Spencer responds to Armstrong in Financial Times

go get'em, Robert.

Thank you for answering KA's lies ,and punching a hole in the bloated gasbag of pervasive ignorance that makes up the body of western knowledge of Islam and Mohammad.

well at least they published your letter. That's a good sign. I, for one, wrote to them complaining vociferously about KA's review. It's good to see some allowance for putting the record straight.

Did Karen leave the convent, or was she expelled? I suspect the mother superior had had enough.

Karen Armstrong's book is much better than Robert's because it much more comforting. As Julius Caesar put it: "The people love to be deceived".

Karen Armstrong was my first exposure to Islam. I found Jihadwatch anyway. At least in my case, the truth prevailed. It is only for the overwhelming evidence that Islam is not a peaceful religion that the vast majority of infidels have a chance to get past the cupidity and credulity of self-appointed fake experts like Armstrong.

It is our job as the informed few to make sure others become aware of the truth about Islam. It cannot be Robert alone; not everyone watches Fox (I for one do not), not everyone is ready to face reality, and many thoughtful people, especially young people, are lost in the self-delusions of the left.

The situation here is similar to the reaction of Soviet believers and apologists to critical analysis of Soviet Communism. The critics of Soviet Communism were demonised as anti-soviet haters, even the Pope was vilified in a campaign to marginalize him for his criticisms of the belief-system. Critical analysis of the dogmas of Muhammad and Islam is treated in a similar manner. However, eventually believers and and apologists for Muhammad and Islam will have to accept the painful truth.

Good Show, Mr. Spencer. Too bad they edited out the beginning and ending. As for the ending, I suppose any reference to "political correctness" is verboten! And I do mean "VERBOTEN!"

Nazi Germany is happening again, only with different players, Muslims. As usual, the world is blind until a saturation point is reached.

And what of us, the Cassandra's of the world? Alas, true to the myth, we're not believed, and so condemned. Yet, also like Cassandra, we know we're right.

Well done.

I guess it's not surprising that they left out the first and last paragraphs. The first one might have been deemed too controversial, dangerous or hurtful to Muslims.

The last paragraph was probably too personal as it reflects on the magazine's decision to take Armstrong's views seriously.

(I'm not disagreeing with any part of what Robert Spencer wrote.)

During the "Nuclear Freeze Movement" of the 1980's I attended (out of curiosity) a meeting-rally in New Jersey. The apologists and believers in the USSR were well represented. The lady who spoke was a "poet" (I never heard of her) who said, "Did you know that in the Soviet Union, unlike America, they build statues to poets and writers"? I was sitting in the front row and politely but audibly said "Does that include Solzhenitsyn"? I've never forgotten how her eyes glittered with fear as she looked at me, nor how so many of the believers there looked at me with an expression like deer looking into the headlights of an on coming car. A few looked at me with great hostility.

One question really rattled their cage. (A woman I knew for a long time (Judy) later said to me (when she heard about my question to the crowd) "You havn't changed, Frank. Don't change".-LOL)

Mr Spencer

A good reposte.

What I find disappointing is that the Financial Times saw fit to edit your letter. Now in the normal course of events, the editor does edit letters for publication. But your letter was not normal, as it was a response from you, the author, to a critical review of his work in the paper. As such, the principled action of the editor should have been to publish your letter in its entirety. I find the action of the editor in this regard to be a lapse of good judgement.

Robert's questions are rattling a lot of cages. I'm sure Judy would say "Don't change, Robert. Keep asking those questions".

I e-mailed the Editor of the "FT" (Lionel Barber) lauding his decision to print Spencer's Letter as "Robert Spencer is right. Karen Armstrong is wrong."

Can't get much simpler than that! I also said I hoped as an educated person that he was doing something to try and save his country from the darkness that is the Muslims.

Robert's line about (paraphrase) "Any hatred that Armstrong sees in the book must come from the historical sources that I (Spencer) have been faithful to" is, despite being truthful, also soooo guaranteed to get Armstrong's goat! Hurrah!

To "Frank" - your line about Solzhenitsyn was brilliant. Great you put that Moonbat in her place. It's not always easy to think of great ripostes like that on the spot. The response of your interlocutor ("eyes glittered with fear") and of the audience (deer in headlights/hostility) makes me think of the quotation:

"The Truth-Teller must always have one foot in the stirrup."

Best Wishes, Darcy

You bet, Darcy.

I am amazed, but thankful, that the Financial Times printed at least part of Mr. Spencer's letter. It should open a few minds and put some question marks in front of Karen Armstrong's name. It seems that the truth can be so dangerous. I used to be an avid C-Span watcher. After the treatment of Mr. Spencer, in which C-Span followed his interview with a Muslim responder, something I had never seen done before for any author, I rarely watch C-Span anymore.

Mr. Spencer, I find the word "awesome" in Ms. Armstrong's purported Koranic quotation to be a p.c. ploy. It is a modern pop cliche ("Wow, that's awesome, dude!") that no serious scholar would have used in this context.

I think to more apt word, considering the full Koranic verse, would be "necessary", not "awesome", as in:

"War is a necessary evil."

Especially if plunder and slaves were vital to continuing your "holy" war.

But the most accurate would probably be "grievous", which has enough linguistic shadings to include a loophole, should war later be needed. (Loopholes being Mohammad's favorite tactic, freely provided by Allah whenever the "prophet" desired something, like his nephew's wife, etc.).

I guess the Financial Times had to edit something to show their power.

Someone in the readership at JW/DW who lives in the U.K. needs to write a snailmail to the editor and quote the excised portions of Mr. Spencers's text, then ask why the paper was trying to whitewash the Islamically-documented pedophilia of the "prophet".

If Islam is proud of it, why shouldn't it be reported?

profitsbeard, I hope someone in the UK who comes here takes your advice.

Profitsbeard,

The word in Arabic is "kabir," which can be translated "great," or "awesome" as Armstrong has it -- I don't know what translation she is using -- or "grave," "serious," etc.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert, your Black Zionist Arts are most keen.

Mr. Spencer could have added that anyone contemplating the naïve idea that Muslims are instructed to make war only defensively should ask themselves how the mid-East, after being largely Christian, Jewish and other, became Islamic shortly after Muhammad’s death – Koran seminars?

Besides, almost anything, a nation’s culture for instance, can be called an offence or threat to Islam and hence made to justify "defensive" Jihad.

There really needs to be a major Spencer – Armstrong debate. Perhaps a letter writing campaign to the UN demanding for the public interest & edification, that their Historian of Religion debate Mr. Spencer.

Hopefully, a response by Karen is imminent. A steady escalation between the two will only further serve to expose Armstrong's willful ignorance of Islam.

She should be publically shamed out of all credibility.

Whenever something goes poorly for me, Theodore Roosevelt’s Man in the Arena statement is comforting:

'It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.'

The thing about Robert Spencer is that lots of people throw mud at him, but every time they do, he seems to get cleaner. Keep fighting the good fight, and thank you.

Several other comments have already addressed the excluded sections of the letter, but I feel the need to pile on:

According to the hadith I'm familiar with, Muhammad married Aisha when she was seven and had sex with her at age nine. Are there reliable Islamic sources that contradict this? Or is it "controversial" simply because it shows Muhammad to be a pedophile?

I couldn't figure out why Glenn Beck is so enamored of the idea that Islam is really a peaceful and "moderate" religion being hijacked by "radicals", until I heard him on his radio show the other day recommending Karen Armstrong's book _Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time_. If anybody reading this can set him straight, please do it.

I guess I should have checked Dhimmi Watch today before commenting above. Hugh goes in depth on the subject of Aisha in a new post.

Mr. Spencer,

Although you are correct in stating the Tabari verse, what you fail to realize is that there are a minimum of 50 verses of Tabari which discuss the marriage to Aisha, each with a differing account on the consumation date. Some are vague, others give widely varying dates. You chose the one which fits your interpretation the best. Karen uses the verses which are used the most often in mainstream Islamic discourse and recognized as correct, something which you don't know anything about nor even attempt to participate in. Yes, people will respond saying that "just because the verse exists, then it must be true" justification. Usual when people are put into a corner about Islamic sources. It might work here, but unfortunately for you all not much outside the level of this discourse.

Just doing some thinking...

Watcher-

Then why did the Ayatollah Khomeini legalize 9 as the age of marriage in Iran?

Using the wrong sources of Islamic texts?

Better not suggest that.

(Things didn't work out well for Salman Rushdie when he questioned Khomeini's Koranic competence.)

... the raid took place during a sacred month, when war was forbidden.

Since when is 8 armed crime gang members sneaking up behind a group of four businessmen and shooting them in the back with arrows a military operation, or a raid, or a war?

The "expedition" to Nakhlah was not war; it was a felony murder in the act of armed robbery. It was not an act of war; it was a crime gang operation.

Don't be so kind to Mohammed; don't be so kind to Moslems. They're all goddamned criminals, and you know it.

Clean up your language.

Why is it that even Spencer, the only public opponent of Islam on Earth, concedes to these animals in the all-important sphere of language?

Mr. Spencer,

I still find the word "awesome" to be a kind of subconscious pandering by Armstong (e.g.- there is a modern Protestant church song "My God is An Awesome God" that she appears to be trying to forge an illegitimate link to, and thereby "soothe" the churchgoers' mind about Islam through this sort of subtle linguistic subterfuge... "we're all the same", etc.).

"Grave" - "grievous" is what I was going for.
(With its other, "sepulchre", implications, as well. Arabic being a language of almost endless interpretive shadings, thanks to its consonant-heavy form.)

Watcher:

Like everyone else who ever says I misuse or misquote the Islamic sources, you fail to come up with a single specific citation.

I challenge you to do so. I have Tabari right here now as I type this. Volume VII, "The Foundation of the Community." The section headed "The Marriage with 'A'ishah" begins on page 6 and continues to page 8. On the bottom of page 6 Tabari says, "In this year also the Messenger of God consummated his marriage with 'A'ishah." Then he goes on to discuss the date, noting that accounts differ as to whether it was 7 or 8 months after his arrival in Medina. Then Tabari says: "He had married her in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadijah. At that time she was six or, according to other accounts, seven years old." So she must have been nine, or at most ten, when he consummated the marriage.

Tabari then quotes a hadith, giving the isnad in detail, and quoting Aisha as saying: "...my marriage was consummated when I was nine..." Then the rest of the section explains that the consummation took place during the month of Shawwal, but no other age is given for Aisha at the time of the consummation other than nine.

Same thing in Tabari Volume IX, "The Last Years of the Prophet." Aisha is quoted on page 131: "The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old." Then two other ahadith are given, on the same page, each with its isnad chain, and both say she was nine.

So you say other ages are given for Aisha at the time of the consummation of the marriage, and that those other ages are given in Tabari. All right. I know of passages that seem to support her being older indirectly, but none that come out and say explicitly that she was older. So quote him, please, with the volume number and page number. I have all 39 volumes right here in my office, and I'll check where you direct me.

Looking forward to it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Don't hold your breath, Mr.Spencer. ;-)

What's more, Watcher, if Aisha's being nine is not understood as true in "mainstream Islamic discourse," how do you explain the following?

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that over half of the girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married before they reach the age of eighteen. In early 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan found half the girls married by age thirteen. In an Afghan refugee camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged, and virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married. One ten-year-old was engaged to a man of sixty. In early 2005 a Saudi man in his sixties drew international attention for marrying fifty-eight times; his most recent bride was a 14-year-old he married in the spring of 2004.

Child marriage enjoys the sanction of law and custom. Time magazine reported in 2001: "In Iran the legal age for marriage is nine for girls, fourteen for boys. The law has occasionally been exploited by pedophiles, who marry poor young girls from the provinces, use and then abandon them. In 2000 the Iranian Parliament voted to raise the minimum age for girls to fourteen, but this year, a legislative oversight body dominated by traditional clerics vetoed the move. An attempt by conservatives to abolish Yemen’s legal minimum age of fifteen for girls failed, but local experts say it is rarely enforced anyway. (The onset of puberty is considered an appropriate time for a marriage to be consummated.)"

The Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”

In early 2007, severe drought in Afghanistan led some Afghans to sell their daughters into marriages – including girls as young as eight years old – to buy food. One Afghan mother explained: “I need to sell my daughters because of the drought. We don’t have enough food and the bride price will enable us to buy food. Three months ago my 15-year-old daughter married.” Other girls have been sold to make good on opium debts. An Afghan girl named Saliha recounts: “I was 13 when my father married me off to a 20-year-old man, whose father had given a loan to my parents and they were unable to return the amount or the quantity of opium.”

Why is all this happening, unless it bears the sanction of Muhammad's example -- or more precisely, why is all this happening, if Aisha wasn't really nine when she had sex with Muhammad, and every Muslim knows that, and so child marriage has no more justification in Islam than it does in anything else?

Looking forward to your explanation.

Just doing some thinking.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I suspect that under the ridiculous British libel laws the last line of Robert's letter could have been actionable. I think the statement, if a criminal libel, would have had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt rather than the balance of probabilities - the FT might well have won but it would have been expensive.
The first excision was probably pure cowardice: who needs something like the cartoons row blowing up about a mere book review?(!)

... the ridiculous British libel laws ...

England needs a Constitution. Ain't gonna get one; but they sure as hell need one.

The Ayatollah Khomeini - a total pervert, pedophile, and child-rapist.

This was the religious leader of Iran.

Mr. Spencer - was Khomeini held in reverence by other Muslims as well, i.e. in other Islamic countries?

Darcy

Among Shi'ites, yes.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Aren't libel, slander, defamation of character, etc. actions committed by Miss Karen Armstrong against Mr. Spencer -and now public record - subject to legal suit in court of law ... ?
Seems that this is an "open and shut case" in favor of honesty, integrity, truth (Mr. Spencer) vs. half-truths and outright lies (Miss Armstrong). Winning such suit could be beneficial in several practical ways: monetary gain (which could possibly be used to enhance/expand works of JW/DW), publicity for JW/DW, Mr. Spencer et al, and perhaps forcing the truth out of Miss Armstrong (and her backers).
Mr. Spencer needs to take Miss Armstrong to court(and drag as many of her hidden backers into the light as well). Doing so would benefit not only Mr. S but also would benefit the truth (vis-a-vis "the relgion of submission").

Interesting comments & opinions - As with most comments and opinions about topics such as religion and politics, the truth tend to lie somewhere in the middle.

Have a look at this piece. Care to offer any comments anyone? Call me antisemitic or a self hating Jew if you will, but I think the author has a point!

The Palestinian Christian Is An Endangered Species
By Prof Abe W Ata
02 May, 2007
Countercurrents.org

When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.

Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification “Christian” includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.

So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?

We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.
Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.

The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone.

Less well known are the views of the American Religious Right. Strangely, they find the liberation of Iraqis from a vile dictator just, but do not find it unjust for us to be under military occupation for 38 long years.
Said Senator James Inhofe (Rep.,Oklahoma): “God Appeared to Abraham and said: ‘I am giving you this land’, the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.”

Inhofe must have got it wrong. Promises are being made to earthly Jerusalem that God did not make. The Holy Land was promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants, as stated in the Bible. These are the Palestinian Muslims, Christians and Jews, who have been living in the land for thousands of years. The Bible never mentioned that God promised it solely to Jews. Anyone can be a Jew, but not anyone can be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants. James Inhofe and followers are unable to tell the difference between Jew, Israelite and Israel.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey (Rep.,Texas) was even more forthright: “I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank … I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave.”

There is a phrase for this. Ethnic cleansing.
Silencing us, from seeking your support and enlightening you about our suffering, goes counter to what Jesus has mandated us to do. We all know that Muslims and Jews get ceaseless support (political, spiritual and financial) from Saudi Arabia and America respectively, while Palestinian Christians get nothing from Australian and other Western “Christian” governments. (The Pope has been an exception.)
Prior to the 1967 war, the Christian youth at the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist and other churches in Bethlehem used to pray and rejoice and have a good chat with hundreds of American Christian pilgrims. In particular Texas and California were two places from where many came to visit the Holy Land. Today only fading memories prevail.

Bethlehem has been vacated by Christian families. The remaining Christians are paying the price by experiencing curfews which last for weeks. They remain sandwiched between Muslims and Jews without drawing the slightest concern from the many so-called Western Christians.

So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well … since Christ?

Do not think I am asking for special treatment for Christians. Ethnic cleansing is evil whoever does it and to whomever it is done. Palestinian Christians - Anglican, Maronite Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Armenians, Baptists, Copts and Assyrians - have been rubbing shoulders with each other and with other religions - Muslims, Jews, Druze and (most recently) Baha’is - for centuries. And we want to do so for centuries more. But we can’t if we are driven out by despair.

We are equally frightened by those who commit suicide bombings. None of us Christians have condoned it or even contemplated the idea. Our commitment to Jesus’ teachings will never shake our resolve in this matter.

American journalist Anders Strindberg makes a clearer conclusion. He says Palestinians are equated with Islamists, Islamists with terrorists. And presumably because all organised Christian activity among Palestinians is non-political and non-violent, the community hardly ever hits western headlines. Suicide bombers sell more copy than people who congregate for Bible study.

What we seek is support: material, moral, political and spiritual. As Palestinians we grieve for what we have lost, and few people have lost more than us (the Ashkenazi Jews are one). But grief can be assuaged by the fellowship of friends.

Prof Abe W Ata was a temporary delegate to the UN in 1970 and has lived and worked in the Middle East, America and Australia. Dr Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian academic born in Bethlehem, and currently works at the Australian Catholic University. abe.ata@acu.edu.au

That the Muslims are screwed up about sex should not be too surprising given the explanations from Allah. For instance, their “perfect” Koran has Allah – evidently unaware of what the testicles are for - explaining:

086.005
YUSUFALI: Now let man but think from what he is created!
PICKTHAL: So let man consider from what he is created.
SHAKIR: So let man consider of what he is created:
086.006

YUSUFALI: He is created from a drop emitted-
PICKTHAL: He is created from a gushing fluid
SHAKIR: He is created of water pouring forth,
086.007

YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
PICKTHAL: That issued from between the loins and ribs.
SHAKIR: Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Watcher my dogs have better control overthemselves, they dont go around breeding female puppies! my God what kind of civialization can exist when young girls are raped by gown old evil men! my hope is that the more muslim women can be educated they can toss out the islamic yoke off their people!
It is no wonder that islamist try their best to prevent girls from getting education. these evil men and monsterous clerics need to stopped, either way by the "Western military" and laws passed and made to bear down on these islamist. Watcher you should be ashamed to even admit your follow that perverted mohummad.

Ben

Western elites (political, academic, economic, and their porta voce, the media)ignore the plight of Christians in Palestine for political, self-serving reasons: their purpose is to push the agenda of the Muslims in Palestine, and theirs only.

It's unfair of you to say that the entire Western world ignores your plight. You can't ignore Bat Ye'Or's scholarship or the good works of the Barnabas Fund or the multitude of postings here, at JW, about the situation of all Christians in the Middle East.

Save your anger for those who deserve it, of whom the apocalyptical cooks are just a fringe element.

"So the verse Ms Armstrong uses to claim the Koran teaches that war is an "awesome evil" actually justifies the setting aside of a moral precept for the benefit of the Muslims."

An "awesome evil", eh? Is this a quote from her? Very telling!

Besides Tabari, the hadith collector Bukhari also documents Aisha's marriage and "consummation" of that marriage. I have the following quotes with citation of volume/book/number, however, I have had a difficult time cross-checking them with the only English translation on-line, the Muslim Students Association website, since for some reason they do not catalogue their Bukhari collection by volumes, only by book/number.

Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

And, another one that demonstrates that Aisha had not yet reached puberty when she was with Mohammed:

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet was screening me with his Rida' (a garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect.
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 163

The story of the abuse of little Aisha by Muhammad is sad.

You must bear in mind that in the Muslim calender a year is shorter than in our time system. When you consider the tender age of six years, when little Aisha was married off, and nine years when the marriage was consumated, remember that even those few precious years of innocence which the small girl had before she became the plaything of a pedophile, even those years are shorter than the ages we are typically calculating for our children.

The Islamic calendar (or Hijri calendar) is a purely lunar calendar. It contains 12 months that are based on the motion of the moon, and because 12 synodic months is only 12 x 29.53=354.36 days, the Islamic calendar is consistently shorter than a tropical year, and therefore it shifts with respect to the Christian calendar.

I notice that 'watcher' is 'just doing some thinking....'

Just like UnAmerican.

Typical muslim troll ploy, pretending to be another person.

No real thinking behind his words, either.

Bravo!

Gary

Watcher is 'An American'. Chose to sneak back in after being banned. As you will notice, no Tabari citations proving the conflicting accounts of Aisha's age - assuming consumating an 11 year old is better than doing a 9.

Gary, apparently Hugh chose to ban AnAmerican, so he showed up as Watcher and threw a little tantrum in the 'Rice sides with Islamists in Turkey' thread. I'm guessing he is on a kind of probation right now.

Apparently Robert didn't want An American/Watcher banned. He's too charitable sometimes. An American is not like the buffoon Naseem, he's just plain annoying.

Zarqawi
(the bombed AQ terrorist and headchopper in Iraq) comes to mind: He was found with his 12 year old child bride and a 2 year old baby. Hugh's comment at that time was 'you do the math...'

Ayman Al Zawahiri, OBL's sidekick in the caves of Waziristan, is also said to have remarried with a child, but I can't find anything on it. But if anyone has a link it would be nice to put it up...

Bravo! Very good Mr. Spencer. She could not answer you personaly but she went back and did research which she bungled too. Besides her defensive talk if for wolfs, to say you wrote with hate! They always have a poor defense. Their defense is their own words of hate! Truth to them is hate. For their truth is hate. Will she ever beable to debate? Good try on her part for trying but as all of them their cup holds no water. There is no one who can answer the questions of their "religion"! They have no answers. They spout off instead! This is good to read and makes me happier. For you knocked down one obstacle of none truth. Keep going Mr. Spencer. Maybe there will be another who dare try and test their own knowledge of what they truly know of their own "religion".

Hey, I don't care if Mo and his Muslims marry three year olds as long as they keep it to themselves. To paraphrase the fem-lib bumper sticker: "Keep your sharia off my body!".

The age of consent in G Washingtons time was 10 years old. Child brides were legal and common.
They were nothing more than slaves, sexual and otherwise. 10 year old girls did not lobby congress. for the right to be sold into a life of misery and abuse. Who did? Politicians, who else...and what did they have in common with Mohammad? They were letcherous old men who wanted to play with little girls. Nine-ten-eleven, whats the difference. Any man who cant tell the difference between a nine year old girl and a twenty three year old woman, is either a liar or
a pervert. Either one works.

The failure of "Watcher" to immediately respond to Spencer's challenge to supply his evidence points (unless he's been banned) to very sloppy methodology. Before "Watcher" typed his claim and hit that "Post" button, he should have already had his evidence ready, so he could post it in response to any requests for it. If he had to subsequently scramble around trying to find it, it demonstrates a shoddy style of argumentation. (Then again, perhaps he has been away doing more important things in the "real world", since he can't be in front of the screen like us 24/7, eh...?)

Alarmed Pig Farmer,

I'm with you on verse 2:217, re the Nakhla raid. I've just re-read pp. 286-289 in Ishaq (Guillaume's translation, Oxford Press, 2006). To me it certainly reads like a straightforward opportunistic raid on a caravan, which involved the Muslim raiders--and Ishaq calls them "the raiders"--killing and taking booty.

Abul Kasem has written about the Nakhla raid here, (scroll down) based on accepted Muslim sources.

Some quotes from Ishaq:

p. 288
“The Quraysh said ‘Muhammad and his companions have violated the sacred month, shed blood therein, taken booty, and captured men.’ […] And when the Quran came down about that and God relieved the Muslims of their anxiety in the matter, the apostle took the caravan and the prisoners.”

p. 288, regarding the phrase Al-fitnah is worse than killing, “i.e. ...they have kept you back from the way of God with their unbelief in Him, and from the sacred mosque, and have driven you from it when you were its people. This is a more serious matter with God than the killing of them whom you have slain.”

*"Expedition of 'Abdullah b. Jahsh and the coming down of 'They will ask you about the sacred month.'"

Some verse was composed by Abdullah b. Jahsh (or else told by Abu Bakr) about the raid, addressing the Quraysh's objections about violating the agreement forbidding killing in the sacred month:

"You count war in the holy month a grave matter,
But graver is, if one judges rightly,
Your opposition to Muhammad's teaching, and your
Unbelief in it, which God sees and witnesses,
Your driving God's people from his mosque
So that none can be seen worshipping Him there.[1]
Though you defame us for killing him,
More dangerous to Islam is the sinner who envies.
Our lances drank of Ibn al-Hadrami's blood [2]
In Nakhla when Waqid [3] lit the flame of war,
Uthman ibn Abdullah [4] is with us,
A leather band streaming with blood restrains him."

Notes.

[1] It is not so simple that the early Muslims were "driven" out of Mecca. There was a great deal of conflict and turmoil on both sides, much of it instigated by Muhammad's constant berating of the polytheists and their religion. Muhammad had also made threats, including death threats (mass slaughter) against the polytheists. From Ishaq:130/Tabari VI:101 “‘The nastiest thing I saw the Quraysh do to the Messenger occurred when their nobles assembled in the Hijr [the standing place in the mosque of the Ka’aba] They discussed Muhammad, saying, “We have never seen the kind of trouble we have endured from this fellow. He has derided our traditional values, declared our way of life foolish, abused and insulted our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, divided the community, and cursed our gods.” What they had borne was past all bearing. Ishaq:130/Tabari VI:101 While the men were discussing him, the apostle came towards them and kissed the [pagan] black stone, then he passed them as he walked round the temple. As he passed, they said some nasty things about him. He went on, and as he passed them the second time, they insulted him again. Then, as he passed the third time, and they did the same. He stopped and said, ‘Will you listen to me, O Quraysh? By Him who holds my life in His hand, I bring you slaughter.’ Tabari VI:102 ‘They were gripped by what he had said. The word he used struck the people so not one could move. It was as though everyone had a bird perched on his head. Even those of them who had been urging the severest measures against him, now spoke in a conciliatory way, using the politest expressions they could muster. They said, “Depart Abu al-Qasim, for by Allah, you were never violent.”

(That last statement was made before Muhammad and his men started raiding caravans).

[2] One of the Quraysh slaughtered during the raid.

[3] Waqid b. Abdullah, a Muslim raider who killed al-Hadrami.

[4] One of the prisoners held by the Muslim raiders. He was later released and died in Mecca.

Literal translation of 2:217:

“They ask/question you about the month the forbidden/sacred, fighting/killing in it, say: "Fighting/killing in it (is) big/great and prevention/obstruction from God's road/way and disbelief with (in) Him, and the Mosque the Forbidden/Sacred, and bringing/forcing out its people from it (is) bigger/greater at God, and the treason (is) bigger/greater from (worse than) the fighting/killing, and they still/continue (to) fight/kill you until they return you from your religion, if they were able, and who returns (E) from you from his religion, so he dies and he is disbelieving, so those wasted/failed their doings/works in the present world and (in) the end (other life), and those are the owners/company (of) the fire, they are in it immortally/eternally.”

Source: http://openburhan.pak.net/

Quis custodiet ispos custodes?

Loosely translated: Who shall watch the Watchers?

"Y'all watch him," Duke said. "It would bore me."

Re "awesome evil," I've checked 16 translations and none of them put together those words in the same phrase like that. Asad says "awesome thing" but not awesome evil. Although Armstrong's phrase is probably best described as an exaggeration, rather than a plain error, the fact that she has put it in quotation marks is highly misleading--unless, of course, there is a translation that puts those words together exactly as she's quoted.

How sweet it is!

Armstrong is just like D'Souza. Neither are satisfied with the hole they've dug for themselves ... so they will keep digging deeper and deeper in utter futility.

How sweet it is!

Well, welcome back to column day. I will start at the beginning:

Aisha was married in 622, mush kida? OK:

1. Tabari Volume 4, page 50--states that all of Abu Bakr's children (Aisha being one of them) were born during the pre-Islamic stage (jahiliya) which ended in 610 with the revelation of Iqara. Therefore, Aisha had to have been born earlier, making her at least 12, if not slightly older at the time of marriage.

2. Tabari Volume 1, Page 493--after abu Bakr converted, he was sent by Mohammed to Ethiopia in 615 to escape Meccan persecution and didn't want to take Aisha with them so tried to push up the original marriage. She would have been a minimum of 7 (taking into account the first verse she would have to be a minimum of 12) and if the consumation didn't happen until 3 or so years later that would make her about 15-16.

I'll now cut to your good buddy, ibn Kathir:

Aisha's older sister, Asma, was around 10 or so years older than Aisha, who died in 693 at the reported age of 100, although a lot of people argue that isn't right, we'll go with it as a good round number. In 622, that would make her like 29 and her sister like 19 at the time of marriage.

(Oh, I did a web search and apparently this is up on Wikipedia as well, so feel free.)

I am almost positive that you are going to tell me that the quotes you cite are from Aisha herself so therefore they must be true. However, there weren't exactly birth certificates going around back then, so age is a difficult indicator--especially with the mixture of sun and moon cycles used to calculate years during the pre-Islamic times.

Now for your other matter:
There is no evidence that "Islam" was the driving factor in these child marriages, usually driven by economics (hello, dowries, especially if the United States is ripping up your country like in Afghanistan and you only have two choices to survive on the new cash-driven system: get a dowry for your daughter, or grow some opium). If you can find the fact that the 1/26,000,000 Saudis used the one Tabari verse you've got as justification I will definitely agree he's got some problems. What about the people here who are pedophiles, are they using biblical justification (they are sometimes Christian)--but that argument doesn't work because we're here, and they're over there, so that must be different. You always seem to be so scared of Iran--I personally don't like Khomeni--but he said a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that it is all "Islamic" and instantly gets enshrined into 1 billion people's minds as right. Also, them conservative councilis of Iran usually act out of economics as well (see Tobacco fiasco a little bit earlier, using religion to do something political and economic). Bardo, just because the legal age is there doesn't mean that people actually follow it (perhaps they see the low age as un-Islamic?). Currently, that age hovers around 23 or so years old in Iran according to the statistics bureaus in the country.

--I see a problem here, you are going to argue that "simply because Khomeni (or any other thinker regardless of who they were or what people thought about the saying or whether debate occured or not or the status of that quote today is) said it, it can and will be used indirectly by all Muslims throughout the world, from that point in history on. I think that is the wierdest logic around, but go for it.

Your logic kind of turns into that whole nonsense you and Mrs. Fallici post humus (hope that's right) had with that Reason writer: "if a non-Muslim pees on a wall, it's because they've got to go to the bathroom. If a Muslim pees on the same wall, it's because they are on a jihad against the West."

Just doing some thinking...
(Unlike some commentors on this board, I work. Therefore, I am not able to respond at breakneck pace like you guys.)

Asad's translation of 2:217 (closest thing I could find to Armstrong's part-quote):

"They will ask thee about fighting in the sacred month. Say: "Fighting in it is an awesome thing; but turning men away from the path of God and denying Him, and [turning them away from] the Inviolable House of Worship and expelling its people therefrom - [all this] is yet more awesome in the sight of God, since oppression is more awesome than killing." [Your enemies] will not cease to fight against you till they have turned you away from your faith, if they can. But if any of you should turn away from his faith and die as a denier of the truth - these it is whose works will go for nought in this world and in the life to come; and these it is who are destined for the fire, therein to abide."

A quote that is all she gives you Robert. Our God is the same? How obsurb!! Their God lives on this earth killing people in the worst possible ways!
My God our God I pray is a loving God and gives us free will to choose. She says nothing ever of her own heart of what God has insighted to her, meaning she does not communicate with God. The same with the rest! Where is their message? Where is the book of what Islam or this "religion" inspires to make you want to seek it out to find the truths in life. Instead it gives you a choice such as The Godfather! A deal you cannot resist!
Where is her book of love? Just her saying you do this with hate, err this erks me!! This is their problem! She does not speak with the same consciouness and knowledge and understanding and love. She cannot see the difference between good and bad. She inflicted it right there. Sin. She is judging you as they all think for God as if they were he! I guess they would all get off for killing for they do not know the difference between right and wrong! Damn saying that did not work out in my favor. They are more narciss than real killers here. What example can she give they are what they say they are. I have not seen it nor heard it. I cannot say one thing I know good about them!
Mo-who became pbuh because he wrote excerpts next to readings of the Bible and they took that and turned it into the Queran. Hell I do that! Pbuh- ME! Good work Robert!

Look at that Muhammedan 'watcher' above!

"What about the people here who are pedophiles, are they using biblical justification (they are sometimes Christian)"

Yes, what about them? We have L A W S against that, they know they are breaking the law and they are punished by the law if the're found out.

Islamic 'law' sanctiones pedophiles and child marriages, it is 'halal' to do it because your profit did it.

Still don't get it?

And NO, we have never seen a western pedophile claim that rape or child abuse is in the bible and he just followed his religion.

With respect: You are an idiot, Sir!

Here watcher,

A link for you:

http://terror-watch.net/media/womans_rights_islam.wmv

Watcher -- mind if I call you "Rick"? Anyway, it's funny how your earlier statement, "a minimum of 50 verses of Tabari which discuss the marriage to Aisha, each with a differing account on the consumation date" now becomes a few passages from which you surmise that she must have been older than nine, for none of them actually states her age directly.

But let that pass. The other question is your edition of Tabari. In mine, volume 4 page 50 is discussing the Babylonian kingdom of Ahasuerus, and never mentions Abu Bakr, and vol. 1 doesn't even have a page 493. Did you actually look these up, or just get them off Wikipedia? Anyway, the edition I have is from SUNY Press. Where's yours from?

Anyway, even if these references are accurate, and of course I'm sure they are, as I have seen them before (although I still would like to see them from you, unless you're just relying solely on Wikipedia), they rest on a number of unwarranted assumptions. One is that if all of Abu Bakr's children were born in Jahiliyya, they would have had to have been born before 610. This doesn't make sense, particularly in light of the fact that Islam proper, as marked by the Islamic calendar itself, doesn't begin until the Hijra. It is much more likely that the time of Jahiliyya extended to the Hijra. Your second false assumption is that Aisha would have had to have been seven to have been left behind when Abu Bakr went to Abyssinia. On what do you base this assumption?

Please give me the exact citation from Ibn Kathir. I have his tafsir on hand also, and will check it.

You say: "I am almost positive that you are going to tell me that the quotes you cite are from Aisha herself so therefore they must be true." No, you're quite wrong. I am going to say that since the affirmation that she was nine appears in Bukhari, as well as Tabari, and in other hadith collections as well (including all but one of the Sahih Sittah), it is accorded the presumption of reliability by the great majority of Muslims. You flatly assert that "there is no evidence that 'Islam' was the driving factor in these child marriages," but the evidence is just that: since Muhammad did it, it is good to do, since he is uswa hasana (Qur'an 33:21). Being "scared" of Iran, or "liking" Khomeini or not, is irrelevant -- what matters is that he lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine in imitation of the Prophet, and that's why it is a widely accepted practice in the Islamic world.

Once you dismiss all the evidence I've presented, you then claim that I blame Muslims with no evidence, and invoke Fallaci and Cathy Young as if that makes your point. A neat trick, but hardly convincing. I have given you Bukhari (citations available on request), Tabari, and examples from all over the Islamic world. You have given me spurious references to Tabari, and denied that the evidence from the Islamic world has anything to do with this question -- why? Just because you don't want it to be.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Sam Shamoun has addressed the arguments over Aisha's age, child brides, etc., here. Also see part 2 (see link near bottom of article) which addresses the apologetic claims.

Also see the seemingly ambiguous verse 65:4 from the Quran.

Tafsir of Ibn Abbas (65:4)

"(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months. Another man asked: “what is the waiting period for those women who are pregnant?” (And for those with child) i.e. those who are pregnant, (their period) their waiting period (shall be till they bring forth their burden) their child. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) and whoever fears Allah regarding what he commands him, (He maketh his course easy for him) He makes his matter easy; and it is also said this means: He will help him to worship Him well."

Al-Jalalayn
(verse 65:4).

"And [as for] those of your women who (read allā'ī or allā'i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months - both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter."

Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir (65:4)
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=65&tid=54196

"The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying; (and for those who have no courses...) as for His saying; (if you have doubt...) There are two opinions: First, is the saying of a group of the Salaf, like Mujahid, Az-Zuhri and Ibn Zayd. That is, if they see blood and there is doubt if it was menstrual blood or not. The second, is that if you do not know the ruling in this case, then know that their `Iddah is three months. This has been reported from Sa`id bin Jubayr and it is the view preferred by Ibn Jarir. And this is the more obvious meaning. Supporting this view is what is reported from Ubay bin Ka`b that he said, "O Allah's Messenger! Some women were not mentioned in the Qur'an, the young, the old and the pregnant.'' Allah the Exalted and Most Honored sent down this Ayah, (Those in menopause among your women, for them the `Iddah, if you have doubt, is three months; and for those who have no courses. And for those who are pregnant, their `Iddah is until they lay down their burden.) Ibn Abi Hatim recorded a simpler narration than this one from Ubay bin Ka`b who said, "O Allah's Messenger! When the Ayah in Surat Al-Baqarah was revealed prescribing the `Iddah of divorce, some people in Al-Madinah said, `There are still some women whose `Iddah has not been mentioned in the Qur'an. There are the young, the old whose menstruation is discontinued, and the pregnant.' Later on, this Ayah was revealed, (Those in menopause among your women, for them the `Iddah, if you have doubt, is three months; and for those who have no courses.)''

profitsbeard:
I guess the Financial Times had to edit something to show their power.

I am not sure about that.
The sentences they chopped out were red hot, pure dynamite. The first set reveals that under todays standards, Muhammad would be considered a pedophile. Could the FT have left that in?

But good show Robert.
The FT is another paper that tends to liberalism
But the people who read it are astute.
You can be sure that it is another small nail in the coffin of Islam.

Slowly bit by bit, the West is being awakened as to what we really face. Just need to counter the sheer lies about Islam by both Muslims and the liberal left (who believe their own propaganda)

Yes shiek yer'mami -- what's good for the goose is good for gander is a double-edged maneuver, as "Watcher" seems not to realize.

I.e., if we put our American pedophiles on the same plane as Mohammed, that leaves Mohammed open to being considered a criminal. I'm down with that. Just doin' some thinkin'...

Great Job Robert. The amazing thing of our time is that we still have pre-internet, pre-memri, pre-LGF characters running around thinking they can just lie about things to fit them to their Great Truth; that all cultures were created equal. Acrtually, Armstrong is a big, fat, Occidentalist who has to make an Islam that is suitable for her modern cosmopolitan world. She lies about Islam mainly for the benefit of other white liberals. How about them dates?

What a well-oiled (intellectual) machine you are, Robert.

I am not a religious woman, but THANK GOD you exist! And, for whatever drives you to keep up the writing & speaking. The world sorely needs you now.

I almost felt sorry for "Watcher" watching him be pinned to the dissection tray and methodically sliced open. Almost.

"Just doing some thinking"....It doesn't matter if Western Orientalists prove a different sequence of "revelation" of Qur'anic texts, it only matters what is generally believed by Muslims about it. So to best understand them, use their own schedules. Likewise, if the majority of Muslims, pontificating amongst themselves, believe that Aisha was 9 or premenstrual when she was raped by the pedophile, and enact laws, write tomes, etc., to that effect, it doesn't matter if she were 2 or 20. They accept that about their "prophet" and emulate it, that is damning enough, both of their "prophet" and of themselves.

"The age of consent in G Washingtons time was 10 years old. Child brides were legal and common."

The difference was Muhammad is thought by the Muhammadans to be uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil. No one considers lecherous pedophiles from the 1800's to be perfect models of conduct for all time.

Thank you, Khaybar Oasis. Your citations the of the original texts, the awful texts, are an lesson and an instruction.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

So, again I must ask, is there any reason we term a felony murder a "raid" or an "act of war" or are do we frame our question in such a cowardly manner as a matter of obeiseance?

Watcher vs. Robert Spencer

Advice for Watcher...

As Sun Tzu would say…

“To refrain from intercepting an enemy whose
banners are in perfect order, to refrain from attacking an army drawn up in calm and confident array:--this is the art of studying circumstances.”

Just doing some thinking...

I am sorry that we do not share the same editions. Mine are the same as used in Wikipedia article, although I found that the references were the same later on during the day. It was published in Beirut, and the edition was printed in Arabic, not English. I am sorry to say that it comes down to it you are really good at doing nothing but showing your ability to squeeze as many personal attacks into a single post--which doesn't merit your knowledge of Islamic discourse. Also, your inability to read what I wrote is uncanny (like I said elsewhere, I have found the reading comprehension class and would like to know if I should pay for two seats or just one), so I will say it again:

"...that there was something "Islamic" to do with the marriages..." means:

Find me the statement made by the Saudi citizen that he quoted your Tabari verse to justify his marriages. Find me the statement made by an Afghani farmer stating that he uses his in-depth study of Tabari and his high-level Islamic education (doubt that he has any, can't do much learning when people are shooting) and not simple survival economics to sell off his daughter. Find me the statement that all Iranian men demand to marry women at nine (I quoted an Iranian government source saying that most Iranian women don't get married until their 20s, but you don't care unless it fits your argument.) Find me these things and then we can talk about Islam being a problem. You are trying to connect what somebody said quite some time ago to something that is happening today, and you have no connection, other than the fact that something related to it was written 1000 years ago--which doesn't mean that everybody is using it today, or even discusses it beyond the realms of the Ulema.

As for your Tabari, I managed to drop by a mosque and ask on this particular matter (although you don't think that mosques are worth anything in terms of Islamic knowledge). Tabari's entire justification, the entire presence of that statement in his work, is predicated upon the presence of the Bukhari verses, which have been and are being debated extensively. I know you don't believe this argument, especially when it comes to the verses you quote, but the "isnads" of these Bukhari verses have been and are being questioned, such was the subject of a book published out of al-Azhar (last year I think) about Tabari and Bukhari's fuzzy math and how since the subjects of calculated math weren't established until later, the vast majority of these dates in the sources should not be seen as correct. I will get you the title of it if you want.

Also, in response to your claim that you make to anybody who argues with you, I won't quote again the sources that you already know about that refute your argument. Just because it doesn't appear in the section of the book you read (Tabari's original and the Arabic don't have such distinctions between sections) doesn't mean you are instantaneously right. It was about this point that I was banned last time, so I am interested to see what the next course of action is...whether things will continue, or I will "cut and run" as it was referred to by not being allowed to post a rebuttal before the discussion drifted away.

Just doing some thinking...and Rick is fine, but my name is Chris.
(By the way, in all honesty, I hope you found my apology about the banning in another posting today and will consider it. I don't mean to launch attacks on anybody that are not true.)

I read Karen Armstrong about Holy War and even my libaral instructor, at the university, said she was not a scholar.

Her comments only proves that, YES, liberalism is a mental disorder
ie: Michael Savage.

A great opportunity was LOST by Coalition troops when Taleban was pushed out-by NOT INSISTING on
a fully democratic government MINUS SHARIA LAW!
Karzai,privileged,weak [corrupt] was happy to get
Afghanistan on a plate without bothering to change a thing...
One wonders why U.S went to all the trouble of pushing out Soviets when they at least advocated
equal rights & education for women??

Re : Robert's answer to ridiculous Ms Armstrong,having heard him debate & speak,would easily demolish such a lightweight pro- Islamic Poster gal.

"Watcher" wrote:

"the "isnads" of these Bukhari verses have been and are being questioned, such was the subject of a book published out of al-Azhar (last year I think)"

He tries to slip by us the fact that he is claiming a general sentiment in the Muslim world predicated upon one book! And he repeatedly chides Spencer for claiming too much broad knowledge of the Muslim world based on too little evidence!

P.S.
On BBC today. In a goodwill match in Norway 'Priests v Inams' Muslims refused to play
against women [due to their religion].Priest's captain walked off in protest...

OT, but I saw recently that there is "Jihad Watch Deutschland." I can't read German, so anyone know if it's as good as this Jihad Watch USA?

Watcher:

Watch it; you're undermining your own arguments. In an earlier post, you wrote that:

"Aisha's older sister, Asma, was around 10 or so years older than Aisha, who died in 693 at the reported age of 100, although a lot of people argue that isn't right, we'll go with it as a good round number. In 622, that would make her like 29 and her sister like 19 at the time of marriage."

And in your most recent post, you wrote that:

"I know you don't believe this argument, especially when it comes to the verses you quote, but the "isnads" of these Bukhari verses have been and are being questioned, such was the subject of a book published out of al-Azhar (last year I think) about Tabari and Bukhari's fuzzy math and how since the subjects of calculated math weren't established until later, the vast majority of these dates in the sources should not be seen as correct."

If the math back then was fuzzy, wouldn't that make the reported age of aisha's older sister of 100 years EXTREMELY unreliable? It's a simple matter to count to 9. Just use your fingers. 100 is another level of difficulty altogether.

Just doin' some cipherin'.

P.S. If it's the truth you're after, perhaps you can start by changing your tagline to "Just doing some fabricating."

Nice job, Robert:

Expect an unhinged tirade of disparagement in counter-response.
That should prove rather amusingif not downright laughable.

Kudos!

Watcher:

What a happy coincidence that both you and the Wikipedia article on Aisha's age use the Dara'l-fikr edition of Tabari, published in Beirut in 1979! Now, I know Wikipedia is swell and all, but they do let a few errors creep in here and there -- and entries on particularly controversial subjects are beset by apologists and ideologues, some with scant regard for facts -- so why don't you post the exact relevant quotes? Since, lo and behold, you just happen to have that exact edition right at hand, and so far you haven't made a point that isn't made on Wikipedia. Post the quotes here. Arabic is fine. Go on -- post them right here, or send them to me at director@jihadwatch.org if you prefer.

The fact is that child marriage is rampant in the Islamic world in imitation of the Prophet. Your suggestion that only scholars know this arcana is specious. No one has to read Bukhari or Tabari or the others who testify to this to find this out -- all they have to do is learn about the Prophet's life in any Islamic school in an Islamic country.

Take, for example, what the Islamic scholar Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti said about Aisha and Muhammad: ”A'isha got married when she was 9, when the Prophet (SAAWS) died, she was 19....What is wrong in her marriage of six or nine or whatsoever?" This was published in Islam Online:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-06/15/article55.shtml

...and no one at Islam Online saw fit to note that of course everyone knows that she wasn't nine, and this al-Hanooti character is confused and misinformed (probably led astray by my black Zionist arts). Now why didn't they do that? Why did they let it pass? And where did al-Hanooti get the idea that she was nine in the first place? From me?

The fact that Aisha's age is debated is beyond dispute. But you are taking the fact that people dispute about it as an indication that Aisha was not nine when her marriage was consummated, and that no Muslim believes that she was -- that only wicked fellows like me dig this stuff up. Would that it were so, but it isn't.

What's more, you say, "Find me the statement that all Iranian men demand to marry women at nine (I quoted an Iranian government source saying that most Iranian women don't get married until their 20s, but you don't care unless it fits your argument.)" Speaking of reading comprehension, I noted that Khomeini lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine. Did I say he required marriages to nine-year-old girls, or demanded that men marry nine-year-olds? Of course not. You are just setting up a straw man to knock down, because that is easier to deal with than what I actually wrote.

Finally, you come around to it -- it's all my fault: "You are trying to connect what somebody said quite some time ago to something that is happening today, and you have no connection, other than the fact that something related to it was written 1000 years ago--which doesn't mean that everybody is using it today, or even discusses it beyond the realms of the Ulema." In so saying you sidestep entirely Muhammad's centrality as uswa hasana -- which makes what this man said and did 1400 years ago, as reported in the hadith collection Muslims consider most reliable (Bukhari), very important indeed.

You also resort in this to the familiar tactic of attributing to me what I report. No problem, old man -- I get this all the time. Zarqawi said that he cut off Nick Berg's head in imitation of Muhammad's beheadings after the Battle of Badr, but when I say that he said that, people routinely pretend that I am the one who made up the idea that Muhammad beheaded anyone. Same thing here: Muslims tolerate child marriage because of Muhammad, but when I note that, suddenly I'm the one who made up that Muhammad married a child. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, "Chris," but all too many Muslims see Muhammad as an excellent example to imitate, in this particular and in many others.

Meanwhile, while whining about personal attacks, you never quite got around to explaining why, if the period before the Hijra was not jahiliya, the Islamic calendar begins with the Hijra, or why Aisha had to be seven if Abu Bakr left her behind. In other words, you didn't deal with the substantive arguments I made, but instead pretended that I didn't make any. It's so much easier that way, isn't it?

Rick, Chris, sure -- I know who you are.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Watcher,

From Islam Q & A

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=22442&ln=eng

(a) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”
[al-Talaaq 65:4]

In this verse we see that Allaah has made the ‘iddah in the case of divorce of a girl who does not have periods – because she is young and has not yet reached puberty – three months. This clearly indicates that Allaah has made this a valid marriage.

(b) It was narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, he consummated the marriage with her when she was nine and she stayed with him for nine years.

(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4840; Muslim, 1422)
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married ‘Aa’ishah when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine.”
(Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim; Muslim says ‘seven years’)

The fact that it is permissible to marry a young girl does not mean that it is permissible to have intercourse with her; rather that should not be done until she is able for it. For that reason the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) delayed the consummation of his marriage to ‘Aa’ishah. Al-Nawawi said: With regard to the wedding-party of a young married girl at the time of consummating the marriage, if the husband and the guardian of the girl agree upon something that will not cause harm to the young girl, then that may be done. If they disagree, then Ahmad and Abu ‘Ubayd say that one a girl reaches the age of nine then the marriage may be consummated even without her consent, but that does not apply in the case of who is younger. Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and Abu Haneefah said: the marriage may be consummated when the girl is able for intercourse, which varies from one girl to another, so no age limit can be set. This is the correct view. There is nothing in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah to set an age limit, or to forbid that in the case of a girl who is able for it before the age of nine, or to allow it in the case of a girl who is not able for it and has reached the age of nine. Al-Dawoodi said: ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated).
Sharh Muslim, 9/206
It is preferable for a guardian not to marry off his daughter when she is still young unless there is a valid reason for that.
Al-Nawawi said:
It should be noted that al-Shaafa’i and his companions said: It is preferable for fathers and grandfathers not to marry off a virgin until she reaches the age of puberty and they ask her permission, lest she end up in a marriage that she dislikes. What they said does not go against the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah, because what they meant is that they should not marry her off before she reaches puberty if there is no obvious interest to be served that they fear will be missed out on if they delay it, as in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah. In that case it is preferable to go ahead with the marriage because the father is enjoined to take care of his child’s interests and not to let a good opportunity slip away.
And Allaah knows best.
Sharh Muslim, 9/206.

Just be a little more creative and one can see the expanded possibilities for cross-cultural exchanges and tourism by gaining a deeper understanding Islamic law.

American, European, and Asian "convert" perverts could fly to Iran and exercise their virgin fantasies by using the 'marry-a-wife-for-a-day' whoring/rape exception (you know, the one the mullahs grant themselves and the religious police) and enjoy the Khomania special. Who needs to export oil when you can become the next Thailand of the sex trade, and do so legally and in the name of religious expression.

I just adore the rationalizations 'Look, Christians had the Crusades, Europe and America owned slaves, and George Washington had sex with an underage slave, so why fault Islam if it praises the same things?' as if there is no difference than past and today. The problem is that the violence in the coran is held up as a good example - and that actual death follows. Oh pity the chldren.

and fight for them also.
Thank you Robert.

Obviously you have found the quotes, and I won't repeat them to you as they are available on the site. You also have said nothing that isn't on Wikipedia, so why does that make you right, and me wrong?

Uh oh, 1979! Dangerous! People have old books! Scary! Let's write exclamation points and "boogy boogy" scare quotes return! Spencer can read a citation! Goodness! Was there more than one set surviving?!? Are there books available in places like Cairo or Beirut that are old!?! They don't make new printings of old editions!?! Run away!

As for jahiliya (this is getting really reflective of your knowledge on Islamic history):

Jahiliya is the period before Islam. Hijra is the migration of MUSLIMS fleeing oppression in Mecca to Medina, beginning the Islamic calendar. Because there were Muslims during the Hijra, then obviously the discussed ending of Jahiliya had occured before the Hijra. Otherwise, how could Muslims have migrated when there was no knowledge of Islam (that lack of knowledge is called Jahiliya).

Also, I don't know if you know this (however it is talked about like every day) but the command "Iqara," and the subsequent three time repetition story is constantly referred to as the beginning of Islam and the end of the Jahiliya. Just because the calendar starts doesn't mean that the religion starts at exactly the same time. I am surprised at you, Robert, this is something you should know a lot more about.

By the way, whoopee that Khomeini lowered the marriable age. He looks pretty angry, too, but that doesn't mean he wanted to kill everybody. You still didn't answer the claim, and (let's follow your logic) I won't answer your claims in detail unless you answer mine. If that is the case, and "all too many Muslims" follow this example, why has the marrying age for women and men continued to increase since the revolution? Let's move to somewhere else, like Eygpt. Why, in a country where ~85% are Muslims is the minimum marriage age 16, and most marriages actually happen much later despite the law, like into the 20s?

Uswa hasana---in what context? Hasana for bukra? Hasana for imbara7? Hasana for salawat? Tova ba-kol? Let's assume for the moment that you're 100% right--Mohammed married a six year old, fag3aha wa nus. What about the argument that certain rules don't apply to everybody else and only worked for Mohammed (like the special covering for his wives, that some Muslims have inappropriately taken on themselves). This is a separate issue, but let's delve a bit, I'm feeling adventurous. ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoum, a book that you quote sometimes, says that Mohammed had rights as a prophet that people do not, such as in number of wives, types of marriage, etc. This was not the first book to discuss it, and there are many others that make the same argument. If you are right, the next logical step might be dangerous, but we can keep that for a later date.

Just doing some thinking...
(Still didn't answer that "find me..." paragraph, huh? Zarqawi, great. You found a murderer who was fleeing authorities in Jordan (because his Islamic tutors turned him in for being violent, but you won't respond to that) assassinated a reporter and said something to make him sound different than an idiot. Find me the multitude of Muslims who agreed with his justification. Do you remember the protests against Zarqawi in Pakistan (no, you don't) that said he wasn't Muslim, etc? What about the ones in Cairo, and the religious statements from Azhar stating that his actions constituted nothing more than depraved murder? Some English poetry major had "Ax Ishmael" written on his arm right before he killed a bunch of people. So now he's a follower of a particular English poem, or maybe an admirer of Moby Dick [my English teacher told me he is uswa hasana (a good example) of how far revenge can go], or is he still just a murderer?)
(I did deal with your substansive arguments, but you don't respond to them and say later that I didn't say anything about them. Also, glad to hear that everybody's cheering you on...I feel so bad [why would I expect anything else on this site])

Some Muslims are wrong and have evil intentions. You agree with their interpretations and promote an equal response to them. Transitive property applies.

Watcher says:

"I am sorry that we do not share the same editions. Mine are the same as used in Wikipedia article..."

How convenient that Watcher is working from the same "editions" as used in Wikipedia! He will easily meet Robert's challenge to supply the relevant quotations then. Of course this might entail another trip to the local mosque first....

And he's probably working overtime again tonight, so those of us who have no life outside of jihadwatch will need to be patient while he gets around to it.

Surely it will be worth the wait.

"Obviously you have found the quotes, and I won't repeat them to you as they are available on the site."

My Goodness, "An American" is back! He must be roommates with "Watcher" or something.

Anyway, looks like he/they don't have the goods after all. How surprising!

Robert,

Nice work in calling Watcher on his bluffs.

Wathcer,

Time to show us your cards. You say:

"there are a minimum of 50 verses of Tabari which discuss the marriage to Aisha, each with a differing account on the consumation date."

and

"I am sorry that we do not share the same editions. Mine are the same as used in Wikipedia article, although I found that the references were the same later on during the day. It was published in Beirut, and the edition was printed in Arabic, not English."

Lol! First you claim there are "50 verses" in Tabari about the marriage, Aisha's age, etc., then you provide zero discussions of the consumation date in question. Then you turn up only a couple of citations which only give vague and indirect information from which you (and others who advance this line) engage in a kind of interpretive speculation.

Now you are implying that you know Arabic well enough to read the Arabic Tabari? I guess anything is possible, but not everything is probable or plausible. I simply do not find your story credible.

You expect us to believe that you actually went to the trouble of looking up Tabari, and then you came back to teach us all a lesson, and all you have to show for it is what you presented above?!

Meanwhile you tell us your responses are brief because you are working? You're telling us that you are working while running around looking up Tabari in Arabic, going to a mosque for advice, and responding with all those long posts on this site?! Again, unless you work in a library next to a mosque and have the Arabic Tabari there, and your bosses let you spend all this time on the net, that's just really improbable.

You state:

"(Tabari's original and the Arabic don't have such distinctions between sections) doesn't mean you are instantaneously right. It was about this point that I was banned last time, so I am interested to see what the next course of action is...whether things will continue, or I will "cut and run" as it was referred to by not being allowed to post a rebuttal before the discussion drifted away."

I also sense that you are now looking to cut and run, now that your bluff has been called.

Watcher--sorry for misspelling your name.

Interesting discussion on Aisha. It is represented that the texts say she was either 9, or 10, or at least 12, or maybe 15 or 16, or maybe like 19. For a civilization that ‘invented’ math, the Islamic framers sure had trouble counting. My money’s on Robert’s direct readings from the text over convoluted logic reconstruction of the counting-challenged.

And the arm read ‘Ismail Ax’, not Ax Ishmael. Funny how that manifesto has been kept classified.

An islamic article about the young age of Aisha
http://www.muslim-answers.org/aishah.htm

Alarmed Pig Farmer,

Re language, I don't have that much of a problem with "raid" in that case, though certainly "warfare" doesn't fit the context of 2:217 (Nakhla attacks).

The same issues need to be raised when people like Armstrong use terms and phrases like "defensive," "aggression," "behave ethically," "oppression," etc. (Those were from her FT review of Robert's book). Each time we have to expose how Islamic conceptions differ from our western conceptions of these terms.

From the above link:

Now in regards to what the authentic Islamic sources actually say, it may come as a disappointment to some "modern" and "cultured" Muslims that there are four ahadith in Saheeh al-Bukhari and three ahadith in Saheeh Muslim which clearly state that 'Aishah was "nine years old" at the time that her marriage was consummated with the Prophet.

I take back what I said about counting skills and apologize about questioning the Framer’s math.

Robert, Perhaps the FT omitted your starting paragraph dealing with Aisha's age because they didn't want to hear from readers such as Watcher/An American. It's too bad your logical, accurate rebuttals are being answered with obfuscation and smarmy double-talk, but I still enjoy seeing you rip his arguments to shreds.

Much ado is made here by some (one?) that "proofs" are required to substantiate the argument that Islam itself sanctions or causes marriage to prepubescent girls, condones murder and terrorism, etc. The proof comes in a general form that to any reasonable mind adds up to an ample indictment of Islam as a religion that has delivered far more by way of oppression and merciless control and death than it has peace or spiritual awakening. For me, these two points make case-by-case documentation unnecessary and redundant:

1. The absence of even the slightest visible trace of objection or protestation from Mulsims in Muslim areas regarding terrorism or the abuse of women and children or religious intolerance (ad nauseam). There is no one to fight the good fight in their system that instills constant fear.

2. The fact that in Islamic life all aspects are devoid of separation from each other: politics, religion, secular matters, wind surfing-- all are considered holistically as one within the "religious practice" of Islam. Any known (public) behavior that is not punished by extisting laws can therefore be considered to be accepted among Muslims as an acceptable part of Islam.

Regional, cultural and ethnic variances account for the uneven "tapestry of Islam" but the operative word is "Islam". No force that may compell the sale or trade of children, etc., falls outside of Islam as long as the participants are faithful Muslims.

People may be and are convicted in court with only circumstantial evidence in play, when that evidence is strong and compelling. For our purposes it is strong and compelling and more so each day.

lycaste,

"1. The absence of even the slightest visible trace of objection or protestation from Mulsims in Muslim areas regarding terrorism"

Actually, there have been a few condemnations of terrorism from various groups of Muslims in the last few years -- but every one of them I've seen has tended to be grandly vague and general, and contains loopholes usually employing easily manipulable and flexible terms like "innocent" ("we are against killing innocent people" then raises the question, who is "innocent") as well as various ways to express acceptance of violence in terms of "self-defense" (which has usually been the concept by which the Muslim terrorists have framed their attacks).

The following material, concerned with Aisha's dolls, is evidence that Aisha had not reached puberty when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her:

Sahih Muslim Book 8, Number 3311
'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and (s)he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he died she was eighteen years old.

Al-Khattaabee said:

… it is understood that playing with dolls (al-banaat) is not like the amusement from other images (suwar) concerning which the threat (wa'eed) of punishment is mentioned. The only reason why permission in this [playing with dolls] was given to Aisha (RA) is because she had not, at that time, reached the age of puberty.

Tabari IX:131 “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me.”

Here is Bukhari Vol 8, Book 73, Number 151, and in parentheses following it, what the great hadith scholar, Shaykh al-Islam Imam Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalani, Commander of the Faithful in Hadith, Qadi of Egypt, said regarding doll-playing and little girls:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

So An American -- or is it Rick, or Chris, or Watcher? -- whatever the facts might be, there is ample evidence in canonical Islamic tradition to convince many Muslims around the world that Muhammad consummated a marriage with a pre-pubescent, 9 year old girl. Why try to convince us that she was probably much older in reality? Please go and convince those of your fellow Muslims around the world who believe Aisha was 9 and prepubescent. Child marriage is still a fairly widespread practice in many parts of the Islamic world, and those who engage in that practice are able to justify it by reference to the actions purported of Muhammad in tradition and as interpreted by many Muslim scholars. Why aren't you arguing with those scholars and with tradition, so you can help stop child marriage? Why do you obfuscate when we point to Islamic documents that need to be openly acknowledged and rejected as guides by all decent Muslims?

The Ayatollah Khomeini opines on the question of sex with babies:

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives.

The Arabic source of that quote is here.

remote_control:
I don't know if you have already read Religion of Peace? by Gregory Davis (now advertised by Robert Spencer here at Jihad Watch), but you might like it. At any rate, there is little that is gingerly in its assessment of Islam. It introduces the reader to various aspects of the concept that Islam itself is the problem -- not merely certain core elements of Islam. The book accustoms one to that unequivocating approach and allows one to reflect at some length in that mode. Not great length. The book is only about 130 pages, not including the appendices, so it's excellent as a popular introduction. One appendix shows the chronological order of Quran chapters. I liked the book a lot, enough that I began to wonder if Spencer is following the best strategy in refusing to make blanket statements about Islam. But there's room for more than one approach.

Davis' scholarship and knowledge of Islam are impressive enough, though certainly not as huge as Spencer's. On the other hand, Davis contributes a number of interesting perspectives not to be found, as far as I know, in Spencer's work.

"An American" eh ?

"By the way, whoopee that Khomeini lowered the marriable age. He looks pretty angry, too, but that doesn't mean he wanted to kill everybody."

Well the speeches that he made did sound to me as if he wanted to kill every kaffir, mind you, every kaffir, not "everybody".

"Uswa hasana---in what context? Hasana for bukra? Hasana for imbara7? Hasana for salawat? Tova ba-kol.."

uswa hasana in every context. In my city there are some areas that are populated exclusively by muslims and do you know what the people populating these areas have in commmon ? They all have long beards (a-la uswa hasana), they wear clothes best described as sacks (a-la uswa hasana), they have a tendency to bang heads on the narrow alleys of these areas when the mulllah in the mosque goes "allahu akbar", and some of them immediately catch the nearest goat/sheep (yes they breed goats and sheep) and proceed to saw off its head while the mullah wails, all of these people have multiple wives, and all of them are either iron fabricators (weldors), basic carpenters (carving is, after all haram), butchers, or tailors (think burkas). I am posting from Central India.

"Find me the multitude of Muslims who agreed with his justification. Do you remember the protests against Zarqawi in Pakistan (no, you don't) that said he wasn't Muslim, etc? What about the ones in Cairo, and the religious statements from Azhar stating that his actions constituted nothing more than depraved murder? Some English poetry major had "Ax Ishmael" written on his arm right before he killed a bunch of people. So now he's a follower of a particular English poem, or maybe an admirer of Moby Dick [my English teacher told me he is uswa hasana (a good example) of how far revenge can go], or is he still just a murderer?)
(I did deal with your substansive arguments, but you don't respond to them and."

Fruitcake, you find me the multitude of muslims who do not agree with his justification. You find me one imam who says that marrying a 10 year old kid is a sin. Find me a an imam who says that it is a sin to make your kid saw off the head of an animal in the name of religious sacrifice. Find me an imam who does not call people who are not of his faith "kaffir". Find me an imam who says that the killing of kaffirs is not justified. Find me an imam who says that the women of kaffirs are not "war booty". Find me an imam who says respect and love the country that you live in.

I think that you have a better chance of finding a Unicorn.

American/Watcher/Rick/Chris:

"Obviously you have found the quotes, and I won't repeat them to you as they are available on the site."

The quotes aren't on the site. Just references. That's why I asked you to produce them, since you say you have the book right there with you. Just so there's no doubt about what it says, ok, old man?

"You also have said nothing that isn't on Wikipedia, so why does that make you right, and me wrong?"

I just checked the Wikipedia article, and actually, I've said plenty that isn't on Wikipedia -- none of the data about child marriage in the Islamic world is in Wikipedia. Also, the quotes I gave you from Tabari are not the ones that are in Wikipedia. This doesn't make me right and you wrong in itself, but it shows which one of us has actually researched the matter, and which one is acting out of blind prejudice.

"Uh oh, 1979! Dangerous! People have old books! Scary! Let's write exclamation points and "boogy boogy" scare quotes return! Spencer can read a citation! Goodness! Was there more than one set surviving?!? Are there books available in places like Cairo or Beirut that are old!?! They don't make new printings of old editions!?! Run away!"

You, like Karen Armstrong, seem to think no one will check on you. In the paragraph in question, there are no quotation marks at all, much less "'boogy boogy' scare quotes." Nor did I remark on the edition's having been published in 1979, other than to note it in the process of specifying which edition Wikipedia -- and, lo and behold, you -- use. And indeed, you might have the 1979 Beirut Tabari -- I'm sure you do. So why not post the exact quotes from it that you (and Wikipedia) have referenced, so that we can see what it actually says?

"As for jahiliya (this is getting really reflective of your knowledge on Islamic history):

Jahiliya is the period before Islam. Hijra is the migration of MUSLIMS fleeing oppression in Mecca to Medina, beginning the Islamic calendar. Because there were Muslims during the Hijra, then obviously the discussed ending of Jahiliya had occured before the Hijra. Otherwise, how could Muslims have migrated when there was no knowledge of Islam (that lack of knowledge is called Jahiliya).

Also, I don't know if you know this (however it is talked about like every day) but the command "Iqara," and the subsequent three time repetition story is constantly referred to as the beginning of Islam and the end of the Jahiliya. Just because the calendar starts doesn't mean that the religion starts at exactly the same time. I am surprised at you, Robert, this is something you should know a lot more about.

Yes, I don't know anything about this, and never heard it before. (Actually, you can find discussion of the Hijra in my book The Truth About Muhammad, beginning on page 89, and of Jahiliyya in some detail in Onward Muslim Soldiers and elsewhere.) In any case, you are apparently unaware that the transition from jahiliyya to Islam is not an either/or, night and day matter. In this brief Muslim biography of Muhammad, he abolishes the practices of Jahiliyya in Mecca ten years after the Hijra (see #10, The Farewell Pilgrimage):

http://www.ezsoftech.com/islamic/infallible1e.asp

So Jahiliyya must have still existed 10 years after the Hijra. But of course, that refers to unbelievers. The connection of the end of Jahiliyya for Muslims to the Hijra stems from the character of Islam as a political and social system as well as an individual religious faith. That system was not implemented until the Hijra -- hence the calendar connection, indicating that Islam actually begins with the Hijra, not with the Iqraa (not "iqara"): the society of Islam was not established until that time. Thus some argue that Jahiliyyah ended for Muslims at the Hijra (just as modern jihad theorists, such as Qutb, argue that most Muslims today live in Jahili societies), and hence the reference to Abu Bakr's children all being born in Jahiliyyah does not necessarily mean they were all born before 610.

But it is certainly true that the end of Jahiliyyah is almost always identified by Muslims with the Iqraa, the beginning of Muhammad's revelations. The point is that the term is not fully clear, and thus cannot be made the foundation of an effective argument.

By the way, whoopee that Khomeini lowered the marriable age. He looks pretty angry, too, but that doesn't mean he wanted to kill everybody.

You're dodging the point again. I never said he wanted to kill everybody. I said he lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine in imitation of the Prophet. In response, you have now several times misrepresented what I said -- evidently you are unable to deal with the implications of what I really said.

"You still didn't answer the claim, and (let's follow your logic) I won't answer your claims in detail unless you answer mine. If that is the case, and "all too many Muslims" follow this example, why has the marrying age for women and men continued to increase since the revolution? Let's move to somewhere else, like Eygpt. Why, in a country where ~85% are Muslims is the minimum marriage age 16, and most marriages actually happen much later despite the law, like into the 20s?"

Because Egypt is not an Islamic state. The Ikhwan is working to institute Sharia there. If they succeed, watch the legal age for marriage start going down.

Uswa hasana---in what context? Hasana for bukra? Hasana for imbara7? Hasana for salawat? Tova ba-kol? Let's assume for the moment that you're 100% right--Mohammed married a six year old, fag3aha wa nus. What about the argument that certain rules don't apply to everybody else and only worked for Mohammed (like the special covering for his wives, that some Muslims have inappropriately taken on themselves). This is a separate issue, but let's delve a bit, I'm feeling adventurous. ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoum, a book that you quote sometimes, says that Mohammed had rights as a prophet that people do not, such as in number of wives, types of marriage, etc. This was not the first book to discuss it, and there are many others that make the same argument. If you are right, the next logical step might be dangerous, but we can keep that for a later date.

Uswa hasana in any and all contexts, as you know, except where specifically ruled out (as in the number of marriages). But anyway, fine. No problem. Please produce a citation indicating that Muhammad's example in marrying Aisha is one of prophetic privilege, not to be imitated.

Just doing some thinking...

You flatter yourself.

(Still didn't answer that "find me..." paragraph, huh?

Which one? The one in which you challenge me to find you some Muslim saying he married a child because he read it in Tabari? A silly challenge, because Tabari is not the only source, but anyway, I actually did answer that.

Zarqawi, great. You found a murderer who was fleeing authorities in Jordan (because his Islamic tutors turned him in for being violent, but you won't respond to that)

Are you kidding? I have discussed this at length in many contexts. See, for example, this article, in which I discuss a piece Zarqawi wrote to justify his actions because he was being challenged by Muslims.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18242

Unfortunately, as I note in the piece, his theological points have not been clearly or unequivocally repudiated or refuted by moderate Muslims.

...assassinated a reporter and said something to make him sound different than an idiot. Find me the multitude of Muslims who agreed with his justification.

Read Jihad Watch every day, and you'll see them in action around the world. See also here, where 49.9% of Muslims surveyed approve of OBL:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467849587&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

There's no doubt that many Muslims detest all this. Unfortunately, they are not very active against it.

Do you remember the protests against Zarqawi in Pakistan (no, you don't) that said he wasn't Muslim, etc?

Oh, a mind reader, eh? Actually, I remember them better than you do, as I remember that they were in Jordan, not Pakistan, and that they happened after he killed Muslims. No similar protests were made when he killed non-Muslims. Here's something to refresh your memory:

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20051118-110234-2315r.htm

What about the ones in Cairo, and the religious statements from Azhar stating that his actions constituted nothing more than depraved murder?

Yep. Al-Azhar denounced the Berg murder -- although some of the authorities quoted here seem to be more upset about mutilation of the corpse than about the killing itself:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-05/12/article08.shtml

In any case, this is a thrill, but the thrill is tempered by Al-Azhar's forked tongue -- e.g., Tantawi's approval of suicide attacks in Israel:

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP36302

Some English poetry major had "Ax Ishmael" written on his arm right before he killed a bunch of people. So now he's a follower of a particular English poem, or maybe an admirer of Moby Dick [my English teacher told me he is uswa hasana (a good example) of how far revenge can go], or is he still just a murderer?)

Your English teacher is nuts. Get a new one. In the meantime, Muslims really believe Muhammad is uswa hasana, and your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum won't change that.

(I did deal with your substansive arguments, but you don't respond to them and say later that I didn't say anything about them. Also, glad to hear that everybody's cheering you on...I feel so bad [why would I expect anything else on this site])

Anyone can comment. You're here too. If you don't like what they say, come up with some substantive refutation. Everyone is waiting for you to do that. I'm looking forward to your posting quotes about Aisha from your Beirut edition of Tabari!

Some Muslims are wrong and have evil intentions. You agree with their interpretations and promote an equal response to them. Transitive property applies.

I don't agree with their intepretations. In fact, I have repeated innumerable times that there is no "true" Islam, as Islam has no central authority. But the jihadists present their Islam as the "true" Islam, and moderates have as yet mounted no effective theological response. You certainly haven't.

I must say, I envy your owning that edition. I have an Arabic Tafsir al-Jalalayn printed in Damascus and bought in Beirut, and an Arabic Qur'an in a handsome case, also printed in Damascus, and some other Arabic editions (mostly hadith) from Saudi Arabia, but I don't have the Dara'l-fikr edition of Tabari. You are fortunate! Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing those Tabari quotes.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

*Hears the frantic sounds of digging as 'watcher' desperately moves the goalposts yet again*

I also find 'watcher's statement alleging that many here do no have jobs quite amusing, considering it was made on a Saturday afternoon. That and the fact that a great many of the posters here are in England, Europe, Africa, Asia.... just can't make that 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant(and unemployed)' label stick any longer, can you, UnAmerican?

It would appear that Islam has a Scripture where everyone gets to pull a Rabbit out of the Hat.

Everybody is right and wrong at the same time.

It goes without saying, no matter what is the truth within it's teaching. The end result is rubbing the Nerves and the Patience of 75% of the Planets Inhabitants.

Mr. Spencer's writings may seem to be like hitting a Nail with a Sledgehammer. But what could you expect when trying to set them in the Cement of Denial?

American/Watcher/Rick S./Chris:

Go ahead and post the Arabic, please, from your Beirut edition of Tabari, so that we can see exactly what it says, but I will now stop teasing you about your tall tales about your library. Let's talk about the matter at hand. The quote you need is actually in the SUNY edition of Tabari in vol. XI, "The Challenge to the Empires," p. 141.

It says that Abu Bakr's 2nd wife "bore him 'Abd al-Rahman and 'A'ishah. All of these four of his children were born in Al-Jahiliyyah from his two wives whom we have named."

This is the major support for Armstrong's case and yours. Yet in The Truth About Muhammad I reported that Aisha was nine, and didn't mention this. Was this because I was selecting the accounts that made the case I wanted to make, as you claim? No. It is because I wanted to provide an accurate portrayal of how mainstream Muslims see Muhammad. Armstrong, and you, dismiss all the evidence that she was nine, primarily because you don't want it to be so. Yet testimony that she was nine appears in Bukhari, which Muslims consider the leading hadith collection, as well as in Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, An-Nasai, and Ibn Majah -- that is, five of the six hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable (Sahih Sittah).

Islamic theologians will tell you that Tabari does not take precedence over any of those, and in any case, Tabari also records she was nine, in several places -- which multiplicity of testimony indicates a multiplicity of sources, which for Islamic theologians adds a presumption of reliability. The assertion that she was nine also appears in the sira of Ibn Ishaq, as well as in that of Ibn Kathir (I never did get that Ibn Kathir reference from you, by the way.)

Stack up all that, and place against it that Tabari says in one place that Aisha was born in the time of Jahiliyyah. Let's assume that by the time of Jahiliyyah Tabari meant the period before 610, and add in the other scattered passages that suggest -- although none of them ever say directly -- that she was older than nine. Even then you don't have a case, since the testimony of the Sahih Sittah is so overwhelmingly in favor of her having been nine.

Then there is the evidence from the Islamic world, which you dismiss as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but which I maintain clearly stems from Muhammad's status as uswa hasana. There is also evidence that mainstream Muslims today believe she was nine -- contrary to your claim. I gave you one above, and now here is more. In al-Mubarakpuri's biography of Muhammad, "The Sealed Nectar," which won first prize in a Muslim World League competition for a biography of Muhammad in 1979 (ooh, 1979), it says this of Aisha: "She was six years old when he married her. However, he did not consummate the marriage with her till Shawwal seven months after Al-Hijra, and that was in Madinah. She was nine then" (p. 483).

