islam must be the truth because a medieval Muslim was a great surgeon, they get the result they're looking for. Moving on:

Here was a religion telling me to seek out answers and use my intellect to question the world around me.

Where did Islam tell Corbin to use her intellect to question the world around her? When Muhammad ordered his followers to ask Allah to protect them from non-religious knowledge? On the contrary, the Qur'an warns Muslims not to ask too many questions. Allah will reveal what they need to know in the Qur'an:

Qur'an 5:101-102—O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.

Beyond this, Muhammad declared that women are intellectually deficient.

Sahih al-Bukhari 2658—The Prophet said: "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said: "Yes." He said: "This is because of the deficiency of her mind."

How is Corbin going to question the world around her when her prophet says that she simply isn't smart enough?

Now for the conversion:

It was 2001, and I had been putting off converting for a while. I feared what people would think but was utterly miserable. When 9/11 happened, the actions of the hijackers horrified me. But in its aftermath, I spent most of my time defending Muslims and their religion to people who were all too eager to paint a group of 1.6 billion people with one brush because of the actions of a few.

I was done being held hostage by the opinions of others. In defending Islam, I got over my fear and decided to join my brothers and sisters in the faith I believed in.

Let's recap.

(1) Theresa Corbin is a "feminist."
(2) She studied Islam for four years before converting, but never managed to actually read any authentic Islamic sources.
(3) Instead, she believed everything she was told by Muslim apologists, and it never occurred to her to look things up.
(4) Because she still hasn't bothered to study the Islamic sources, she makes claims about Islam that totally contradict what Islam actually teaches.
(5) CNN posts her story on its front page, without correcting any of her false claims.
(6) Her story is now used to recruit more gullible women to a religion that considers them intellectually deficient.

Welcome to the new face of American feminism! Islam is the most violently misogynistic religion in the world. Globally, eleven of the twelve countries most oppressive towards women are Muslim-majority countries. Women are being raped by jihadists as we speak (and the Qur'an allows it). And instead of confronting Islam, American feminists are defending it. But don't ask them to "worry their pretty little heads."

For a brief introduction to women in Islam, watch this: