Literalist, parochial and narrow-minded

To: Mr. Aleemddin Ahmed:

We here at JW are always looking forward to a Muslim posting his or her thoughts and comments.

May I suggest you review the various questions posed below in the posting on March 28, 2006 under the caption "Religion of Peace?". I would certainly like to hear your response to the questions since it's not likely anybody from CAIR will respond.

It's the typical reply..."don't judge us what islam does, judge what we say it's supposed to do." Islam is when mobs take to the streets to burn, destroy, and kill. That is the concrete, objective truth of Islam. Everything else is propaganda and pretty window-dressing.

1st bigot to respond. Thanks Robert once again you wow me. I bet this guy never came back with any answers to his rant, because he doesn't have them.

I guess everything that Islamists do was taken out of context when they read their Quran. Where was this guy and all of his enlightened brothers protesting the murderous ways of his people?

There's a lot of killing going on still by people misquoting the Quran, why isn't he chastizing them for bringing this shame on his culture and religion, but instead takes it out on you and everyone concerned about what they see.

Hey Robert don't believe your eyes, Islam is about peace and tolerrance. That's what they'll keep telling you no matter what.

From number 9 on the list of unclean things, keep up the good work.

"Most people can recognizes this right away from your website and comments, which I'm sure helps to invogorate [sic] the bigots who post often on the site..."

Funy,I dont feal invogorated...plez xkooz meye
bigited speling...

GAWD BLES AMIRIKA!!!

WOW, Robert. All I can say is, WOW. I'm sure when
Aleemuddin Ahmed fired off that letter, he probably thought, "Naa, Naa, I got you!"
He should think twice about sparring against your intellect.

As for that poor, misunderstood quran, "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way!"
(Forgive me, Jessica Rabbit.)

Hey hold everything, I'm not number 9 (beer) on list of unclean things, I'm number 10 (Kafir) Infidel, I apologize.

Niv

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, then it is probably a duck. If Islam reads like a violent religion, sounds like violent religion, acts like a violent religion, then it probably is a violent religion.
Our leaders need to wake up and realize that Islam wants its empire back and are never going to stop coming at us

Islam is what Muslims do.

That goes, in fact, for any religion. It is specious to claim that a religion is some "truth" in some convoluted interpretation of ancient texts, and ignore the actions of adherents. The proof of the pudding is in the actions of the believers of a religion. We see Islam in the actions of Muslims -- or in the passive refusal of Muslims to protest and physically restrain those intolerant and violent actions of Muslims erupting around the globe.

Well, that clears it up....I'm a bigot. If I don't like the fact that a certain people want to kill me and mine and everyone elses just for breathing and walking the earth, I may be.

I'm also a redneck. And I'm invigorated.

I'll take a number #9 and pour it straight down my "bigoted" #10 throat.

So happy to be Haram I feel like a pig in the mud!

anonamustafa: "Most people can recognizes this right away from your website and comments, which I'm sure helps to invogorate [sic] the bigots who post often on the site..."

anonamustafa - Do you:

1. Support jihad violence against non-Muslims?
2. Believe that Sharia law should be instituted in the Muslim and non-Muslim world?
3. Think that women should not enjoy full equality of rights with men??

If so, that would make YOU a bigot, which is defined as, "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Notice in those points above we have
1.partiality to one's own religious group (jihad violence against non-Muslims)
2. partiality to one's own politics (Sharia law - which is to be imposed across the entire world, denying the right of individuals in other countries to govern themselves by other principles of their choosing)

We do not have race in that definition but the racial bigotry of Arab Muslims towards other inferior Muslim racial groups has been noted numerous times at this site -see, e.g. the current genocide in Darfur of black African Muslims at the hands of Arab Muslims.

We do not have sex in that definition either but "misogyny" is basically a form of bigotry by one sex towards the other.

What it all adds up to is gross BIGOTRY in Islam. And not just BIGOTRY but widespread savage violence throughout the world backing up that bigotry.

Spencer and the posters here note this bigotry, object to it, call for moderate Muslims to repudiate it on Islamic grounds so that people of all religious faiths can co-exist peacefully - and your response to that is to call Spencer and the posters here.... bigots? Do you see the irony in that at all?

Of course if you do NOT agree with those 3 points above then you are NOT a bigot. And if that is the case, I'm sure I can count on you to fairly acknowledge that neither is Spencer nor the posters here.

You follow in the footsteps of Osama bin laden and read the Ayat's partially, and not wholistically.

Robert, does these mean you also have a $25,000,000 reward for your capture??? I would proudly turn you over the US government and we can split the reward.
___

Most people can recognizes this right away from your website and comments, which I'm sure helps to invogorate [sic] the bigots who post often on the site.

Hey; got another compliment from a muslim. Haven't been called a bigot since the last time by a muslim.

Sorry, I will never see islam in a good light. I read your books for myself, JihadWatch came after I read the qur'an and hadiths. I would never hold myself up as an expert....but then one does not have to be an expert to understand:
Qur’an 47:4 “So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”

Mr. Spencer: Nice reply. As for myself, I am so invogorated I'd probably just punch him in the mouth.

anonamustafa - on second reading I see that you were quoting the letter itself and that your response was a sarcastic reply. My sincere apologies to you sir. My comment above is hereby redirected to Aleemuddin Ahmed...

Mr Ahmed

What an embarassing little tantrum in the face of Mr Spencer's scholarship and irrefutable arguments. You just can't hold your own and challenge him on the facts; that's why you resort to unverifiable accusations, such as that his MA degree was "bland."
By the way, how did you get access to Mr Spencer's school records??
I think Homeland Security should look into this.

Mr. Spencer implies that there are few who stand up to these things, but here is interesting article I found on wikipedia. It also lists an organization that promotes the agenda of Liber Muslims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_islam
Read it all. It falls under all of Mr. Spencer's requirements. They may not be in the majority but these people appear to exist.

Mr. Ahmed:

Some of us are quite amazed that, on the one hand, we have the "Islam is like Christianity" messages in history books and from President Bush and Dr. Rice; while on the other hand, we have books (for example, by Robert Spencer and others) that tell a completely different tale. I often think of the statement I once read, that someone's interpretation of Islam tells more about the interpreter than about Islam.

Most everyone who posts here thinks that the usual history books and the sayings of our leaders in this matter are wrong: that Islam is desperately bad news for all mankind, and especially for that portion of mankind that is not under its control (or its loving control, as you might say).

If the director of jihadwatch.org is misinforming us, please tell us in what sense. Please educate us; at least some can be swayed.

Can you honestly proclaim the inner goodness of Islam without practicing deception? And if you find (on reflection) that you cannot, can you turn your back on your tradition? Perhaps you will come to admit what seems true: that Muhammed's later "revelations" were an aging man's self-absorbed and oh-so-convenient hallucinations.

I have a very spicy BA -in Cryptozoology- specializing in humanoid throwbacks to the 7th century.

And can only add -to this thoroughly-whupped-by-Mr. Spencer Islamic 'scholar'/accuser/apologist:

-your faith's recurrent b.s. argument about 'suras no longer applying' means nothing to those Muslims who are bloodily applying them. Daily. Globally. Terroristically.

Your argument is with them.

Your crazy co-religionists.

Then come back and throw around more vacuous accusations here.

The bigots will all be trying to learn how to spell "taqqiya" properly.

Hey all:

This is Aleemuddin Ahmed, the one who sent the above letter to Mr. Spencer today.

And, I just fired off a rebuttal letter to Spencer's above reply just a while ago.

I wonder if he will actually post it.

And actually, it's quite easy to see that Mr. Spencer has an MA Religious Studies, it's posted under his biography if anyone took a cursory look. Not, Islamic Studies. Nor any formal training in Islamic juridprudence, schools of thought, or law.

I stand ready to challenge Mr. Spencer's assertions, and I have done so in my recent reply, which I hope he will post.

Cordially,

Aleemuddin Ahmed

Let's face it. People believe what they want to believe or what they have been told to believe. I think Islam is more a cultural belief system than Jewish or Christian religions. These people are not modernized in their philosophy. Many of the practices of Islam preceded it. The Muslim world has always remained aloof and never cared to absorb other cultures. Now they live in a ancient way during a modern era. The intense brainwashing spread by clerics and the Koran itself against people who are weak minded and not individualistic leads to the "clash of civilizations". These people are the terrorists who feel that the very presence of the West is a threat to their out-dated philosophy (which it is). My solution to this would be a defensive approach rather than offensive approuch in foreign policy because we obviously can not handle fighting them where they are strongest. Sometimes a good defense is just a good defense.

Here is my rebuttal to Spencer's above reply.

I doubt he will publish it, so I'm providing it below.

Sincerely,

Aleemuddin Ahmed

====

Dear Mr. Spencer,

And so, you reveal the fundamental flaw that is your premise.

"I only report on how it is interpreted." Do you, do you indeed? On the contrary, it is quite evident on your website that you actually insist that the Qu'ran says certain things by referring to certain ayats out of their proper contexts, and that you make your own assertions.

You ONLY give the Salafi, Qutbi, Wahhabi or "puritan" interpretation, completely disregarding the rich tradition of counter-interpretations provided by Islamic jurists like Khaled Abou El Fadl, Fazlur Rahman, Mahmoud Taha, Ghazali etc.

Here is a simple example from many from your website, that shows how you selectively and partially quote phrases from ayats to prove some kind of point:

(March 2, 2006 - "Beheader of 116 captured in Iraq") www.jihadwatch.org

Your comments: "Good thing Islam forbids beheading, or his death total might be in the thousands. (Seriously, he was acting in accord with Qur'an 47:4, which commands Muslims to "strike the necks" of unbelievers.)"

No, this is false and the verse isn't a blanket commandment for Muslims to "strike the necks" of unbelievers.

In fact, the PROPER reading of the above verse you quoted shows that its context is referring to an actual battle that the early Muslims were engaged in with the pagan Quraysh, and that the "unbelievers" are the pagan Quraysh, not your sweeping inclusion of all non-Muslims.

If you, Mr. Spencer, actually quoted the full ayat and given the context, instead of picking and choosing phrases, perhaps you would have a bit of credibility.

So, you actually make your own assertions and judgements about the Qur'anic commandments and teachings, by using selective, out-of-context, and blatantly half-truth quotations.

Secondly, in reference to Surah 2:256, the verse has been affirmed by many Islamic jurists past and present as a affirmation of freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom to leave Islam is chosen.

The hadith you quote has a lack of reliability, and actually refers to a situation in which "apostates" during Muhammad actually joined the enemy camps to attack the Muslims (i.e. sedition and treason). It's not a blanket commandment to kill apostates for simply leaving Islam.

Your reliance on Sayyid Qutb to try to prove some point is very indicative of your agenda and sources.

Qutb was not a trained Islamic scholar nor jurist, but a secular-educated modern man who became "appalled" by Western lifestyle, and so, decided to write his rants against it, and relied on medieval jurists like Ibn Taymiyya, who by the way, made his edicts and writings according to his historical circumstances, a time in which Muslims were engaged in wars with different world powers and empires.

Qutb is not accepted by any Islamic circle of jurisprudence and law. Even the "puritans" rely upon their own jurists, like Ibn Taymiyya.

You said: "Send me examples of Islamic religious scholars rejecting, on Islamic grounds, jihad violence against non-Muslims; rejecting the idea that Sharia law should be instituted in the Muslim and non-Muslim world; and teaching the idea that non-Muslims and Muslims should live together indefinitely as equals ........."

You ask as if there is nothing out there by Islamic scholars today.

Pick up Fadl's recent book "The Great Theft" which offers a comprehensive rebuttal to the "puritan" or Wahabbi approach to the Qu'ran and Sunnah, from a trained Islamic jurist. Or pick up Fazlur Rahman, Pervaiz, or Ghazali.

As for Shariah, it can never be rejected by any Muslim. Shariah is the Qu'ran and authentic Sunnah.

Fiqh, on the other hand, can be rejected from being instituted on Muslims or non-Muslims, especially the Fiqh that exists today and that is promoted by the Wahhabis and the Talibans of our time. And that's what Fadl and others are arguing.

Your utilization of half-truths and selectivity when it comes to the Qu'ran and Sunnah reveals the actual agenda behind your amateurish work - an agenda to continuously malign and smear Muslims and Islam.

Cordially,

Aleemuddin Ahmed

And actually, it's quite easy to see that Mr. Spencer has an MA Religious Studies, it's posted under his biography if anyone took a cursory look. Not, Islamic Studies. Nor any formal training in Islamic juridprudence, schools of thought, or law.

Historymove/Aleemuddin:

We've been there, done that, got the t-shirt, hat, coffee mug, bottle opener, and kitchen sink:

From http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/ :

"It is amusing to me that some people like to focus on my credentials, when I have never made a secret of the fact that most of what I know about Islam comes from personal study. It is easier for them to talk about degrees than to find any inaccuracy in my work. Yet I present the work not on the basis of my credentials, but on the basis of the evidence I bring forth; evaluate it for yourself. As this site has shown, I am always open to new information."

Mister Ahmed said:

"And actually, it's quite easy to see that Mr. Spencer has an MA Religious Studies, it's posted under his biography if anyone took a cursory look. Not, Islamic Studies. Nor any formal training in Islamic juridprudence, schools of thought, or law."

Neither have I, but I certainly can respond to what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears. What you say isalm is supposed to be, and what it IS are two totally different beasts. Islamist "juridprudence" is all window-dressing and double-talk. Islam in practice is mobs in the streets, burning, destroying and killing. Islamist "juridprudence" is nothing but theory. Islam as it is in the real world is a syndrome upon the civilized world. Why should we care a wit about your silly "juridprudence?"

I just saw the reference to Khaled Abou El Fadl above. I hope that all concerned with the bona fides of Khaled Abou El Fadl will have a chance to read the piece on him by Daniel Pipes ("Stealth Jihadist") and also have a chance to visit the website apparently put up, in honor of Khaled Abou El Fadl, by admirers of Khaled Abou el Fadl, that can be found at www.scholarofthehouse.com. One may also wish to read the article posted here, some time ago, entitled "Scholar of the House Khaled Abou el Fadl."

Devotees of the genre know the pleasure to be derived from reading Hamid Dabashi's eulogy to Edward Said, with its echoes, for the connoisseur, of Dzhambul's 1936 "Song About Stalin" -- the first verse of which you can find, if you wish, in Ogonyok, No. 14, 14 March 1990. The "Song About Stalin" goes thus in rough translation:
Stalin-Sun! For our happiness, may you live [forever] in the Kremlin, We bring offerings to you -- our songs, our hearts, and our flowers. In the whole wide world, on this earthly sphere of Man, No one is more important for All Humanity [or: the Folk} than You.
Now, with those lines dew-fresh in your memory, quickly google “Hamid Dabashi" and "Edward Said.” You will certainly detect the influence of the "Song About Stalin" on Dabashi’s “Ode to Edward Said” as surely as you would, in “Hyperion,” that of Milton on Keats (two names that naturally come to mind when Said and Dabashi are mentioned).

Why bring up Dabashi on Said yet again? Only because I never dared hope to find something else that would supply the kind and degree of pleasure you obtain from Dabashi’s immortal work. But I have, and it would be churlish not to share it.

Here it is:

www.scholarofthehouse.com

Write that down. E-mail it to your friends. Send it to UCLA law students in the final-weeks-before-exams blend of doldrums and despair. They, while trying to keep straight Future Interests and the Rule in Shelley’s Case, or anticipatory breach and anticipatory repudiation, or to memorize some simple-minded three-or-four part “test” in Constitutional Law that something has to meet for something else to withstand strict scrutiny, would welcome some cheering up.

It is just the thing to post on the Bulletin Board in the lower-level lobby of the designated Washington hotel at the next annual meeting of the American Association of Law Schools. What better way to raise the general level of “collegiality” about which so much fuss is made nowadays, and then to have a good laugh? And “collegiality” is so very important, now that the race is never to the mentally swiftest, but to those who can not only churn out articles (plagiarism or triviality or illiteracy be damned), but who can also most enthusiastically engage in mutual backslapping and blurb-swapping, and can attend a “departmental retreat” where everyone can “share experiences” and exchange “thoughts” and “feelings” while “expressing” himself, herself, themselves.

For www.scholarofthehouse.com is the work of “Friends and Supporters” of Khaled Abu El Fadl. Like hagiographers of the Middle Ages producing the “Vita morte e miracoli” of a favorite saint, these magnificent friends choose to remain self-effacingly anonymous. Khaled Abu El Fadl would be the first to deplore anything that smacked of self-promotion, and certainly would have no reason to know who is behind this site dedicated so effusively to him. He may not even know that the site exists. Under these circumstances, one should be grateful to those friends and supporters for managing to ferret out so much about and by Khaled Abou El Fadl, for the permanent edification of so many.

The “Friends and Supporters” explain that the website is "dedicated to the thought and scholarship of the distinguished Islamic scholar, jurist and professor of law, Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, the most important intellectual in Islam and Islamic law today."

The domain name “scholarofthehouse” is also explained:

"We chose to name the site "Scholar of the House" as tribute to Dr. Abou El Fadl's having earned this high academic distinction early in his scholarly career while at Yale University….We felt it [the website name] a fitting title and name for an organization dedicated to Dr. Abou El Fadl's distinguished work. For more information on other related efforts, please e-mail us."

This “high academic distinction” is received by a dozen or more undergraduates each year at Yale for getting good grades, and allows those undergraduates to continue to pay tuition in their final year but exempts them from taking courses, so that they may at long last concentrate on their concentration. When El Fadl was named one of the dozen “scholars of the year” as a junior at Yale, the news traveled to Cairo, and his feat received mention in Al-Ahram.

Khaled Abou El Fadl is simply a specific example of a more general phenomenon: Every Man His Own Hero. In pre-Internet days, hundreds of millions of Chinese (some of them now the proud parents and grandparents of single-minded capitalists) held aloft Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book. Tens of millions of Russians in bad old Soviet days put Stalin’s “Short Course” on their bookshelves, even though it was hardly the stuff that would qualify, nowadays, for Oprah’s Book Club. In Libya, Khaddafy flogged his “Green Book,” containing the Wisdom of Muammar Khaddafy; once upon a time, thousands read it, for the book was the talk and the toast of the town, if the town was in Tripolitania.

Now, with the Internet, disinterested “Friends and Supporters” of virtually anyone can offer that anyone’s words by way of a Spiritual and All-Purpose Guide to Just About Everything. It is not merely that Everyman can now blog here, and post there, over and over again. Now Everyman Can Appear on the World-Wide Web as The Glorious Helmsman of Humanity, courtesy of his self-effacing “Friends and Supporters.” On the Internet, at a dedicated website, you can be not only King or Queen of the Universe, and not just for a day but from here on out, and from beyond the grave (your website will outlast you). Everyman can now count himself a king of infinite space, even if bound in his own gigabyte nutshell, in mysterious Googlelandia, or of something, somewhere.
In offering so many different aspects of Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl’s Life and Works, www.scholarofthehouse.com is simply ahead of its time. It would be hard to choose which section most impresses. There is the biographical “About Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl.” There is the scholarly “Bibliography of Khaled Abou El Fadl.” There are the epistolary “Letters to Dr. Abou El Fadl.” There is “Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl In the Media.” There are “Unedited Interviews with Khaled Abou El Fadl.” And there is even “Recommended Reading” –“recommended” by none other than Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, some of whose books are among those he finds most recommendable. But that is not cause for carping. It would be silly indeed for someone to write a book that, afterwards, he felt he could not recommend.

Indeed, Khaled Abou El Fadl’s refreshing absence of humility, rightly understood, is truly humble. Was it not Golda Meir who once cut short someone engaging in pro-forma self-deprecation: “Don’t be so humble, you’re not that great.” Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl is “not so humble”; it logically follows that, therefore, he is very likely great.

Not the least of Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl’s services is the list he compiled, available at www.scholarofthehouse.com, of what he calls “The Worst Books About Islam,” books so bad that Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl hopes no one will waste his time even opening one of them. That list includes, among much else, Professor John Wansbrough’s “Qur’anic Studies,” Ibn Warraq’s anthology of scholarly articles “The Quest for the Historical Muhammad,” and Joseph Schacht’s “Introduction to Muhammadan Law.” Wansbrough and Schacht have long been admired by Western scholars of Islam: the first as a pioneer in the study of early Islam and a teacher of Patricia Crone and Michael Cook; the second as one of the most scrupulous and authoritative students of Islamic law in the Western world. But neither Wansbrough nor Schacht was a Muslim. And by now it should be obvious that one cannot rely on any non-Muslim scholar’s supposed “understanding” of Islam, no matter how many languages that scholar may know, or how many decades of tireless and, on the surface, disinterested study he may have devoted to the matter. The simplest of seminarians at Al-Azhar, the most grizzled Afghani poppy farmer, by virtue of being a Muslim, necessarily understands Islam in a way that no non-Muslim, no matter how learned, possibly can.

This should not be confused with the whole business of “Orientalism.” Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl is no Edward Said, who has been receiving so many palpable hits that his likeness is beginning to look like St. Sebastian. Khaled Abou El Fadl realizes that Schacht and Wansbrough and Crone and Luxenberg and Ibn Warraq may well have had nothing to do with the “imperialism project.” He needs, other Muslims need, to find an objection broader and deeper and sturdier now that burnt offerings are no longer made with quite the same frequency at the Temple of Said.

No, Khaled Abou El Fadl’s objection is broader and deeper and much more profound. It is just that non-Muslims obviously cannot be expended to feel, deeply, the profound richness and variety and multiplicity of Islam, and the permanent impossibility of any non-Muslim making any valid generalizations about Islam ever -- or indeed, of saying anything at all about Islam from “the outside,” as richly various and variously rich as Islam is, so different in its theory and practice, depending on the time, depending on the space. There are practically as many Islams as there are Muslims, and non-Muslims – who seem disturbingly confident that they can make pronouncements on matters they know nothing about -- should never forget it. Especially when they are about to say something negative, as they do so often nowadays, simply because they need that old whipping-boy – the Other. Ever since the Communist lead retired, they have been grooming Islam to fill that role.

Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl knows that non-Muslims cannot talk about “Islam” because “Islam,” as one thing, does not exist, but only as many things, and only Muslims can talk truthfully, without rancor or hidden agendas, about those things which seem never to overlap or add up to one thing. One particular kind of non-Muslim – the kind that speaks Arabic, and has an Arab name, and calls himself an Arab, but happens to be Christian – may sometimes be exempted from the ban, because the genetic makeup of such people, their DNA, permits a special insight into the nature of Islam. But Schacht, Wansbrough, Snouck Hurgronje and a thousand other scholars did not possess that precious strand of recombinant DNA. The entire corpus of their work, as a result, was fatally vitiated.

Ibn Warraq, whose The Quest for the Historical Muhammad makes the list compiled by Khaled Abou El Fadl of “The Worst Books on Islam,” suffers from a different, equally fatal handicap. Although Ibn Warraq was raised as a Muslim, and began attending a madrasa at the age of 6 (the very age at which, Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl began to attend his own elementary classes in Qur’an at Al-Azhar), Ibn Warraq fell away from Islam, and ultimately renounced it. And now he spends his time writing about Islam, as if he understood it.

But a mysterious phenomenon, of which Muslims have long been aware but which is insufficiently appreciated by non-Muslims, is that of the complete mental disarray, accompanied by severe memory loss, that results from the shock to the apostate’s system. It’s akin to whirling about in a centrifuge in a dark laboratory, with a mad scientist rubbing his gleeful hands as he watches you whirl, and whirl. And the name of that mad scientist is Shaytan -- Satan. Apostasy from Islam is a truly wrenching experience, often proving fatal. For in leaving Islam, one is giving up all chance for Eternal Happiness and throwing away the Total Explanation of the Universe, which gives daily life the only coherence it may be said to possess. Imagine stumbling upon the Secret of the Universe, and failing to recognize it, or picking it up, and then throwing it away. That is what apostates from Islam do.

Naturally there are consequences. Whatever they may once have known, or thought they knew, about Islam before, the very act of apostasy renders them incapable of recalling anything of value about the faith that for so long sustained them. Their apostasy renders them incapable of understanding or speaking about Islam. Their so-called “testimony” about Islam is thus essentially worthless. That is true of Ibn Warraq (at www.secularislam.org) as well as of Ali Sina (at www.faithfreedom.org) and so many others. The minute they became apostates, they no longer knew what they were talking about, when they talked about Islam.

A comparison may be instructive. At www.secularislam.org, Ibn Warraq inflicts his articles on Islam on the entire universe, or at least the universe of those who happen to stumble upon his website, free of charge, there for the taking. At www.scholarofthehouse.com, Khaled Abou El Fadl, or rather his Friends and Supporters, do things differently. Visitors have nothing inflicted on them. Instead, they are politely offered his articles, his lectures, his interviews, all demurely on sale. Only those who demonstrate a real interest, by sending in the appropriate sum, will read or hear in detail what Khaled Abou El Fadl wishes to say on a great many subjects. He does not believe in inflicting his views on the entire world, but on a self-selected group.

Perhaps that marks the difference between a coarse apostate such as Ibn Warraq, with his anthologies of pseudo-scholarship (just look at a list of the “scholarly”contributors to his other books, such as The Origins of the Koran and What the Koran Really Says), and the refined Islamic luminescence that is Khaled Abou El Fadl. He is not only a scholar of the house, but if those website sales hold steady, that house should in due time have many mansions.

One marketing trick of Ibn Warraq, and of other ex-Muslims, is the assumption of an alias, designed to make it seem that they are in some danger. Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, in contrast, does not use an alias despite the “many threats” he has received, and has repeatedly told us about only with great reluctance. He is determined, he says, to continue his heroic refusal to kowtow to the “Wahhabists” who are giving Islam such a bad name in some quarters.

Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl has been just as brave in speaking truth to powerful non-Muslims. It was he who fearlessly argued that “Jihad” means “struggle” and not “Holy War,” and that therefore there could not possibly be any kind of “Holy War” in Islam. It was Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl who, just after 9/11, forthrightly expressed his immediate thoughts, which were to worry about harm that might come to Muslims as a result of this attack. That could not have been an easy and popular thing to say in America just after the attacks of 9/11. The cowardly, of course, would only offer some words of sympathy and solidarity with American non-Muslims; Khaled Abou El Fadl was not about to play the taqiyya hypocrite. He is a Muslim, and he worries about his fellow Muslims. Whether dealing with those threatening Wahhabists, or their mirror-image, the threatening Infidels, he will not trim his sails. “Ich kann nicht anders” – “I can do no other” is as much his motto as it is anyone’s.

One question remains. There are so many things on sale at this website devoted to Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl. These include collections of his articles (for $60), and whole series of his recorded lectures on this or that aspect of Islam, which can be ordered on either audiocassette or CD. The first item at the website is “What’s New”: new articles new interviews, new Qur’anic commentaries, brave new books by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, each with the price helpfully appended.

Should you, for example, want to buy Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl’s commentary on Surah 103: Al-‘Asr, that will be $8.00; for the same price, you can purchase his discussion of Sura 111: Al-Lahab. A lecture, “Islam and Democracy” goes for $4.00, while an Unedited Interview on “Islamic Democracy” is a bargain at $8.00. Full information about ordering is available at the site. And if you are moved to send a contribution to support those who operate the website in gathering, and posting, and selling Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl’s work, information about how to do that in the most expeditious manner is also conveniently available.

At the website, under the “Scholar of the House” rubric, the “Friends and Supporters” of Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl note that “Dr. Abou El Fadl is neither involved in nor responsible for any of the activities related to this website, including the naming of the site, the conducting of any matters of business, or the making of any decisions regarding its policies. Dr. Abou El Fadl does not gain any profit from the sales generated from the website.”

But someone must be making some money from the sale of Dr. Abou El Fadl’s articles, and the 10-part lecture series (on Audiocassettes and CD) on Marriage and Divorce, and on a gallimaufry of taped lectures, interviews, writings, and opinions on this and on that. The halo of the hagiographic sanctifies the brazenly commercial enterprise at this website dedicated so flatteringly, even djambullishly, to the Thought and Greatness of One Man.

This raises an awkward question. Could it be that these “Friends and Supporters” are trying to make money from the genius of Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl while purporting to honor him, and are using the website only to flog his wares? Meanwhile, the trusting and unworldly Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl himself, that “inexhaustible fountain of fertilacious fertility whose rivetting rivulets water the oasis where the roses and bulbuls of Gulistan bloom and twitter both day and night, even in the endless tract-housing wastes of the American intellectual desert,” as Hamid Dabashi might put it, is apparently receiving not a penny for his thoughts – at least not those of his thoughts that are available for sale at www.scholarofthehouse.com.

What kind of “Friends and Supporters” are these, anyway? Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl has a right to know.

"You follow in the footsteps of Osama bin laden and read the Ayat's partially, and not wholistically."

Dr. Spencer does not read the Ayat's partially.
Mr. Ahmed provides few concrete examples to support his negative claims about Dr. Spencer's knowledge of the ayat- and Islam.

His assertions about Dr. Spencer are SHALLOW and INSIPID.

It is absurd to compare Dr. Spencer knowledge of Islam to Osama bin laden's knowledge of Islam.

Is Dr. Spencer really hiding out in caves plotting violent attacks against innocent Muslim civilians in the Middle East?

This "out of context" argument is boring. For one thing, it ignores the doctrine of abrogation (naskh). If naskh is denied because it is considered by some an invention of 10th century Islamic scholars, then it would be permissible for a Muslim to drink alcohol.

So question for Aleemuddin Ahmed: is naskh a valid doctrine or is it not?

If it is a valid doctrine then the ayat (verses) of sura 9, being one of the final suras revealed, abrogates any contradictory ayat found elsewhere, i.e., 2:256 (no compulsion in religion).

The answer to this question is either yes, or no. Which is it?

Interperations of the qran - koran the book of filth can be obtainted by googling. Just randomily select several and read the interperations and what you will find is that islam is a violent murderous cult regardless of the interpertation that you read.

War with islam is inevitable.

Prepare, be armed be ready.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Aleemuddin Ahmed,
Your reply would carry a bit more weight if you could show us one Islamic country that followed the interpretation that you insist is "PROPER." But, frankly, I am decidedly uninterested in what is proper Islam. The only interest I have in the religion is that many people are using it to urge all out war on other cultures, including my own, and none of your eyewash proves otherwise. Mr. Spencer's contention that the constitution of Afghanistan had a fundamental flaw in its attempted embrace of both Sharia and the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights has been amply proven by recent events in Afghanistan. Where are the Afghan clerics saying, "In our interpretation of Sharia, anyone can leave Islam any time he pleases without fear of prosecution"? And your "proper" interpretation of beheading in Islam doesn't really expalin the penchant of some extremists to lop of the heads of infidels.
Tell you what. Instead of lecturing us on how we shouldn't believe what we see with our own eyes, why don't you hit the road and go lecture the Saudis or the Afghans on what True Islam is?

When one looks around the world, one is not struck by the numbers of Muslims rushing to denounce Bin Laden, nor Ayman al-Zawihir, nor Al Qaeda, nor Hamas (landslide victor among the "Palestinian people"), nor the Muslim Brotherhood (quintupling its representation in Egypt's Parliament, and certainly, in a free and fair election, the likely victor in Egypt), nor the F.I.S. in Algeria (well, they won the last time they were allowed to run), nor Lashkar Jihad, nor Jaish-e-Mohammed, nor -- well, here you can fill in the name of any group you wish, a half-dozen in Pakistan, another half-dozen in Indonesia, a few al-Sayyaf groups in the Philippines, and so on around the world. One looks at how Hindus are treated in Bangladesh, at how Christans are treated in Indonesia and Pakistan and the Sudan and in the new, improved, and freer, and therefore more Islmamic, Iraq, and is impressed -- impressed with how closely the behavior of Muslims, feeling their new power, both real and imagined, mimics that historically of Muslims toward all non-Muslims subjugated by them, over 1350 years.

And one asks oneself: what prompts this behavior? What prompts Muslims all over to think it right and proper for them to engage in boycotts, in recall of ambassadors, in death threats to all Danes everywhere, to violent demonstrations thousands of miles from Denmark to protest the exercise of the Western right of free speech, as exercised by Westerners, in their Western land, by Muslims who presume to impose their own notion of what can and cannot be expresseed. What prompts Muslims all over the world either to approve, or to remain silent, or to attempt to mislead Infidels about the real source, of the death sentence that the convert to Christianity Abdul Rahman faced in Afghanistan, and that only Western pressure managed to force the government to prevent by coming up with an obvious face-saving technicality as an excuse?

It looks a lot like those who base their views squarely on Qur'an, Hadith, and the example of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, have it right -- or at least right enough for hundreds and hundreds of millions of Muslims. Khaled Abou El Fadl, whose website lists Books You Should Not Read (and among them not only Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, and Ibn Warraq, whom the poster above may believe lack the "credentials" he thinks so necessary -- the "credentials" of the likes of John Esposito and Michael Sells, whose scandalous apologetics, omissions (those "Lyrical Suras" that so misleadingly make up Sells;s "Approaching the Qur'an"). He doesn't understand.

We can take Khaled Abou El Fadl's measure. Perhaps he managed, for a brief shining moment to claw his way to a position at his present post, but Yale Law School was having none of it, and the jig is mostly up, even if the grant money keeps coming in, for the apologists who tell us -- but never quite show us how they are going to do it -- to "reform" Islam, or to do something still more absurd, which is to claim that it needs no "reforming" because it is only these wild men, these "extremists," who say and believe certain things, and they have no textual authority.

All the textual authority goes the other way -- as Robert continues tirelessly to politely point out.

Or is there a different Qur'an, or a differnt set of muhaddithin, and a different set of facts about the life of Muhammad, that constitute a hermetic knowledge accessible only to Khaled Abou El Fadl, and those who, like the poster above, seem mightily imporessed with him?

Mr. Ahmed, thank you for your response.

Some folks believe that the problem is not Islam, but the Saudi-supported literalist interpretation. Hard to believe, given the political and economic state of Muslim societies, as if Islam itself (and not an interpretation) is the problem. But some things that are hard to believe are nevertheless true.

I hope to see a continued dialog.

Heluqa Khan asks me:

"This "out of context" argument is boring. For one thing, it ignores the doctrine of abrogation (naskh). If naskh is denied because it is considered by some an invention of 10th century Islamic scholars, then it would be permissible for a Muslim to drink alcohol.

So question for Aleemuddin Ahmed: is naskh a valid doctrine or is it not?"

1. No, the out-of-context topic is central to understanding how the "puritan" Muslims approach the Qur'an and Sunnah.

One of the biggest resources they use to justify their actions is to quote the Qur'an out of its textual and historical context.

For example, puritans will quote the following:

"...And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the Idolaters (mushrikeen) wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give charity (zakah), let them go on their way. Indeed Allah is Forgiving Merciful.” 9:5

What they ignore is the first part of the ayat, which explains the context of this verse - when the Pagan Arabs broke the treaty with the early Muslim community. Thus, the verse allowed the Muslims to fight the idolater Arabs for their treachery.

It's not a blanket verse against Christians or Jewish or Bhuddists or whoever. It's directed against the Idolaters from breaking the agreement.

But Osama and the puritans (along with Mr. Robert Spencer) don't explain or refer to the full ayat or context.

2. No, Naksk (abrogation) is a not a valid doctrine from the time of the Prophet.

Some Islamic jurists in the medieval times did bring Naksh to try and justify their Fatawas and decisions.

No Muslim has the authority to abrogate any verse in the Qu'ran.

Many Islamic scholars today have challenges the notion of Naksh.

Each surah and verse has to understood and read in its proper context for it to be applied properly.

And no, Naskh would not enable Muslims to drink alcohol. You are not differentiating between Meccan and Medina surahs.

Cordially,

Aleemuddin Ahmed

Hugh~

Your writings are amazing. Do you have any books published?

Hugh, your ad hominem is weak. There are no trully alarming or even disturbing attacks there. Your objections are mild although you convey them with much sarcasm and vieled outrage. The abscence of these leads me closer to supporting this man rather than frowning upon him. He, to me, seems reasonable and above all else secular. So he wants some fame? Great! There your wordliness. I can identify with him better. The guy is a liberal Muslim who has more study than others in his religion and he has his own interpretation. Plus, he seems to be as normal as you and I. So, I venture to say that I stand with him because he is a well meaning human being. Apologist? I doubt it. I believe what he defends are his own world views rather than explicitly his religion. Either way he works to guide others to his views. That is notable because I do that myself on a daily basis. Once again, I can identify myself with him.

I also congratulate Aleemuddin Ahmed. Although I do not have a concrete view (in either direction) on this yet because I do not know enough, I feel that it takes some courage to come into a nest of like-minded people and debate them.

My response to Hugh Fitzgerald's latest comment:

He said: "Or is there a different Qur'an, or a differnt set of muhaddithin, and a different set of facts about the life of Muhammad, that constitute a hermetic knowledge accessible only to Khaled Abou El Fadl, and those who, like the poster above, seem mightily imporessed with him? "

My response:

1. Have you even picked up Fadl's recent book "The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists."? It provides a solid rebuttal to the puritan and literalist approach.

Your amateurish mind-set is revealed by your above comment. Fadl and all the other Islamic jurists and scholars who have refuted the radical interpretations (like Fadl, Fazlur Rahman, Mahmoud Taha, Allama Iqbal, Pervaiz, Ghazali etc.) use the same Islamic sources, i.e. the same Qu'ran, same hadith, same facts about the Prophet.

You would realize this if you even took a cursory look at their writings, as opposed to blindly believing what Osama, Zahwari and their ilk talk about (who by the way, have NO Islamic training in any Islamic sources, law, and jurisprudence, and are not qualified sources)

The "puritan" Muslims don't rely on Osama or Zahwiri to come up with their ideas, they rely on out-dated material from Islamic jurists like Ibn Tamiyya who's edicts and writings were based on his historical circumstances (i.e. living during the latter parts of the Crusades and the full Mongol invasion of the Muslims).

The problem is that the "puritan" Muslims say that there IS NO MORE debate - what Ibn Taymiyya and others literalist jurists wrote in books ages ago is how Islam should be practiced.

That's what Khaled Abou El Fadl and countless other Islamic scholars and jurists past and present have challenged - the notion that the debate is over on Islamic jurisprudence and law.

Hugh, you speak as if you actually know something in-depth ... your analysis is laughable.

Sorry, Historymove is me, Aleemuddin Ahmed.

I should have pointed that out in my above response to Hugh Fitzgerald.

There's a book, written in a foreign language, that directs its adherents to wage war, to subjugate, to kill. Many do so and cite the book as justification. English translations of the book confirm it says what they claim. Now we have one of its adherents trying to convince us the book doesn't actually justify any of that, we have it all wrong.

Am I missing something? Why is this person trying to convince us? What would that accomplish? How would it stop the killing, the subjugation?

Clearly it won't. Therefore one can only conclude that isn't what concerns this person.

And no, Naskh would not enable Muslims to drink alcohol. You are not differentiating between Meccan and Medina surahs.

"You would realize this if you even took a cursory look at their writings, as opposed to blindly believing what Osama, Zahwari and their ilk talk about (who by the way, have NO Islamic training in any Islamic sources, law, and jurisprudence, and are not qualified sources)..."
-- from a posting above by a member of the Abou El Fadl Fan Club

Too late for me to read, but I certainly will, Abou El Fadl's latest collection, which I am certain will confirm Abou El Fadl's high opinion of Abou El Fadl (see www.scholarofthehouse.org, and also see my article entitled "Scholar of the House: Khaled Abou El Fadl" as a companion piece to his website. Any day now I expect him to singlehandedly do what no one before him, in 1350 years, has managed to do -- which is, and just in time too -- change Islam for the better, by apparently interpreting away all the bad stuff -- bad for Infidels that is. Can't wait to see how he does it. I am familiar with the apologetics of Fazlur Rahman and some of the others on your list.

But there is another list. That list consists of some very well-trained and learned theologians, both Shi'a and Sunni. The Ayatollah Khomeini was most learned -- you won't deny that? And you won't deny his view of what Islam teaches, the one you can find reproduced, for example, in Spencer's books, or on p. 11 (I think) of Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim."

And there is Sheik Tantawi of Al-Azhar, with his views that do not lead a thoughtful Infidel to breathe a sigh of relief, and to be put entirely at ease. Still less ease-making is the most famous of current Sunni clerics, the indefatigable Al-Qaradawi, with his handy guide to what is Haram and what Halal, and his pronouncements on the Danish cartoons, on suicide bombing, and on much else of the same ferocious and disturbing kind. Are these people all unlettered in Islam, unschooled in Muslim theology? And what about all those imams in Saudi Arabia -- every manjack of them simply making stuff out of whole cloth?

Are Khomeini, Qaradawi, Bin Baz, Tantawi, and a cast of tens of thousands of clerics those whom you wish Infidels would ignore because they, in your attempt to deflect attention from what they write, "have NO Islamic training in any Islamic sources, law, and jurisprudence, and are not qualified sources)..." Come on. Fais un petit effort.

I also like the "context" argument that you use, but it won't wash, and you know, or should know why. This is standard Muslim apologetics whenever some particularly horrific passage from Qur'an or Hadith, or some unseemly matter in Muhammad's life, usually little Aisha but also the murders of Asma bint Marwan and of Abu Akaf, the slaughter of the prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the attack on the inoffensive farmers of the Khaybar Oasis. The manner of dealing with it is, if denial doesn't work, to say that it has been "taken out of context" and should be read in light of that context, and within that context. Only one problem: the Qur'an is the uncreated Word of God. It is good for all time and all places. And Muhammad, whose words and deeds constitute the Hadith (ranked according to putative "authenticity" by those muhaddithin deemed most authoritative), is also a Model Man for All Time, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil. Well, is he or isn't he? And if he is -- and you know perfectly well that Muslims are taught to revere him as such, then what he did has relevance today. It need not be seen in any kind of "context."

Ibn Warraq's formulation is lapidary, and perfect: "There are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate." If, here and there, the presence of non-Muslims (as in Lebanon), or the effect of an enlightened syncretistic ruler (as Akbar in Mughal India), or an enlightened despot whose enlightenment consisted in his detemination to systematically curb the political power of Islam (Ataturk), or the need to placate powerful Westerners (those Tanzimat and other reforms of the Ottomans, some of which did actually lighten the burden of dhimmitude, here and there, within the Ottoman Empire -- and were taken in response to that pressure of outside, Infidel powers). Islam, unmitigated by those enlightened despots, or that systematic curbing, or the effect of local customs that are in some places incorporated into a more easygoing observance of Islam (as with those marabouts in West Africa, or some of the local non-Muslim ways that persist among Muslims in Indonesia, and even the observance of Nowroz, the Persian New Year, is rightly seen as a way of exhibiting a welcome "moderation" when it comes to Islam and its ban on all non-Islamic ceremonies and festivals).

If indeed Khaled Abou el Fadl does what none of the would-be reformers of the early part of the last century managed to achieve, and has done for Islam what no one yet has done, then of course I will eat my words, my hat, this computer. But I'm not getting out my condiments just yet.

Heluqa asks me in a upper posting:

"Are you saying that the Medina surahs abrogate Meccan surahs if they are contradictory?"

My answer:

1. No, of course not. The purpose of Medina and Meccan surah classification is to help readers understand the context of a particular Surah or ayat, and to help pin-point the historical events/circumstances behind a particular surah or verse.

Abrogation argument was used by Islamic jurists of the old age, and is used today by the followers of their understanding/approach, that is the "puritan" Muslims, or Wahabbis or whatever you call them. It justifies their actions, and justified the fatawas of the past Islamic jurists who used abrogation.

It's quite convenient for them to say a certain surah or verse in the Quran is contradicted by another verse, to justify their actions.

Ignoring the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) NEVER said to abrogate verses of the Qu'ran with new verses, except a few that he explicitly mentioned in his lifetime.

The present "abrogation" argument of wholesale verses and commandments was brought-forward by the later Islamic jurists, NOT the Prophet.

Mr. Ahmed wrote the following:

"no Muslim has the authority to abrogate any verse in the Qu'ran."

The largest flaw of Islam is contained in that simple statement.

It is the reason that Muslims claim that they can't reform the Koran or Islam.

It is the reason that the concept of jihad can't be offically denounced.

It is the reason that Muslims believe from the Koran that they possess divinely inspired religious truths that place them far above the infidel.

Listed below are just a few passages from the Koran divides Muslims from non-Muslims.

The Victory
[48.28] He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness.

The Victory
[48.13] And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.

The Immunity
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

As a non-Muslim, I can say with great confidence that these pasages are not divinely inspired pasages and should be abrogated.

I don't believe that Muhammad was even close to being a prophet of Allah. This is the major difference between Mr. Ahmed, a Muslim, and myself, a Christian. It is also the reason he wrote: "no Muslim has the authority to abrogate any verse in the Qu'ran."

As a Muslim, Mr. Ahmed can't even question the authenticity of the Koran. Assent to truth in matters of faith means total submission to the Koran. Philosophical inquiry is simply not tolerated in the Muslim faith life. This is one of the primary problems with Islam. There is no critical thinking in Islam. Unlike Judaism and Christianity, philosophical inquiry is simply forced into submission in Islam.

If Muslims had freedom to think for themselves, then perhaps more of them would question the authenticity of the Koran and realize that Muhammad was not a moral or holy man.

No prophet of Allah will marry Aisha at age six and have sex with her at age nine.

How immoral!

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:
Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old

The time has come for Muslims to abrogate the Koran and denounce jihad and shariah.

Hugh says:

"If indeed Khaled Abou el Fadl does what none of the would-be reformers of the early part of the last century managed to achieve, and has done for Islam what no one yet has done, then of course I will eat my words, my hat, this computer. But I'm not getting out my condiments just yet."

My response:

The question isn't if Khaled single-handedly brings such reform.

What non-Muslims don't understand is that his contributions, and the ones of other Islamic jurists are challenging the contemporary domination by the "puritan" interpretations.

The debate over the development of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) is what's at stake, because the "puritans" don't want debate, they deny debate and say that their inaccurate and dishonest interpretations on Mu'amalaat (human affairs) are it, period.

That's what Fadl and many other Islamic jurists have and are challenging.

Aleemuddin Ahmed

"The present 'abrogation' argument of wholesale verses and commandments was brought-forward by the later Islamic jurists, NOT the Prophet."
-- from a posting just above

So we are now being told that all the tradition of all the Islamic jurists is to be thrown overboard, and that we can somehow convince hundreds of millions of fanatical (or simply ordinary) Muslims to engage in this wholesale jettisoning of the Qur'anic commentators and jurisconsults, because that is the only way to lighten or sweeten the message in the Qur'an, and isn't that what we have to do, as some of us implicitly recognize?

And then there remains the little matter of Muhammad as a personage to be revered and emulated -- who is going to red-pencil a number of the most "authentic" Hadith, or perhaps throw them out altogether, and while we are at it, throw out the Sira (the biography, in the basic Muslim version, of Muhammad)? Who will declare it done? And how could it possibly be accepted? It can't, and holding out such hope to naive Infidels is meretricious and sinister.

There are ways to limit the power of Islam and its hold over the minds of men. One way is to subject Islam to study within history -- that is, to see it as a text with its own history, that can be studied as Western scholars, beginning with such Germans as Wellhausen, did for the Old Testament, and then the New Testament, and then all sorts of other texts, over the past 150 years or so, that were regarded as sacred in Judaism or Christianity. Why should the texts of Islam be permanently removed from such study?

In fact, beginning with Ignaz Goldziher's study of the Hadith, and continuing with such scholars as John Wansbrough, and then Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, and in another line, from Mingana to Christoph Luxenberg, the Qur'an, or the circumstances of early Islam, have been subjected to such study. Everyone knows that there are many passages in the Qur'an that do not make any sense. Along comes Luxenberg, proposes to untie many of the knottiest problems by seeing through the present Qur'an to an Ur-Qur'an which, he maintains, was probably in Aramaic, or more exactly in Syriac (the Aramaic of Edessa), and that passages now read as Aramaic make sense, as they do not make sense if one continues to try to fit them into some Arabic-language mold.

If the Qur'an can be de-mystified, that will do more than a thousand Khaled Abou El Fadls claim to be doing. Simply treat Islam the way all other major belief-systems have been treated. That will do plenty, to lessen the violence, the aggression, the fanaticism. That is not a "reformation." It is, rather, something else --the spirit of the Englightenment, allowed at long last to enter the minds of many Muslims.

Dear Aleemuddin Ahmed,

Pardon the late reply to yours of 9:24. I have a bad cold, and at that hour was asleep. I would have been happy to post it, in fact, but since you have already done so there is no need.

I see that Hugh is engaging you about Khaled Abou El Fadl. I will deal with a few other matters.

You say: "...it is quite evident on your website that you actually insist that the Qu'ran [sic] says certain things by referring to certain ayats out of their proper contexts, and that you make your own assertions. You ONLY give the Salafi, Qutbi, Wahhabi or 'puritan' interpretation, completely disregarding the rich tradition of counter-interpretations provided by Islamic jurists like Khaled Abou El Fadl, Fazlur Rahman, Mahmoud Taha, Ghazali etc."

Quite so. You may have overlooked the fact that this site is called "Jihad Watch." Since my endeavor here is to expose the motives and goals, as well as the activities, of the global mujahedin, obviously I will be focusing primarily on "Salafi, Qutbi, Wahhabi, or 'puritan'" interpretations of the Qur'an, since they are the interpretations most often invoked by the mujahedin themselves. If the followers of Khaled Abou El Fadl, Fazlur Rahman, Mahmoud Taha, Ghazali, etc. begin to wage violent jihad, I will duly report on the Qur'anic justifications they themselves invoke.

A further question about your list of reformers: what would you say is the significance of the fact that Mahmoud Taha was executed as a heretic in the Sudan in 1985, and that his followers were forced to recant? What comment do you have on the fact that Ghazali approved of the Sharia-inspired killing of Faraj Foda?

You quote me saying that Qur'an 47:4 "commands Muslims to 'strike the necks' of unbelievers" and comment: "No, this is false and the verse isn't a blanket commandment for Muslims to 'strike the necks' of unbelievers. In fact, the PROPER reading of the above verse you quoted shows that its context is referring to an actual battle that the early Muslims were engaged in with the pagan Quraysh, and that the 'unbelievers' are the pagan Quraysh, not your sweeping inclusion of all non-Muslims. If you, Mr. Spencer, actually quoted the full ayat and given the context, instead of picking and choosing phrases, perhaps you would have a bit of credibility."

Very well. Please travel to Iraq and explain to the Muslims who are beheading people in large numbers there that they are understanding 47:4 improperly, and should not be beheading anyone but pagan Quraysh. Then repeat the operation in Afghanistan, Thailand, and elsewhere where Muslims are today beheading unbelievers.

You assert "in reference to Surah 2:256, the verse has been affirmed by many Islamic jurists past and present as a affirmation of freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom to leave Islam is chosen."

Then why do at least eight Muslim states prescribe the death penalty for apostasy? Why is it a criminal offense in 6 others? Have none of the jurists in those states read Qur'an 2:256? Why is leaving Islam a cultural stigma everywhere in the Islamic world, such that converts must live in fear for their lives even if they need not fear prosecution by the state? Why is 2:256 such a well-kept secret in the Islamic world, if it is really widely understood to mean what you say it means?

You say: "The hadith you quote has a lack of reliability, and actually refers to a situation in which 'apostates' during Muhammad actually joined the enemy camps to attack the Muslims (i.e. sedition and treason). It's not a blanket commandment to kill apostates for simply leaving Islam."

Again: then why is it so widely understood as such by Muslims? And more importantly, how do you intend to disabuse them of this misapprehension?

You criticize Qutb. Very well. I am not in the least interested in defending him. Please explain, however, why his works are so influential in the Islamic world, and how you intend to combat this influence.

As for Khaled Abou El Fadl's great endeavor, I confess that I am as skeptical as Hugh, and see no need to recover the same ground.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Dear Mr. Spencer,

It's getting late here, and I would like to respond to your comments:

Point-by-Point:

1. You wrote: "Quite so. You may have overlooked the fact that this site is called "Jihad Watch." Since my endeavor here is to expose the motives and goals, as well as the activities, of the global mujahedin, obviously I will be focusing primarily on "Salafi, Qutbi, Wahhabi, or 'puritan'" interpretations of the Qur'an, since they are the interpretations most often invoked by the mujahedin themselves."

Nice try at absolving yourself from providing incomplete, out-of-context, material from the Qur'an and Sunnah, and then making value judgements.

The problem isn't your focus on terrorism, the problem is that you consistently present their interpretations as the true and accurate Islam, and don't even make a cursory effort to give the actual contexts behind the verses you quote, which would give a more nuanced understanding of a particular Surah or verse for JihadWatch readers

You will quote different translations of the Qur'an, but you won't quote the tafsirs providing historical context of a particular verse or surah to give the proper account, because it doesn't suit your purpose of painting Muslims and Islam as a bloodthirsty group.

Or, you will quote verses partially and out of the complete Surah.

2. You said: "A further question about your list of reformers: what would you say is the significance of the fact that Mahmoud Taha was executed as a heretic in the Sudan in 1985, and that his followers were forced to recant? What comment do you have on the fact that Ghazali approved of the Sharia-inspired killing of Faraj Foda?"

Mahmoud Taha was executed by the "puritanical" Muslims in Sudan because he questioned their intepretations of the Quran and Ahadith, and presented his own, as an Islamic jurist.

He threatened the very power of the "puritanical" Muslims leaders and jurists in Sudan. That's why he was labelled a heretic and killed.

Calling someone a heretic when you don't like what they say is an easy to get rid of someone.

Secondly, Ghazali wasn't perfect. My point is that there is a diversity of debate on the issues of Islamic jurisprudence today, and Ghazazli was a hardcore opponent of the Wahabbi interpretation. He even called them "Hadith hurlers" because thats all they did to justify their actions, by taking hadith out of their contexts and using them.

And once again, you use wrong terminology. It wasn't a Sharia-inspired killing, it was a killing inspired by the teachings of the "puritanic" Muslims, who based their claims on writings, books and work of past Islamic jurists, like Ibn Taymiyya.

3. You said: "Very well. Please travel to Iraq and explain to the Muslims who are beheading people in large numbers there that they are understanding 47:4 improperly, and should not be beheading anyone but pagan Quraysh. Then repeat the operation in Afghanistan, Thailand, and elsewhere where Muslims are today beheading unbelievers."

Good to see that you at least acknowledged your faulty practice of quoting verses of the Qur'an out-of-context, apart from their historical circumstances and not giving the tafsir.

Those Muslims beheading aren't reading 47:4, Mr. Spencer, they are trying to do shock-value tactics, no matter how deplorable and un-Islamic such actions are.

Secondly, they shouldn't beheading anyone, or "pagan Quraysh" (a bit dishonest because they don't exist anymore) The verse I explained has to do WITH BATTLE, you know, sword-to-sword fighting, arrows flying everywhere, when the Muslims were engaged in battles against the Quraysh combatant army.

I leave the scholars in Iraq to rectify these practices, and indeed Sunni and Shia scholars in Iraq have condemned the beheading actions as un-Islamic.

What you also don't realize is that these beheaders and Al-Qaeda types are the new Kharajites (the people during the time after the Prophet that went on a murderous rampage and killed any Muslim who didn't agree with their Islam). This group was ruthlessly destroyed by the Muslim rulers (caliphs), and eventually small number fled to the southern tip of Arabia.

So, you can't convince these neo-Kharajites (the beheaders in Iraq) to stop their ways - they're crazy and need to be arrested and stopped, including by force.

4. You said: "Then why do at least eight Muslim states prescribe the death penalty for apostasy? Why is it a criminal offense in 6 others? Have none of the jurists in those states read Qur'an 2:256? Why is leaving Islam a cultural stigma everywhere in the Islamic world, such that converts must live in fear for their lives even if they need not fear prosecution by the state? Why is 2:256 such a well-kept secret in the Islamic world, if it is really widely understood to mean what you say it means?"

That's indeed the problem, and you can point it out clearly. And, it's being very much debated in Islamic circles.

Today, Islamic jurists and scholars, (including the Fiqh Council of North America) have issued statements saying no, it shouldn't be this way.

But the Muslim countries you mention, due to Muslim religious politics, still have that interpretation.

But the big issue I have here, is that YOU present Islam as a monolith, that what these beheaders, terrorists, death penalty for apostates, is Islam.

You don't provide readers with the rulings of other Islamic jurists, and the contextual interpretations of the Qu'ran that give the full picture, unlike the swiss-cheese approach of the puritans.

At least that would provide readers with a more balanced and nuanced understanding - but no, you perpetually insist on showing one side, and one side only - which maligns and smears.

5. You said: "You criticize Qutb. Very well. I am not in the least interested in defending him. Please explain, however, why his works are so influential in the Islamic world, and how you intend to combat this influence."

Your premise is faulty, his works are NOT influential in the Muslim world. The works of respected Islamic jurists like Ibn Taymiyya, and the current puritan Ulema who follow Ibn Taymiyya's ideology are a large part of the problem.

I am no one to combat any influence, but a concerted effort by Muslims to combat the influence has emerged, after Islamic jurisprudence was pushed aside for so long in favour of people NOT educated in Islamic law and jurisprudence as the puritans (like Abdul Wahab, Maududi, etc.)

6. Finally, you said: "As for Khaled Abou El Fadl's great endeavor, I confess that I am as skeptical as Hugh, and see no need to recover the same ground."

Khaled is one man; he can't do anything alone. But the fact that he has furthered the debate and challenged the puritans, and I see so many Muslims reading his works, is what counts.

--

Nonetheless, my contention described in this post under point 1 and point 3 is directed toward you and Jihad Watch, and you seem to have somewhat acklowedged it in your reply.

Wow, it looks like I finished my response before it got too late.

Cordially,

Aleemuddin Ahmed

Aleemuddin,

You seem to be upset with Mr. Spencer’s attempt to bring to the public’s attention disturbing aspects of the Islamic doctrines and current Islamic practices. Your accusations seem to me to amount to a classic case of blaming the messenger. You seem to want Spencer to sweep the problems under the rug. But in light of these problems, which are documented on this site and at others routinely, what do you propose Spencer should do? When the Koran says that those who disbelieve are “the worst of created beings” (98:6), do you propose that Spencer find a commentator that interprets this verse to mean “the disbelievers are generally good people, just as good as Muslims”? Will that make you feel better?

Here’s a few more:

The Koran says that disbelievers (non-Muslims): are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:22, 8:55); (some Christians and/or Jews are) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); (idolaters are) unclean (9:28); “evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); evil-livers (5:59); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); are ill (84:20); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60); Allah cursed them for their unbelief (2:88-89), liars/they lie (2:10, 4:50, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11) “losers” (5:53, 7:178-179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), in false pride and schism (38:2), among the lowest (58:20); Allah made them the lowest of the low (95:4-6)

In reading those insults, keep the following points in mind:
-these insults apply to disbelievers because they are disbelievers (disbelief is the worst crime)
-the insults are assumed to be the words of Allah and are therefore true of disbelievers for all time, until the Last Day
-the disbelievers cannot do anything to improve Allah’s perception of them (He does not accept the good works of the disbelievers), except to believe in and obey Allah.
-the insulting adjectives refer to the inherent character traits of disbelievers.

In my opinion, Spencer is performing a valuable service. While our media and politicians generally tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, what Spencer shows us appears to be more consistent with the actual statements in the Koran as well as the present-day political, economic, social, and physical jihads being carried out. You are essentially accusing Mr. Spencer of yelling “Fire! Fire!” when in fact there really is a fire.

As Spencer asks you (and you have not yet responded on this point), why don’t you tell the the sharia-enthusiasts and the jihadists that they’ve got it all wrong? Explain to the 40% of British Muslims who want sharia, and explain to the 58% of British Muslims who want the Danish cartoonists punished for blasphemy, that they are misunderstanding the texts. Go over to Afghanistan and save Abdul Rahman’s life by explaining to the Afghan jurists how they misunderstand the Islamic texts. You have the power to do this, because, of course, you have the correct interpretation of the Islamic texts, the one that they’ve been, in their hesitation and confusion, waiting for.

I will respond to some parts of your post above that caught my attention.

Posted by: historymove at March 28, 2006 09:24 PM

“Dear Mr. Spencer,
And so, you reveal the fundamental flaw that is your premise.
"I only report on how it is interpreted." Do you, do you indeed? On the contrary, it is quite evident on your website that you actually insist that the Qu'ran says certain things by referring to certain ayats out of their proper contexts, and that you make your own assertions.”

[See Koranic insults, above. Why does Allah want to punish the disbelievers in this world and the afterlife? Why does Allah guide the Muslims to kill the disbelievers?]
[The Koran tells us (and according to Islam the Koran cannot be wrong) it is because we are disbelievers:
3:151. “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrongdoers).
3:152. And Allâh did indeed fulfil His Promise to you when you were killing them (your enemy) with His Permission; until (the moment) you lost your courage and fell to disputing about the order, and disobeyed after He showed you (of the booty) which you love. Among you are some that desire this world and some that desire the Hereafter. Then He made you flee from them (your enemy), that He might test you. But surely, He forgave you, and Allâh is Most Gracious to the believers.”]

”You ONLY give the Salafi, Qutbi, Wahhabi or "puritan" interpretation, completely disregarding the rich tradition of counter-interpretations provided by Islamic jurists like Khaled Abou El Fadl, Fazlur Rahman, Mahmoud Taha, Ghazali etc.”

[I’d be curious to know how those on your list would interpret that list of insults that I cited above]

”Here is a simple example from many from your website, that shows how you selectively and partially quote phrases from ayats to prove some kind of point:
(March 2, 2006 - "Beheader of 116 captured in Iraq") www.jihadwatch.org
Your comments: "Good thing Islam forbids beheading, or his death total might be in the thousands. (Seriously, he was acting in accord with Qur'an 47:4, which commands Muslims to "strike the necks" of unbelievers.)"
No, this is false and the verse isn't a blanket commandment for Muslims to "strike the necks" of unbelievers.”

[I believe the point is that the method of killing is beheading, and this method is given divine approval in such verses as 47:4, and 8:12].

”In fact, the PROPER reading of the above verse you quoted shows that its context is referring to an actual battle that the early Muslims were engaged in with the pagan Quraysh, and that the "unbelievers" are the pagan Quraysh, not your sweeping inclusion of all non-Muslims.”

[Right, it was only the pagan Quraysh. And if you read the whole Koran, you will find out that it was “only” the pagans/idolators, Jews, Christians, disbelievers generally, apostates, and hypocrites to be killed. I guess that covers everyone, all non-Muslims]

”If you, Mr. Spencer, actually quoted the full ayat and given the context, instead of picking and choosing phrases, perhaps you would have a bit of credibility.”
”So, you actually make your own assertions and judgements about the Qur'anic commandments and teachings, by using selective, out-of-context, and blatantly half-truth quotations.”

[Here’s your opportunity to show, not just tell. You are making an assertion that Spencer has got it wrong by quoting only a part of the verse and by not discussing the historical context. Show that his intended meaning, in citing verse 47:4, is incorrect].

”Secondly, in reference to Surah 2:256, the verse has been affirmed by many Islamic jurists past and present as a affirmation of freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom to leave Islam is chosen.”

[Are there any schools of Islamic jurisprudence that have no penalty for apostacy?].

[You talk about context, but you quote 2:256 out of context. Is this enough context?]
2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower."
2:257: "Allah is the protecting guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are the rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein."]

”The hadith you quote has a lack of reliability, and actually refers to a situation in which "apostates" during Muhammad actually joined the enemy camps to attack the Muslims (i.e. sedition and treason). It's not a blanket commandment to kill apostates for simply leaving Islam.”

[Cite your source which claims that the hadith in question is not reliable. Cite your source (with page number or link) which shows that the apostates were not killed for having apostatized but for some other reason. And how do you explain this call for the killing of apostates, whose only crime appears to be that they will “abandon Islam.”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 808 (also Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64):
Narrated 'Ali:
I relate the traditions of Allah's Apostle to you for I would rather fall from the sky than attribute something to him falsely. But when I tell you a thing which is between you and me, then no doubt, war is guile. I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "In the last days of this world there will appear some young foolish people who will use (in their claim) the best speech of all people (i.e. the Qur'an) and they will abandon Islam as an arrow going through the game. Their belief will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have practically no belief), so wherever you meet them, kill them, for he who kills them shall get a reward on the Day of Resurrection." ]

”Your reliance on Sayyid Qutb to try to prove some point is very indicative of your agenda and sources. Qutb was not a trained Islamic scholar nor jurist, but a secular-educated modern man who became "appalled" by Western lifestyle, and so, decided to write his rants against it, and relied on medieval jurists like Ibn Taymiyya, who by the way, made his edicts and writings according to his historical circumstances, a time in which Muslims were engaged in wars with different world powers and empires.”

[Yes, empires established according to the goals of Islam laid down in Sura 9. Actually, Qutb was knowledgeable of the Koran and was an influential thinker in the Muslim world. Thesis on Qutb here
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/thesis/loboda/home.html . But the issue is whether or not the Koran has anything else to say on the matter of freedom of belief. Verse 9:5 says slay the idolaters unless they convert to Islam. Verse 9:29 says slay the Christians and Jews unless they convert to Islam or accept dhimmitude. Verse 9:33 says fight to make Islam conquer all other religion, even though the disbelievers hate it]

”Qutb is not accepted by any Islamic circle of jurisprudence and law. Even the "puritans" rely upon their own jurists, like Ibn Taymiyya.”

[First, I don’t know whether your assumption is correct. Maybe provide a reference that backs you up? But if we assume you are correct, then what? Does this mean that Qutb’s writings were not influential?]

”You said: "Send me examples of Islamic religious scholars rejecting, on Islamic grounds, jihad violence against non-Muslims; rejecting the idea that Sharia law should be instituted in the Muslim and non-Muslim world; and teaching the idea that non-Muslims and Muslims should live together indefinitely as equals ........."
You ask as if there is nothing out there by Islamic scholars today.
Pick up Fadl's recent book "The Great Theft" which offers a comprehensive rebuttal to the "puritan" or Wahabbi approach to the Qu'ran and Sunnah, from a trained Islamic jurist. Or pick up Fazlur Rahman, Pervaiz, or Ghazali.”

[Spencer asked for examples, and I think he meant quotes. I don’t think anyone would ask to be sent on a wild goose chase. If you’ve read all those authors, just quote the relevant part that proves your point and provide the page number so that we can verify. Then your next task will be to convince us that those people have any influence or power whatsoever to stop Islamic violence, which executing apostates].

“As for Shariah, it can never be rejected by any Muslim. Shariah is the Qu'ran and authentic Sunnah.”

[You speak for all Muslims, do you?]

“Fiqh, on the other hand, can be rejected from being instituted on Muslims or non-Muslims, especially the Fiqh that exists today and that is promoted by the Wahhabis and the Talibans of our time. And that's what Fadl and others are arguing.”

[In theory, fiqh can be rejected if it is contrary to the Koran. Good luck getting any agreement on that. Also, for all practical purposes, getting a ruling power to change fiqh is not easy without massive pressure, probably from outside, non-Muslim governments]

”Your utilization of half-truths and selectivity when it comes to the Qu'ran and Sunnah reveals the actual agenda behind your amateurish work - an agenda to continuously malign and smear Muslims and Islam.”

[Spencer’s work doesn’t strike me as amateurish. Why should your opinion be worth more than mine? I’ve read the Koran. What he says sounds accurate, but what you say sounds like a cover-up and an attempt to deflect away criticism from the facts. If you could address substance, instead of making wild accusations, this would be most helpful in your future posts. For example, if you claim that 47:4 is somehow a good verse, then show that this is the case. If you are claiming that ‘no compulsion in religion’ refers to apostates, then prove it].

"Cordially,"

[Why do you say cordially? Are you being sarcastic? Or are you being dishonest?]

The arguer presents a deconstructionist complex dilemma that is worth dissecting to see how people 's faith in the Quran belies their responsibility to the cause of jihad:

Either
the texts must be taken literally in order for
the "religion" to be followed
AND
faithfuls are jihadist supporters and/or
sympathizers and/or jihadists themselves and
non-faithfuls are ...
OR
the texts' interpretations are based on long
calculations and counter-argument after
counter-argument like Plato and Socrates doing
triple shifts
AND
faithfuls are those who "read between the
lines" and "see" the nuances that the writer
of the Quran "really" intended.

This dilemma is akin to the strict versus constructionist view of reading the US Const - yet unlike religious laws and reasons thereof, people who argue about whether actions or laws violate the Constitution don't have to ask what would God do if we made this ruling - religious rulings in the very least imply whether it would be following or NOT following God's way; that presents loaded arguments and emotions greater than even the most intense Supreme Court arguments and talk show presentations.

That guy was in fact presenting a false dilemma and surely didnot and CANNOT present us a reason for why the religion's literal texts and old decrees are NOT part of the religion followed to this very day.

Surely, one is wise and more religious for not taking them literally, but the arguer himself has the greater gall for assuming that his peaceful sect is the "real" Islam. As the false dilemma shows, it is really hard to determine what is real Islam...what is real Christianity or Judiasm...surely Islam CAN be learned peacefully, but would the arguer show us how he arrives at the conclusion that taking the Quran as jihadists and their sympathizers do goes against "Islam"? I put quotes because the arguer, in my opinion, has left me with no "Constitution" for Islam with which to rule...

"You quote verses from the Qur'an completely out of their textual and historical context, with a utter disregard for the actual circumstances behind a particular ayat (verse)."

Mr. Aleemuddin Ahmed is a typical muslim who thinks that the Quran is too complex to decipher by ordinary laymen. The fact is the Koran is a jumble of nonsense.And the hadiths are the same. And it is not too difficult to understand. But within it lies the cruel ideology that built the African slave trade,the discrimination of women and the war on anyone who does not believe Islam.

I come from the 100% Sunni Muslim nation of the Maldives where a dictator who studied Islam in Egypt has dragged the nation backwards.

Countries like Maldives, Indonesia, Malaysia were brutally forced to convert to Islam by Arab who came across the seas. However, the Portuguese followed by the Dutch, French and English drove out the Arabs. So the peoples kind of made up their own Islam which happened to be more moderate as the former religion of many of these peoples was Buddhism and Hinduism. Many of these societies were matriachal. So we did not have headscarves, amputations and the "off with his head".
Now the Arabs have the money!!!!! So they are funding the return to Real Islam for these peoples. This is why we are seeing the Islamic dress code and the jihad fervor.
Islam is really an Arab thing and the Islamization and Arabization of our countries has destroyed our own culture, creating imitation Arabs instead.

Typical for him to call other Muslims no nothings and inept.
(unlike the two-bit Afghanis)(so-called Islamic scholars in Afganistan, Saudi Arabia etc. They could use inept individuals like you)
Sir:
The real Muslims are the ones doing all the destruction around the world. Try and stop them instead of scolding Mr. Spencer for reveiling the reasons for the destructive nature of so many Muslims.

Aleemuddin Ahmed:

Since you like to herald "context" as the reason Robert misquotes so often, explain why the Quran, after referring to non-believers in hundreds of passages as inferior to the teachings of Muhammed and Islam, aren't painted in general to followers as those who deserve the persecution and discrimination today as they were in the days when the Quran was written.

Each verse's context is ALL of the remaining Quran...when all the passages talk about offending, avoiding, lying-to, beheading, enlightening non-Muslims BECAUSE they do not know the Quran and do not follow in the way of Muhammed, is that not bigoted?

Well what have we here? just pages and pages of learned people rambling and gambling hours of their precious energy debating the ever-so-fine and finely diminishing fine points of Quranic scripture. Instead of using their minds to define and defuse the very real threat that violent jihad poses to all of us today.

Education, folks. The Real Threat. To who?

This is so predictable, now that the genie is out of the bottle, the true nature of Islam exposed to those that refused to listen, so that even the Europeans are starting to get their heads out of the sand.

We have the attack on those that have raised the issue, the attack of the so called moderates to try to discredit those that are seen by them to misunderstand the deliberate complexity of Islam and are raising the issue of Jihad.

The problem is that the majority of Muslims misunderstand the deliberate complexity of Islam.

Like many laymen I made an effort to understand Islam, read the Quran in conjunction with history, found as many hadiths as possible in English and tried to understand, but it was just too complex, but what I did get to was one undeniable truth, you can justify any action with the ideology of Islam against infidels.

I have given up on my attempt to make sense of it, because you can not make sense of it, it is totally and utterly irrational.

Education is a threat to Islam, simple as that, because normal people who just want to live their lives will leave it, this is why there is an attack on our system that allows that education, to remove the ability to question and challenge. If that was not happening aided and abetted by so called moderates I might have been persuaded by some of your arguments, but it is and I am not.

Education and freedom of expression is the threat to Islam.

Sceptic, you managed to make me laugh! Are you attending clown-school or stand up-comedy classes or something like that?

Bring on a few more gems like this:

"...Islam never cared to absorb other cultures..."
I beg to differ.

"...Hugh, your ad hominem is weak..."
Learn what 'ad hominem' means!

"... He, to me, seems reasonable and above all else secular...???"

The guy is a Mohammedan, he is not secular.

"... The guy is a liberal Muslim who has more study than others in his religion and he has his own interpretation. Plus, he seems to be as normal as you and I..."

He is either 'liberal' or a Muslim. Muslims are 'slaves of Allah' and those who claim to have 'their own interpretation' have got nothing to stand on. We don't know what you understand by being "normal", many of us do not look upon Mohammedans as being 'normal'.

Once again, I can identify myself with him.

Go ahead and bang your head (next to him) on the floor of the next mosque!

"Well what have we here? just pages and pages of learned people rambling and gambling hours of their precious energy debating the ever-so-fine and finely diminishing fine points of Quranic scripture. Instead of using their minds to define and defuse the very real threat that violent jihad poses to all of us today." - Posted By jehana

I can't agree more. After reading historymove's comments (Aleemuddin Ahmed's) I believe you can make a scholarly study of just about anything. No offense meant, but studying the Koran and living in a vacuum of ignorant bliss towards what is happening around you in the name of mohammed or allah is not helping here.

The crux of the matter in this case comes down to "how does the followers of Islam interpret the Koran?" Not, "what does this scholar or that scholar SAY or INTERPRET what the Koran is actually saying by looking at the context of history or blah blah blah". That is rather pointless, as it makes no difference to the people getting murdered in the name of mohammed or allah whilst the murderous mohammedans are joyfully shouting allahu akbar.

To me, and this is just little old me, not a scholar, not an intellectual or an alien from another planet, just me, I look at how the followers of Islam behave. What I see is not pretty, it's a danger to the world. Islam is a danger to every single person that comes in contact with it.

I quote:

"43 A good tree does not bear rotten fruit, nor does a rotten tree bear good fruit.
44
For every tree is known by its own fruit. For people do not pick figs from thornbushes, nor do they gather grapes from brambles.
45
A good person out of the store of goodness in his heart produces good, but an evil person out of a store of evil produces evil; for from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks". Luke 6: 43 - 45.

Islam/the Koran PRODUCES EVIL.

THAT is the crux of the matter. Talk is cheap.

As an aside, the claim that non-muslims (or, to be more correct, folks who are not islamic scholars) cannot fathom the Quran is rather bogus.

1) If only education can prepare to correct interpret this, then the books are meaningless, since they can be given any meaning the theologicans choose to.

2) If it is too complex for westerners who often have advanced degrees (and so enjoyed quite a rigorous training in logic and dealing with complex abstract concepts) then it will baffle most muslims (and other people) by definition.

3) Whether scholars who do not study anything other than the Quran can interpret the Quran correctly is another matter(and someone will have to agree to what 'correct' actually is here), but given that the interpretation is not documented, and so not taught uniformly and every cleric merely adds their own mustard to the mix!

This would explain why Islam appears to be a messy free for all, which in turn explains Mr. Ahmed confusion.

Islam it is whatever people think it is, but it has no concrete meaning itself, it has no message.

Robert is simply showing the world how those who want to impose islam on the world interpret and use the islamic religious texts. It's not his mission to also show more peaceful interpretations, because they are not a threat to western civilisation.

Mr Ahmed would do well to join the Free Muslim Coalition and get on with educating islamic promoters of violence of the 'true, peaceful' interpretations.

We non-muslims will get interested when MUSLIMS are convinced, not when he tries to convince us.

Thuunda wrote above:
"A good tree does not bear rotten fruit, nor does a rotten tree bear good fruit" Luke 6:43

In the same manner
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill,and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. John 10:10

steal, kill and destroy versus "LIFE in abundance"

Aleemuddin Ahmed pls help me make a choice.

"...out of context" and "you have to read the Koran in Arabic" are probably the dumbest excuses one constantly hears. I cringe every-time I hear it and I spit on every Mohammedan coffee-filter who chews this cud.

This kind of thing can only work with half-wits, and when you look at Islamic countries, where the overwhelming majority is stupid, superstitious and poor with illiteracy over and above 75 %, then you know everything: This is where Islam thrives...

The other red herring, that only a Mohammedan can properly 'understand' Islam, and if you are not a Muhammedan, you can't possibly grasp it: Common' , how stupid do you think we are this day & age?

We've read the Koran, (piece of s*#t) we've read the sira and the hadith and we see the fast breeding hordes of mad Muhammedans run wild wherever they are, murdering, raping, wrecking havoc.

That is Islam pure, what else do we need to know?

You can try and put lipstick on that pig, you can perfume it, but it remains a pig, and it stinks to high heaven...

Aleemuddin Ahmed~ Good morning!

I am curious to learn where else you are holding these discussions. There are quite a few of your fellow Faithful who seem to be mis-interpreting the Koran, the hadiths, the bukri(?). Surely you must be arguing with them on their forums. May we have links to those discussions, please?

Dear Aleemuddin Ahmed

You say: "Nonetheless, my contention described in this post under point 1 and point 3 is directed toward you and Jihad Watch, and you seem to have somewhat acklowedged it in your reply."

You are mistaken. I acknowledged the validity of nothing that you have said. It is either false or inaccurate or both. For example, your claim that I do not deal with tafasir: you will find my discussions of many tafasir and modes of interpreting the Qur'an in my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers."

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Aleemuddin Ahmed wrote:

"No, Naksk (abrogation) is a not a valid doctrine from the time of the Prophet."

and also wrote:

"Ignoring the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) NEVER said to abrogate verses of the Qu'ran with new verses, except a few that he explicitly mentioned in his lifetime. The present "abrogation" argument of wholesale verses and commandments was brought-forward by the later Islamic jurists, NOT the Prophet."

Could you please then explain these verses in the Koran itself, which have been used to justify the doctrine of abrogation?

Sura 2:106: "If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar...."

Sura 13:39: "God abrogates and confirms what He pleases. His is the Decree Eternal."

Sura 17:86: "If We pleased We could take away that which We have revealed to you:.."

Sura 16:101: "When We substitute one revelation for another, - and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), - they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not."

Caroline, those verses quoted strikes me as something someone would say who either plans to change his mind when it suits him, or is senile and constantly forgets what he said previously and thus this is a back door for defending contradictions in one's actions and sayings. Clever, but oh so transparent.

Those verses are just simply ridiculous if taken as inspired by G_d.

So, you can't convince these neo-Kharajites (the beheaders in Iraq) to stop their ways - they're crazy and need to be arrested and stopped, including by force.

The Muslim community at large knows who these people are. They are your brothers, your fathers, your sons, your friends and neighbors. You know who they are. Give them up to face justice. If you do not, then we will continue to hunt them down. If you succor them, give them aid and shelter, allow them to imbed themselves among you, then you too will regrettably be destroyed by the conflagration. We will not end our hunt until we as a society feel once more secure and at peace.

The neo-Kharajites and the ummah at large have grossly underestimated the resolve of the American people to defend themselves. Gaze into the tombs of despots who vainly challenged America with violence in the past and let it teach you a truth more tangible than any you might believe is in your Qur'an. Pay a visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Wrap your mind around that reality. Don't imagine for a millisecond that the American people would not do it again, and again, and again, ... whatever it takes.

The entire ummah gets to choose its fate. You had better hurry, as time is running out. The American median voter is beginning to stir.

Great response Robert and I love the end...and a right hook and a left jab and a...well it was a great comeback. You threw him some great pearls. Do you think he's choking on them now?

PJ

It is irritating to see the grandiose language which is always used whenever these so-called Islamic scholars are mentioned. Someone has clearly decided that describing them a ‘prominent’, ‘eminent’, ‘highly respected’ Islamic scholars or ‘experts on Islamic jurisprudence’ might lead people to believe that these people are actually engaged in something useful.

But it surely does not take much of a scholar to work out that an all-knowing and all-powerful God (and that is a vast amount of knowledge and power) would not have chosen to convey important messages to mankind by using ambigious terms couched in classical Arabic, a language that hardly anyone in the world spoke or understand.

Mr.Spencer; When are you going to host the Rush Limbaugh radio show?

Aleemuddin Ahmed, you seem to claim to be at least somewhat enlightened, but the problem is, we can't tell a so-called moderate from one of your pooch-screwing brothers. Perhaps because these "moderates" are scared to death of Muslim reprisals, and rarely speak out.

So, until that situation is somehow rectified, we infidels must be wary of ALL Muslims. It's much safer to say that ALL snakes are poisonous, rather than bending down to examine the stripes.

Save your rage for your own kind. It's not the infidels' fault that Islam is perceived as a religion/idealogy of hatred, bigotry and pedophilia, it's the fault of you and yours. We judge Islam by the actions of its followers.

posted by Know Your Enemy: " We judge Islam by the actions of its followers."

Yup.

Islam is as islam does.

The "leave-us-alone-we-are-busy-reforming-Islam-so-just-give-us-the-grant-money-to-complete-our-task" club has as many Self-Appointed Acting Presidents as the club has members. Among them are: Khaled Abou El Fadl, Kamal Nawash, Soliman Schwartz, Khaleel Muhammad, and - if you are a Bright Young Muslim Thing, or claim you are -- Your Name Here.

And one of their favorite rhetorical tricks is this: Put the Passage Back Into Its Context. So even though Muslims are taught NOT to put things into any context, for the message of Muhammad comes from a text outside of history, an uncreated text that always existed, and the example of Muhammad that helps eluciddate that message, which though "in history" is also, because what Muhammad did and said and even his silences, create a Model of the Perfect Man that is not modified by context, but is good for all time, and to be followed by Muslims right now, outside of Muhammad's time, outside of Muhammad's space. He is uswa hasana. He is al-insan al-kamil.

There is only one kind of "putting into context" that would help to mitigate the menace, for Infdiels, of Islam (and for Muslims too, as Infidels become aware of the ideology of Islam, and naturally begin to take measures to minimize the risk to themselves). And that is to put the Qur'an itself into context, to see it as the product of a particular age, as a document modified over time, very likely written not in Arabic (not a written language at the time), but in Aramaic, and in various versions, with the editio princeps not ready for the press until a century later than Muslims claim, and even then with versions that offer variants even today -- the warsh and hafs qira'a.

So by all means, let us have "context" so that we can begin to comprehend how this Qur'an, which may have begun life as a Syriac lectionary, and then taken on a different form, or may have begun as a mishmash concocted by one or more people who were determined to supply the Arab tribesmen who had already long ago begunt o filter out of Arabia and to establish themselves separately from the locals -- Christians and Jews -- in Mesopotamia and what is now Jordan and Israel and Syria -- among people far more advanced, wealthy, and settled --in order to justify, and promote, the conquest, by these Arabs, of more advanced non-Arab peoples, with a "religion" that would contain recognizable elements, and so not be completely unacceptable, but would elevate the world-historical role assigned to the Arabs, and above all, to one particular Arab, Muhammad.

Why do I get the distinct feeling that this very same gentleman, "Aleemuddin Ahmed," is probably argueing for the summary execution of Abdul Rahman on Muslim blogs while at the same time trying to portray Islam as a benevolent entity here? Why is it that such tenacious and detailed arguements by "moderates" against fundamentalist Muslims only seem to show up on blogs that are critical of Muslim supremacy and Muslim hegemony? I spend a good bit of time lurking in prominent Muslim blogs and I have to say that these same arguements are mysteriously missing from their threads. For example, if someone wanted to see what the Muslims think of Mr. Abdul Rahman, they are free to go to http://ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81895 . Interestingly enough no similar arguement to that offered by Mr. "Aleemuddin Ahmed" can be found on this thread or anywhere else on the site. However, one can easily find numerous death threats against apostates or Danish cartoonists who blaspheme the prophet Mohomed. His arguemnent seems to be at best, directed to the wrong audience, and at worst, outright deception.

Thak you Del! Indeed "Islam is as Islam does." While theologians may speculate as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, those of us in the working world are probably too busy making a living to care. As an infidel, I lump the witings of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) in with those of Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. They only impact me if they persuade individuals who seek guidance from them to do things like fly aircraft into buildings, cut the heads off of unbelievers, etc. The arguments they generate seem very close to mental masturbation.

I have followed this apostasy story of the Afghan Christian, and how the Afghani religious leaders say he should be executed.

I did much research into Apostasy, and the Madhabs, and what happened during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

And, I present some important facts:

1. Surah 2:256 says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clear from error." This has been interpreted by Islamic jurists and scholars to affirm freedom of conscience and religion.

2. Despite the fact that the Quran does not once mention the death penalty for apostasy, past Islamic jurists relied on two hadith texts for their argument. The first one states "whoever changes his religion shall be killed." (Noted in Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 260; Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, Number 57.)

The second is "It is not lawful to kill a man who is a Muslim except for one of the three reasons: Kufr (disbelief) after accepting Islam, fornication after marriage, or wrongfully killing someone, for which he may be killed." (Sunan Abu Dawd, Book 39, Number 4487.)

Notwithstanding the fact that the chain of transmission on the first hadith has been found to be weak, (S.A. Rahman, The Punishment of Apostasy in Islam) both of them contradict the Quran and other instances in which the Prophet did not compel anyone to embrace Islam,nor punish them if they recanted.

In one incident, the Prophet pardoned Abdullah bin Sa'd, after he renounced Islam.
Abdullah bin Sa'd was one of the people chosen by the Prophet as a scribe, to write down Quranic text as it was revealed to the Prophet. After spending some time with the Muslims in Medina, he recanted and returned to the religion of the Quraish. When he was brought before the Prophet, Osman bin Affan pleaded on his behalf, and the Prophet subsequently pardoned Abdullah bin Sa'd. (Ibn Hisham)

Another hadith recorded by both Bukhari and Muslim also supports this point. A Bedouin Arab came to the Prophet and accepted Islam. Then, he became ill with a fever and the next day asked the Prophet (pbuh) if he could take back his pledge. He asked three times and was refused each time. The Prophet said "Medina is like bellows which rejects its dross andretains its purity." The Bedouin was allowed to leave unharmed. (Quoted in Kamali, Freedom of Expression in Islam, p. 94.)

The refusal to allow the Bedouin to take back his pledge indicates that a profession of faith is made between the individual and God and the Prophet does not retain any right to mediate on behalf of Allah in that respect. This includes the fact that no temporal punishment is prescribed for an apostate.

3. All 4 Sunni Madhabs and Shia Madhab (Jafari) maintain that apostates should be executed, based on the above quoted hadith.

Some scholars, however, argue that those hadith had a particular context and background - in which Apostasy also meant to becoming seditious and an enemy of the early Muslim community, because the Qurasyh polytheists were constantly plotting against the early Muslim commnity.

======

Therefore, the referenced hadith and example of the Prophet show that apostates were not killed and actually forgiven, as opposed to the other hadith which simply says "whoever changes his religion shall be killed" without the full story and context behind the hadith.

Islamic jurists today are bringing this to light, to challenge the domination of "death for apostates" in the 5 Islamic schools of legal thought, which I and others contend, was a mistake by past Islamic scholars of the 5 schools.

The Afghan clerics are absolutely wrong in their assertion. Recently, the Fiqh Council of North America affirmed this position.

Historymove:

Asalaamulaikum!

The question is, where does the Fiqh Council of North America gain the right to impose their interpretation of scriptures onto the Afghani legal system? Here's some history on that system, btw:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/ilsp/etling.pdf

Yet somehow the House of Saud and other extremist Islamists can send us their tracts, their translations of the Quran, their ideas of what Islam is and how it should be practiced in America, in total opposition to the US Constitution, which grants EVERYONE the right to free exercise of religion.

They can even send their clerics who studied in their schools to our mosques and use their $$$ to muscle out our Inams who have been serving Muslim communities here for 20+ years, claiming "you're not a real Muslim". Its not inconceivable that they might do the same to you.

What are we going to do about that one, brother? And, can we get started? today?

Wa'laikumsalaam Jehana,

I agree with you 100% The Saudi's have been sending their imams to mosques, and although they are not necessarily extremist, they have a very narrow and parochial understanding of Islam.

I think Shaikh Khaled Abou El Fadl, Shaikh Fazlur Rahman, Shaikh Mahmoud Taha, and many others said it right:

For every seminar and book established, or published and promoted by the puritan Muslims, the mainstream moderate Muslims need to establish or publish and promote our literature and our seminaries that promote re-vitalizing of the Fiqh and coming back to the proper reading and understanding of the Qu'ran.

You're right, they will call me, you and Fadl and countless others who question their Fiqh, as "bad Muslims", because our side threatens the power of these puritan scholars.

We can start today, and it's already happening - more and more mosques in North America are dumping foreign-trained Imam's for our own born imams and those educated both in Islamic studies and also higher secular education.

Take for example Shaikh Ahmad Kutty in Toronto, traditional Islamic education but a MA, and PhD in Islamic Studies from McGill. His fatwas and ideas are utterly contrary to the puritan scholars.

There is a lot of work to be done, of course. Insha'allah it will happen.

But websites like Jihad Watch only serve to malign and smear all Muslims and Islam - and make money for books written by so-called "scholars" like this Robert Spencer guy.

Aleemuddin Ahmed

Mr. Ahmed wrote:

"The Afghan clerics are absolutely wrong in their assertion. Recently, the Fiqh Council of North America affirmed this position."

And, I'm sure that you are in the process, as we speak, to make it known to ALL of those Afghan clerics about how "wrong" they are, and you are going to set them straight, correct? Otherwise, you are simply pissing in the wind by telling US about it.

WE don't need to be told what is right or wrong about killing innocent, civilized people, regardless of whether or not we are "scholars" of your "juridprudice." A child with no standardized schooling, who has merely been raised in a stable household could tell us that. The people who do NOT know this simple, common sense matter are these idiotic Afghan clerics that you speak of.

If they are a problem, then address that problem where it is, IN AFGHANISTAN!

Historymove~

We would Welcome a Moderate muslim straightening out groups like the Afghanis who are getting it wrong. Once again, may we have links to islamic sites where you are posting these arguments?

I can not believe you people sometimes. I agree with many of your view, but the fact remains that many of you are narrow-minded. All your attacks against Mr. Ahmed are trivial and you fail to realize that he is on your side. He advocates the same basic tenants of human rights. He outright refutes the "puritan" interpretations of Islam. He agrees that it is predominant, but advocates change and tells about people who work toward it. Mr. Spencer has many times himself asked to see evidence of this. Mr. Ahmed presents that. Yet many people fail to revise a small part of their views on the issues based on new information. All though contentions such as "well it is not spread out among a majority of Muslims" are correct, they are red herrings. The fact remains that there are such people out there. Some people need set aside some of entrenched convictions for a moment and view the arguement objectively.

Skeptic: "All your attacks against Mr. Ahmed are trivial and you fail to realize that he is on your side. He advocates the same basic tenants of human rights."

From a post by Mr. Ahmed above:

"As for Shariah, it can never be rejected by any Muslim. Shariah is the Qu'ran and authentic Sunnah."

I am a woman Skeptic. So no, Mr. Ahmed is NOT on MY side.

BTW Mr. Ahmed - I am still waiting for you to respond to my post about the basis for the doctrine of abrogation in the Koran itself.

Skeptic:

You are barking up the wrong tree. Mr. Ahmed came here and proclaimed that Robert Spencer could not properly address Islam because he was not a "scholar" of this religion. He came here and told him that he is telling lies and distortions about islam in order to bring damage to his religion.

If Mr. Adhmed wishes to address the problems that WE are addressing (imams ordering mobs to take to the streets to kill, destroy, and burn over SCRIBBLINGS, Palestinians who are raised from birth to hate Jews and trained to kill them, laws that demand the blood of so-called "apostates," islamic "statesmen" who demand "death to America"), then we welcome his input.

If he's against this "radical" portion of Islam, then let him declare his disagreement with it, and join us in the fight against this evil in the world. He can start by stop trying to smear Mr. Spencer, and start attacking the people who are causing all the problems with the negative perception of Islam--MUSLIMS WHO HAVE GOT THEIR RELIGION WRONG.

Aleemuddin Ahmed,

First of all, if you are genuinely interested in reform, good. That said, if you are going to be engaged in the process and take it seriously, you have to be able to face up to the problems. Your posts here suggest to me that you do not face the problems but instead choose to avoid them or try to explain them out of existence. Worse, you blame others, especially non-Muslims such as Spencer, for pointing them out.

Nice try avoiding my post. Don’t worry, I’m used to having Islamist-apologists* ignore my posts when I point out problems in the Koran. You do not have a legitimate response. *(You are an apologist for Islam, not Muslims, and there is a difference, e.g., apologist for Muslims will defend Muslims from Islam.)

You claim:
“Despite the fact that the Quran does not once mention the death penalty for apostasy,”

False. Actually, it does require the death for apostacy more than once (4:89, 9:11-14, and possibly 9:73-74 and 9:123, if the context of Sura 9—i.e., fighting to make Allah’s religion supreme, to destroy polytheism and disbelief, etc.--is taken into account). This is in addition to Allah’s punishment in this world to the disbelievers, including apostates and hypocrites, e.g., through disasters, calamities, etc., which Allah brings as punishment. (This is in addition to hell-fire in the afterlife, of course). You also seem to forget that the Koran in many different verses authorizes Muslims to kill disbelievers, and apostates are disbelievers, not Muslims. You also fail to point out that the Koran itself gives no penalty for the killing of hypocrites and apostates, and indeed the Koran itself gives no penalty for killing a non-Muslim. You also do not mention that disbelief (e.g., polytheism or rejecting Islam) is according to the Koran a worse crime than killing a Muslim (2:191, 2:217), and that disbelief is in fact the worst crime in Islam as stated in several verses.

Verse 4:89 explicitly calls for the death of a group of apostates. They had allegedly abandoned the Muslims in the Battle of Uhud, but that’s not strictly why Allah ordered that they be killed. Allah ordered they be killed except for certain restrictions: (4:90) They are protected by peace treaty, or they refrain from fighting when approached by Muslims in battle (i.e, they must surrender). Otherwise, Muslims have clear warrant to kill them (4:91). There is, however, another exception, and that is if they return to the path of Allah/Mohammad (4:89). In other words, if they revert to Islam, they are saved. Obviously, then, the religious belief in Islam is a critical and indeed overriding factor (i.e., treason is forgiven if they return to Islam!). If the problem was only treason, then simply switching back to Islam would not save their lives. But it does; that’s what the verses say. And what about the “peace treaties” and those who “hold themselves aloof” from the Muslims? Verse 4:90 is regarded by many as having been abrogated by 9:5, which says convert or die. This verse actually does apply to the Meccans in question (i.e., they are included in the large category of pagans to be fought). Therefore, if you argue that 9:5 does not abrogate 4:90, you are left with the problem of reconciling their contrasting respects in policy.

“past Islamic jurists relied on two hadith texts for their argument.”

Wrong. They relied on an overall reading of the Koran. The Hadith reports—and there are more than two—are considered supportive material.

“Another hadith recorded by both Bukhari and Muslim also supports this point. A Bedouin Arab came to the Prophet and accepted Islam. Then, he became ill with a fever and the next day asked the Prophet (pbuh) if he could take back his pledge. He asked three times and was refused each time.”

So this man wants to apostatize from Islam and the prophet “doesn’t let him”! This is absurd. This shows what an egomaniac Mohammad was; Mohammad is acting as God. And, this shows compulsion in religion. Mohammad is even antagonizing this man on his death-bed. What an intolerant egomaniac Mohammad was!
“The refusal to allow the Bedouin to take back his pledge indicates that a profession of faith is made between the individual and God and the Prophet does not retain any right to mediate on behalf of Allah in that respect.”
You are delusional! The prophet intervenes, psychologically tormenting this dying man, and you say this hadith indicates a profession of faith is simply between the person and God? That’s not what that hadith says, and that’s not what the later verses of the Koran say. What that hadith says is that Mohammad is an narcissist and a tyrant who will screw with your mind even when you are on your death bed and want to be left in peace with the faith of your choice.
“This includes the fact that no temporal punishment is prescribed for an apostate.”
False (4:89-91). Read the whole Koran. Especially read 9:11-14.
“But websites like Jihad Watch only serve to malign and smear all Muslims and Islam - and make money for books written by so-called "scholars" like this Robert Spencer guy.”

Bull. You are trying to smear all websites that are critical of Islam. You don’t know much about Spencer. Spencer is clearly not against Muslims, and welcomes any honest constructive efforts that Muslims may make in defeating the jihadists and those who wish to impose sharia on all people. You appear to be suffering from a sad case of infidelophobia—an irrational and disproportionate fear and hatred of on non-Muslims—and you are taking your soft jihad against Spencer as part of your Koranic duty. It is exemplary, according to the Koran, to hate non-Muslims forever (60:4) unless they come to believe in Allah. You apparently either accept or refuse to acknowledge all of the bigotted, hateful insults in the Koran directed at non-Muslims which I cited in my previous post. If you accept those verses of hate against non-Muslims, then you yourself hate non-Muslims. Perhaps this is the real motivation behind your attack on Spencer?

Don't let the facts get in your way, Aleemuddin. You claim that Spencer doesn't quote tafsir and quotes out of context but you have not read his books, where he does both. You perhaps would not be satisfied unless Spencer presented those detailed analyses each and every time he quoted a single verse of the Koran. (At the same time, you fail to provide such analyses yourself and continue to quote 2:256 out of context--you hide 2:257 thinking that people won't look it up, and you are gambling on the fact that you can get away with that deception-by-omission with most people most of the time). You also failed to show how Spencer's quote of 47:4 was inaccurate. You are deceiving the public about Islam and you refuse to acknowledge the obvious problems. You talk about sharia law as though it is something wonderful. Your posts make it clear that you will say anything to defend Islam, even level trumped up fake charges against Spencer.

Skeptics,

"All your attacks against Mr. Ahmed are trivial and you fail to realize that he is on your side."

Cite evidence that anything anyone has said by way of criticism of his is unwarranted. If you going to make the strong charge that people arguing with Mr. Ahmed are "narrow-minded," show us where. Cite examples, ansd then show how our criticisms are not valid. Otherwise, we can call you narrow-minded and ignorant and you can return that insult and we will get nowhere. Please do read through the posts and look at substance, instead of being upset that poor Mr. Ahmed is being "attacked". He attacked Spencer, I think unfairly (and I've showed why in my posts) and then he stepped into the thread looking for a debate and he's getting one.

He's deceiving unsuspecting non-Muslims and Muslims alike with regard to the problems in the Koran, Hadith, and Sira. This helps no one and hinders the work of honest reformers. He is attempting to attribute the mainstream-accepted policy of killing apostates, which has been accepted since the time of Mohammad and in fact instituted and ordered by Mohammad and in the Koran--all to a minor technical misunderstanding of a couple of Hadith reports. Oops! I guess the early caliphs misunderstood Mohammad, and while he was still around Mohammad forgot to tell them, "By the way, guys! Enough already with that killing of apostates business. Don't you know that there is no compulsion in religion? Treason and religious apostacy are two totally separate concepts! Can't you guys distinguish the two? Look, don't kill someone just because they apostatized. Kill them only for treason, for abandoning Muslims in battle and therefore endangering the lives of the Muslims. Got it? Are we clear? I know this contradicts what I said earlier, and I know this contradicts our explicit policy of conquering the world and destroying all disbelief by any means necessary, and that we fight for religious reasons only. But let's make an exception here. Freedom of belief applies only in the case of the one who apostatizes from Islam. That's it...Now, back to important business...Ayesha, about those pillows with the animal pictures...don't you know that anyone who makes images of animals will be called upon on the day of Judgement ot breathe life into those creatures?"

Skeptic,

"As for Shariah, it can never be rejected by any Muslim. Shariah is the Qu'ran and authentic Sunnah."--Mr. Ahmed, quoted by Caroline.

This guy accepts Sharia. That makes him an Islamist by definition. He's here to smear Spencer. That's all. He hasn't responded to any of the criticisms that have been raised.

Archimedes, I believe Mr. Ahmed is on the track to the same beliefs you and I value. He has not had a chance yet to iterate them. I am willing to step back and say that I am be totally wrong about him. However, I think that eventhough, he defends his religion, he does it with humanist belief underlying it. He has refuted the "puritans", as he terms them and sees a different interpretation of Islam. However, flawed you may see that as being, I believe that he is likely to support our views if only he would set aside some differences in opinion and explain his OWN personal beliefs regarding Islam. Once again I acknowledge that I may be wrong, Archimedes, but I have a suspicion that he is on our side. We shall see... Also, to pay a compliment to most people here that I have rashly termed "narrow-minded"; I enjoy the intellectual abilities of many of you and such debates as this one that promote greater comprehension of Islam.

I hope he clarifies his belief about Sharia. Let's see what he says.

Skeptic,

I appreciate that. I also appreciate that it is helpful that you are being skeptical. We do need this because there is a tendency toward group-think here. But I think what this comes down to is this: Spencer is exposing the Islamists and Mr. Ahmed is attacking him for it. Are Mr. Ahmed's criticisms fair? One has to read the Islamic texts, check them against Spencer's claims, and determine if they are accurate. Spencer seems pretty accurate to me, and until I can be shown otherwise, that's what I'll believe.

Mr. Ahmed has engaged infallacious arguments, such as making bogus appeals to authority. It is as if he thinks that if only the grandest Imam would step in and provide the "correct: tafsir of the Koran, such that all the insults toward non-Muslims turn magically into compliments, and all the calls for opposition and strife against the non-Muslims can be turned into calls for peace and reconciliation. They can't. The Koran does not contain a Sermon on the Mount. And no amount of pretending can turn the Koran into a useful guide to morality.

Two outcomes, not necessarily mututally exclusive, will contribute to the changes in Islam. One is by outright rejection of the doctrine. The other is by massive reform. I support both, but I remain skeptical about the efforts in the interest of the latter, because people who claim to be reformers are simply denying the bad stuff in the Koran. That's fine. Lots of people today, I think, ignore or explain away the bad parts of the scripture (e.g., much of the harsh rulings in the Old Testament are simply disregarded or explained away by nearly all Christians and Jews today.). We are in no danger of people stoning to death disbelievers, blasphemers, etc., due to Judeo-Christianity. We are in danger of this happening to Muslims, hundreds of millions of them under threat. Mr. Ahmed's approach also interferes with the task of educating non-Muslims, who've already been served the Ahmed-style apologetics from our media and politicians.

If Mr. Ahmed will acknowledge honestly the problems in the Koran, I will change my view of him and his motives.

...and I need to preview my posts. Too many typos!

Aleemuddin Ahmed,

You say: “Mahmoud Taha was executed by the "puritanical" Muslims in Sudan because he questioned their intepretations of the Quran and Ahadith, and presented his own, as an Islamic jurist. He threatened the very power of the "puritanical" Muslims leaders and jurists in Sudan. That's why he was labelled a heretic and killed.”

How is this conduct is contrary to Mohammad’s and indeed the Koran's policies with regard to heretics (hypocrites and apostates)?

“Calling someone a heretic when you don't like what they say is an easy to get rid of someone.”

How does this differ from Mohammad’s policies? How does this differ from Allah’s policy in the Koran? This is precisely why Mohammad made up all these rules—-to kill off opponents and dissenters.

“Secondly, Ghazali wasn't perfect.”

He “wasn’t perfect”! This is what Mr. Ahmed, our self-styled expert on Islam, has to say about Ghazali, the fiend who approved of the execution of a reformer (Taha). Taha had wanted, among other reforms, rejection of the doctrine of abrogation (Koran, 2:106, 16:101). Notice Ahmed’s reaction is not to condemn Ghazali; rather, he says “Ghazali wasn’t perfect.” Well, none of us are perfect. But Ghazali is a Muslim, and is therefore granted some mercy and forgiveness by Ahmed—something his Koran forbids him to extend to non-Muslims. Robert Spencer objects to Taha’s execution, Ghazali approves of the execution, then Ahmed defends Ghazali and attacks Spencer. Mr. Ahmed’s values and goals are clear.

“My point is that there is a diversity of debate on the issues of Islamic jurisprudence today, and Ghazazli was a hardcore opponent of the Wahabbi interpretation. He even called them "Hadith hurlers" because thats all they did to justify their actions, by taking hadith out of their contexts and using them. And once again, you use wrong terminology. It wasn't a Sharia-inspired killing, it was a killing inspired by the teachings of the "puritanic" Muslims, who based their claims on writings, books and work of past Islamic jurists, like Ibn Taymiyya. That's indeed the problem, and you can point it out clearly. And, it's being very much debated in Islamic circles.”

Note Mr. Ahmed’s concern over terminology, when the topic was about a man who was executed over a difference of interpretation of the Koran. “No compulsion in religion” is being debated in Islamic circles [in regard to apostacy]? That’s the problem. The penalty is being debated and not rejected out of hand. While it’s being debated, people are being executed for rejecting the religion of tolerance and no compulsion. (I.e., No compulsion when you’re dead). It’s being debated because the Koran says kill apostates (4:89, 9:11-14), the ahadith say kill apostates, the Sira says kill apostates, and the reformist Muslims influenced by modern western thought (which many of them refuse to acknowledge as the positive influence behind their reform initiatives, but rather attempt to attribute this to enigmatic verses such as 2:256) say don’t kill apostates. This should be rejected out of hand and people like Ahmed need to stop worrying about Islam's image and start improving its substance and reality.

If I convert to islam, does that mean I can no longer have bacon sandwiches, but I get 72 virigns???

Archimedes,

I don't sit on a computer 24 hours a day like you do, I have a life, professional job and family.

You smother me with questions, and then say: "Oh look, Mr. Ahmed can't answer my questions, because he can't face the facts of the Qu'ran".

How ridiculous.

You reference Qu'ran quotes here and there, trying to prove some point with your utterly backward and dishonest claims about what the Qu'ran teaches.

Since I detest your references of the Qu'ran as if you know what you're talking about, I am going to try in the next few weeks to try to answer each and everyone of your falsehoods, out-of-contexts, and vitriol about the Qu'ran.

But now, I want to simply show everyone your ineptness when it comes to understanding something so simple in Islam.

You said: (quoting me)

"As for Shariah, it can never be rejected by any Muslim. Shariah is the Qu'ran and authentic Sunnah."--Mr. Ahmed, quoted by Caroline.

This guy accepts Sharia. That makes him an Islamist by definition. He's here to smear Spencer. That's all. He hasn't responded to any of the criticisms that have been raised."

---

Ha! I'm an Islamist because I believe in the Qu'ran and Prophet's example?

Such foolish understanding. Shariah means "clear path" - and is the Holy Qu'ran and Prophet's example.

No Muslim who believes and professes the faith can oppose the Shariah - it is the essence of Islam, the Qu'ran and the clear path.

Islamic jurists like Khaled Abou El Fadl, Mahmoud Taha, Fazlur Rahman, Allama Iqbal, Rashid Rida, Abdullah Na'im etc. have challenged the parts of the Fiqh, NOT the Sharia, because its the Fiqh from which Islamic Law comes from, and which is troublesome in many parts.

So by your definition, every Muslims in this world is an Islamist (extremist/puritan) because they believe in the Qu'ran and the Prophet's example.

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about here, let alone when you try to sound all learned when you quoted and referencs Quranic verses here and there above to prove kind of point.

Now, I will try to get to your previous posts in which you made all these Qu'ranic references, and made profoundly false judgements and statements about the Qu'ran.

Aleemuddin Ahmed

Hmm, I just read two statements made by Archimedes that really makes me question if I'm totally wasting my time here:

He said:

1. "And no amount of pretending can turn the Koran into a useful guide to morality."

2. "If Mr. Ahmed will acknowledge honestly the problems in the Koran, I will change my view of him and his motives."

===

I beginning to see that Archimedes has totally made his own value judgements about Islam and Muslims.

As a devout Muslims, I fully believe that the Qu'ran is a clear guide to morality. And, I DO NOT see any problems in the Qu'ran.

I do see problems with puritanical interpretations of the Qu'ran, including the "us v.s. them" mentality.

No amount of me posting endless rebuttals will change this Archimdes' perceptions.

I think I will heed some reasonable advice made by posters here - take this dialogue and battle to those Muslims who are puritan and those who preach puritan views. That's where change has to be made.

Aleemuddin Ahmed

I am going to repost what I said earlier, because all of this utter rubbish about the Koran and what this website is about is sickening.

Mr. Ahmed wrote:

"The Afghan clerics are absolutely wrong in their assertion. Recently, the Fiqh Council of North America affirmed this position."

And, I'm sure that you are in the process, as we speak, to make it known to ALL of those Afghan clerics about how "wrong" they are, and you are going to set them straight, correct? Otherwise, you are simply pissing in the wind by telling US about it.

WE don't need to be told what is right or wrong about killing innocent, civilized people, regardless of whether or not we are "scholars" of your "juridprudice." A child with no standardized schooling, who has merely been raised in a stable household could tell us that. The people who do NOT know this simple, common sense matter are these idiotic Afghan clerics that you speak of.

If they are a problem, then address that problem where it is, IN AFGHANISTAN!

ALSO, as you may know, Mr. Ahmed, Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the former UNC student who attempted to kill innocent by-standers for his "love of allah" said the following:

“I live with the holy Koran as my constitution for right and wrong and definition of justice…. Allah gives permission in the Koran for the followers of Allah to attack those who have raged [sic] war against them, with the expectation of eternal paradise in case of martyrdom and/or living one’s life in obedience of all of Allah’s commandments found throughout the Koran’s 114 chapters. I’ve read all 114 chapters approximately 15 times since June of 2003 when I started reading the Koran.” And he did not try to murder UNC students “out of hatred for Americans, but out of love for Allah instead. I live only to serve Allah, by obeying all of Allah’s commandments of which I am aware by reading and learning the contents of the Koran.”

Whether or not this person is "properly" following the tenents or your religion, he has identified the Koran as his "constitution for right and wrong and definition for justice." In that simple statement identifies the vast majority of all muslims, and it probably identifies YOU, Mr. Ahmed.

IF indeed the Koran is YOUR "constitution for right and wrong and definition for justice," then I can confidently say to you that whatever scholarly diplomas and rewards you have receieved regarding the study of the Koran are worthless to me. I throw papers away that are of similar worth to the documents that you come here and smugly brag about.

Mr. Ahmed, you come here and expect us to be impressed with your credentials? Hardly! I'm an American, Mr. Ahmed, and the rule of law that I hold to is the US Constitution, not the load of garbage that one apparently has to be a "scholar" to understand.

Mr. Ahmed, you are the enemy. You come here with the intent of "jihad" in order to throw everybody off course with silly nonsense about what the Koran "really says," when what the Koran "really says" is irrelivant. I am not fooled by your false-talk about "extremist/puritan" Islam.

You are a liar because your religion tells you to lie. You come here to smear Mr. Spencer, not because of any sincere hope for dialogue between muslims and non-muslims, but because you are against what he is doing to counter the evil that is infesting the world through your religion.

To everyone else, what purpose is there to "debate" this person, when all he's going to do is talk to you like you are little children who have been naughty? He's an idiot. Like all islam fans who come here, he's living in a dream-world where his religion is faultless, and we're making everything we say about it up out of nothing. To Mr. Ahmed, we are wrong because we have not become submissive to his poisonous, demonic teachings. Tell this dim-wit to take a hike!

Aleemuddin Ahmed,

Interesting how you did not address any of the points that I made. You are so arrogant that you think that no one but a Muslim steeped in years of Islamic studies cannot uderstand the nuances of the kill them if they don't convert to Islam command (9:5). (In what context is forced conversion ever appropriate?). You seem to be more worried about how much time I spend at the computer! Well, I am trying to cut down. I do have flexible hours and I have a lot of material prepared, on file. I have also encountered arguments such as yours many times before, so it really doesn't take that long to deal with them.

My position is that if Islamists, such as yourself, stop trying to deceive the public (and you are in this category), stop trying to impose sharia, and stop carrying out jihad in all its forms, I will stop criticizing them and their beliefs. If they weren't causing a problem, then I wouldn't have an interest in Islam. My interest in Islam is the same as that of most other posters at this site. We want it either reformed or rejected, and we do not want it to be a continued threat to ourselves, our friends, family, country, humanity, and future humanity.

If you want to refute my posts, please do try. Don't just huff and puff. Start right here. Explain to me how these Koranic insults actually, with the PROPER interpretation, say that non-Muslims are good people. Give us the magic tafsir that transforms it all and makes it all better.

The Koran says that disbelievers (non-Muslims): “the worst of created beings” (98:6)are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:22, 8:55); (some Christians and/or Jews are) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); (idolaters are) unclean (9:28); “evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); evil-livers (5:59); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); are ill (84:20); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60); Allah cursed them for their unbelief (2:88-89), liars/they lie (2:10, 4:50, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11) “losers” (5:53, 7:178-179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), in false pride and schism (38:2), among the lowest (58:20); Allah made them the lowest of the low (95:4-6)

In reading those insults, keep the following points in mind:
-these insults apply to disbelievers because they are disbelievers (disbelief is the worst crime)
-the insults are assumed to be the words of Allah and are therefore true of disbelievers for all time, until the Last Day
-the disbelievers cannot do anything to improve Allah’s perception of them (He does not accept the good works of the disbelievers), except to believe in and obey Allah.
-the insulting adjectives refer to the inherent character traits of disbelievers.

Aleemuddin Ahmed,

You say: "So by your definition, every Muslims in this world is an Islamist (extremist/puritan) because they believe in the Qu'ran and the Prophet's example."

No, I'm going by the common usage of the word sharia, which is different than your theological usgae of the term. When I say sharia, everyone knows what I'm talking about. Again, you are simply playing around with terminology, and ignoring substantive issues. Lots of Muslims do not want sharia (common usage of the term). I call those moderate Muslims. Those who pursue the implementation of sharia and who enage in jihad are Islamists. I also use the term for people who try to deceive the public in order to hide, instead of acknowledge, the problems in Islam, in order to protect Islam's image. You should be working on changing the reality, not the image.

Let me ask you this: Do you support the separation of religion and state?

Aleemuddin Ahmed

"No amount of me posting endless rebuttals will change this Archimdes' perceptions."

If you read my posts, you would see that that is not my approach. Simply rebut one or two things I said, like that list of Koranic insults against non-Muslims. Do I have a faulty translation, or what?

My views will adjust accordingly, or not, depending on your responses and the facts presented. But if you are not willing to admit that there is even one small problem in the Koran, how can you be taken seriously? You think the Koran is perfect?

Aleemuddin Ahmed said -

"As a devout Muslims, I fully believe that the Qu'ran is a clear guide to morality. And, I DO NOT see any problems in the Qu'ran."

Luke 6: 39

"39
And he told them a parable, "Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit?"

So they all fall into a pit, 'cause mohammed (the supreme leader of islam) was blind.

Aleemuddin Ahmed said -

"Hmm, I just read two statements made by Archimedes that really makes me question if I'm totally wasting my time here:"

Wise Mr. Ahmed I would also cut and run at this stage of the argument. Islam is indefensible as it is known by its fruit. Someone above also said that "Islam is as Islam does". Simple, to the point. Period.

I have seen this cutting and running by Islam Apologists so many times, I expect it by now.

Anyways, it WAS an interesting debate.

Let's get something straight - I'm not cutting and running.

I've realized something very important (as pointed out by other posters) - it is pointless for me to sit here and argue with you guys, you're not the ones to convince and debate.

My debate is with the puritan Muslims, who seek to turn Islam into a black-and-white religion. And so I have begun posting at Islamic sites like sunniforum for some time now, and I am engaging my fellow Muslims.

Archimedes asks the fundamental question:

"But if you are not willing to admit that there is even one small problem in the Koran, how can you be taken seriously? You think the Koran is perfect?"

My answer: Precisely. I do NOT see a problem in the Qu'ran as I have thoroughly read it, all the tafsirs, all the commentaries, researched all the historical contexts. As a Muslim, I believe in it without question. The Qur'an is perfect, because as a Muslim, I believe it is the Word of God.

And that's another reason why, I find it utterly pointless for me to further argue here, when I can argue with the puritan Muslims who share my faith, that is, the full belief in the Qur'an.

Myself and others are engaging other Muslims on the Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), which is based on the interpretations of the Qu'ran done by human beings. For example, death for apostates is in the Fiqh.

But, I do not and will not retract my assertion that Jihad Watch is this innocent site only providing "information" about Jihadist activities. I've read enough of this to see that it isn't that at all.

And finally, I suggest if Archimedes really wants to find out answers about the Qu'ran (a bit disingenous on my part because it seems all he does is want to find horror), go to any big Islamic website or Paltalk room and raise the EXACT same Quran references you made - im certain you will get your answers.

Aleemuddin Ahmed

Well Mr. Ahmed, good luck with your efforts at sunniforum. I will visit this site.

I hope you will be successfull, but I'm afraid you are shouting against thunder.

Good luck then and may you find the Truth.

Oh Archi, why aren't you young and sexy and female?

Together, we could conquer the world!

You infidels can't you understand Aleemuddin Ahmed?

"As a Muslim, I believe in it without question. The Qur'an is perfect, because as a Muslim, I believe it is the Word of God"

How can he reform or change anything he can not question?

As for me:
If all those satanic verses embebeded in the koran are perfect words of God.

Then Aleemuddin Ahmed, you're not real.

sheik,

Young, sexy female...nope, I am none of the above!

Our friend Mr. Ahmed started out with this (all bluster)...

"Dear Mr. Spencer,
I find it quite amusing that you share the same literalist, parochial and narrow-minded reading of the Qur'an as the so-called Afghan scholars."

and ended with this...

"Let's get something straight - I'm not cutting and running."

and then dropped this gem...

"My answer: Precisely. I do NOT see a problem in the Qu'ran as I have thoroughly read it, all the tafsirs, all the commentaries, researched all the historical contexts. As a Muslim, I believe in it without question. The Qur'an is perfect, because as a Muslim, I believe it is the Word of God."

Boy, am I relieved that he was not one of those 'puritanical' Muslims!

and then there was this:

"And finally, I suggest if Archimedes really wants to find out answers about the Qu'ran (a bit disingenous on my part because it seems all he does is want to find horror),"

Actually, the horror found me, us, got our attention in North America on 9/11. Then, again, in subsequent attacks. I believed the media line that Islam was being distorted by terrorists. Then I read the Koran, with tafsir, with Hadith, with Sira. Then I realized they were simply following what the Koran tells them to do, at least insofar as they attack non-Muslims.

"...The horror found us..." indeed!

At least we woke up while our polit-props are still asleep at the wheel. But of course this is now only a matter of time till the coin drops.

Internment & deportations NOW!. No mosques, no madrassahs. No clerics, no burkhas. Muhammedans OUT!

Well,

The great difficulties I've got with moderate muslims is that they claim that you aren't "educated" enough to read the Holly book.

if this book has been written by God, if it is the message of God for the Whole humankind...

Why would we need some petty "experts" to translate his thoughts? (exactly why protestants left the catholic church by the way).

You may say that the translation in modern languages was bad. But you can't attack the divine message and claime that was has been written needs additionnal information.

Come on...We are talking about God, don't you think isn't wise enough to write clearly what he meant?

This isn't a problem I've got with Muslims only. Some "moderate" christians do the same with the Bible.

If you truly believe it is the holly book, written by God once and for all. it should be read "litteraly". You don't need any explanation, nobody between you and God. God is talking to you directly.

And if you have troubles accepting the message, then the conclusion is: you don't believe in that version of God. Period. Don't try to change it.

Olivier

Only when I see MASSIVE protests in the streets by the so-called "moderate muslims" will I even give a smidgeon of credence to what Aleemuddin Ahmed has posted throughtout the comments section.

"Ha! I'm an Islamist because I believe in the Qu'ran and Prophet's example?"
-Aleemuddin Ahmed

All I can say, anyone who is a muslim or BECOMES one because of Mohammed's EXAMPLE is a very sad human being, indeed.

Compare any of his life to Jesus Christ, it just can't be done.

Aleemuddin Ahmed:

You said, "My answer: Precisely. I do NOT see a problem in the Qu'ran as I have thoroughly read it, all the tafsirs, all the commentaries, researched all the historical contexts. As a Muslim, I believe in it without question. The Qur'an is perfect, because as a Muslim, I believe it is the Word of God."

You are a mockery of critical thinking. If you mock this statement, try repeating what you just said to any respectable scientific or mathematical person and tell me you can say the Qur'an is perfect. You are ridiculous, but I figured your belief in the Qur'an wasn't black and white as you say your radical Islamic co-religionist beliefs are, but apparently they are...