Why does al-Mubarakpuri think this? Was he an "Islamophobe"? Why didn't he credit these scraps from Tabari as trumping the testimony of Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nasai and Ibn Majah? Because that is not how Islamic theology works. The Sahih Sittah have much more weight than Tabari. And that is why in The Truth About Muhammad I reported that Islamic tradition says Aisha was nine. That is also why in that book, as well as in the Financial Times, I charge Armstrong with misrepresenting Tabari by saying that he says the marriage wasn't consummated until she reached puberty, which he never says at all.

Was Aisha nine when the marriage was consummated? I don't know and I don't care. All I care about is what Muslims believe about it, and how that belief affects their actions today. There is abundant evidence that Islamic tradition says she was nine, much more clearly, more often, and in more authoritative sources than those that suggest (but never state) that she was older. There is abundant evidence that all too many Muslims worldwide are acting on that belief and marrying children.

On the basis of all that, I call upon Muslims not to deny that Muhammad's example supports this behavior, but to admit that, and reject him as a literal example to be followed in this particular (as well as others, but that's another story). You then come along and charge me with ignorance for saying that the Islamic sources say she was nine, and assert that Muslims don't really believe this. Well, I have now given you evidence from the Islamic sources and from the behavior of Muslims today that many do. Denial is not what we need -- honest reform is what we need. You are not aiding in this effort; rather, you are obstructing it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I suppose Watcher is the latest in a long line of apologists who comes here, then quickly gets out of his depth.

Mr. Spencer, a question if I may: UnAmerican / Watcher is apparently scared by the fact that the book he prefers to quote from, was published in 1979. I find it curious that that particular publication came out just in time for the Jihadist revolution that swept Iran. In fact a Lot of the muslim terrorist movement seems to have taken off during that year (yes, guys, I Know the history of the movement goes back to the Muslim Brotherhood beginnings. (and further)). Could that just be a coincidence, or something planned as a way of downplaying what they were doing?

Thank you, Robert Spencer. I've learned a lot from reading your replies.

Does anybody know if there are any references to pedophilia in the Bible. I know that incest, at least in one episode (Lot and his daughters), seems to be condoned, but am not sure if there is any mention of pedophilia. Can anyone enlighten me ?

Watcher/An American-

Occam's Razor is a principle that says the most direct (and often the simplest) solution to a problem is usually the strongest.

(I.E.- check the lock on the gate before you bother to climb over the fense.)

If Aisha says she was 6 when Mo "married" her (as reported in the most "trusted" Hadith accounts, Bukhari, et al), and that she 9 when he "consummated" the "marriage", Occam would say, trust the person directly involved in the incident over any later commentators, who may have agendas at work.

I trust Aisha to know how old she was.

Arguing against her testimony is excusological contortionism.

Always entertaining, but rarely convincing.

More to the point: Mohammad was a slave-holding warlord who approved of assassinating those who mocked him in poetry (Asma Bint Marwan) and of conquering the world to spread his understanding of "Allah".

If you agree with this impulse, just say it openly. Slave-holding is "good" -forever- because Mo did it. Forcing other people into submission to your "religion" or serfdom, or death, is "good". Forcing captive women to "marry" you is "good". Marrying up to 4 women is "good". Considering a woman as worth only half of a man is "good".

If you believe this, say it. Openly.

Stop tap-dancing.

Because I despise all of it and will oppose it.

Muslims can rotate around the Ka'aba for another 1400 years for all I care, but once they intrude into Civilization, they either have to give up this dark age idiocy, or be driven to backtheir own zones of barbarism.

Where they can beat their 4 wives, chop off thieves hands, behead heretics, marry 9 year old girls, kill their sisters for "honor", have contempt for all other religions, and generally wallow in viciousness and ignorance and smugness and silliness.

Good luck.

But leave us out of it.

Or suffer the consequences as infidels rouse from their slumbers.

(Too slowly, for my taste, but it will come.)

Nice try with the "you do it too".
All moslems bring up Lot and Matthew 10.

Nice try with the "you do it too".
All moslems bring up Lot and Matthew 10.

I knew this forum was anti-islam. I didn't know it was pro-christian. What's wrong with asking a question ?

"What's wrong with asking a question ?"

How disingenuous of you.

Just imagine: Having made your comments, fighting in your small way for the cause of "allah", you are that much closer to your houris in your "paradise". Nicely done. /s

I don't believe in houris in my paradise. Nor do I believe in Paradise. And I am not fighting my "Jihad". Sorry to disappoint your paranoiac mind. Any answers? anyone ? You can say yes or no.

"Does anybody know if there are any references to pedophilia in the Bible. I know that incest, at least in one episode (Lot and his daughters), seems to be condoned, but am not sure if there is any mention of pedophilia. Can anyone enlighten me ?"
Posted by: sublimer

Reposting from another thread, just for you, sublimer:

There is a vast difference between what the Bible reports and what it approves. David committed adultery, but the report of this does not sanction this or absolve him of punishment.

Not so with the Qur'an. Muhammad is reported to be the model of conduct, therefore his every vice IS sanctioned as halal.

Next, you should compare the character of Jesus of Nazareth and Muhammad. Jesus did not marry, nor did he marry a six year old. IF a Hebrew prophet did, that doesn't make it OK, because the Bible does not say the prophets were without sin or the eternal model of conduct in all affairs. It does say that about Jesus, and the Qur'an says that about Muhammad, so start your comparison of the two faiths there.

The Bible reports that Lot, in a drunken stupor, was seduced by his daughters, who, having lost faith in God after the destruction of Sodom, thought their only chance of bearing children was through their father. (Genesis 19:30-36)

This was clearly not condoned, as these unions produced the detestable Moabites, who conceived the grotesque "god" Chemosh, and were punished by David in 2 Samual 8:2, with two thirds of them slain, the rest made subject with required tribute paid.

Deuteronomy 27:20 "Cursed is the man who sleeps with his father's wife, for he dishonors his father's bed."
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"
21 "Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal."
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"
22 "Cursed is the man who sleeps with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother."
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"
23 "Cursed is the man who sleeps with his mother-in-law."
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"

Also Leviticus 20:17-21

Regarding Matthew 10, I assume you are referring to verses 14-15, which only says the sin of rejecting the Gospel is worse than even heinous sins such as committed in Sodom and Gomorrah, not that those sins will be treated lightly.

No, the Bible does not directly address pedophilia. It does contain the principles to properly judge and condemn it, however.

http://www.gotquestions.org/pedophilia.html

Concerned Citizen:

Great reply to that question, I was about to say something similar but not nearly as well produced as yours. This is a clear distinction between Christianity and Islam, in Christianity the facts of the time were reported, but in Islam everything is reported with the view that it should be followed and repeated forever.

Payingattention,

Thanks. The problem with the Qur'an is its single author was egocentric and declared himself (vicariously through "Allah") above reproach and a model of conduct to be emulated for all time. As all the exploits regard a single individual whose actions are condoned implicitly or explicitly (with exceptions such as the "Satanic Verses" incident), all of the narratives become plausible positive guidance or even imperatives for future votaries.

"Watcher/Rick S./Chris/antiAmerican/..." here are a few more appropriate online names befitting of your intellectual abilities and true character - "Wimpy", "Milksop", just plain "Weak",
"islamofascist apologist",

LOL and this is why the closest thing to an actual debate Robert can get with Karen is back to back gigs on C-span. What was her excuse for not debating Robert face to face? ..... was it "I don't deal in hystaria." What a cope out. She doesn't debate Robert, because she knows in her heart he is right and he will expose her for the fraud that she has become. Well luckily people can see her chicken !@$& way of having a debate behind someones back. This only solidifies Robert more. I got into a debate with a real lefty over this topic and they lost so horribly that they resorted to assulting one of Roberts books, which I was quoting from. I laughed out loud at them for that typical leftist responce to defeat. See I had a huge advantage. I have read both ... and being the good liberal that they were ... they don't deal in hystaria ..., so they only read Karen's book HAHAHA. I offered to lend my books to them and they angrily refused. So I responded by saying, "Fine stay ignorant then." LOL.

Thanks for your answer concerned citizen. I didn't mention Matthew 10 though. Someone else did. Although I should say that Muhammad never declared himself above reproach. That's one of the differences between Christianity and Islam. Muhammad did not even know if he was going to heaven or not. In Islam, he is not a god but a simple man. A lot of the jihadis try to emulate him, it is true, but there is also a big tradition of the emulation of Christ in Christianity. That's why Catholic priests do not marry, and this has also had negative effects, one of which brings us to today's topic : pedophilia. Anyone who tries to emulate an ideal of perfection ends up falling on his nose, I'd say.

About Matthew 10:34
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Moslems always bring this verse up to claim Jesus was war-like.
You and I know Jesus was referring to families split because of faith in Him. It reads,
35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Robert said

Denial is not what we need -- honest reform is what we need. You are not aiding in this effort; rather, you are obstructing it.

Based on the replies of Watcher, and other Muslims and Muslim apologists, here and on other arenas; and based on the quotations of Muslim leaders in the mainstream media; and based on the words and actions of Muslim spokespersons on television and in the courtroom; and based on the actions of the jihadists and the Islamic quotations they use to justify their actions;

And based on the absence of any substantial refutation of the objectionable (mainstream) interpretations of the Qur'an and the ahadith;

I have lost whatever hope I had that Islam would be able to reform itself for the next few generations at least, if ever. I have lost hope that there can be an honest Muslim/non-Muslim dialogue about Islam (or to be honest, about any other subject), for the next few generations, if ever.

The prognosis is bleak, but by no means hopeless. In fact it has given me much hope to read the frank discussion of Islam by the first honest pundit I have come across, Robert Spencer. If someone such as he can present these issues so clearly and objectively, and if his statements are proven true as often as they are, and if he can so adroitly deal with the common "debating" tactics of Muslims, then it is just a question of time before our "leaders" in politics and the media come around to reality. Just as in the leadup to WWII, it took many years, and endless debate, before we finally, after exhausting all the alternatives, did the right thing, as Churchill put it.

A most heartfelt thank you to Mr. Spencer, for continuing to persevere on this most thankless task.

Yes, "special_guest" - prior to 9/11, I never thought about Muslims, I don't know if I had even ever said the word "Muslim"! I remember in art history class a day or so was spent on Islamic art which is non-representational (for the most part). That is all. My world was USA/Western Europe.

I had a lot to learn. Most Americans had a lot to learn about Islam and Muhammed. Now I know so much, still need to know more and plan on doing so. JW is a huge education and one finds similar people who see with the same clear vision about the Islamic threat.

Hey sublimer- you're obviously a Muslim. Oh, come on, Muhammed was a megalomaniac. In the Qur'an he's always got allah saying "yeah, you better obey the Apostle, too, or hellfire be upon you!" There are NO comparisons between Christianity and Islam - total opposites. Christ is love, Muhammed is hate, end of story. P.S. you're very far from being "sublime" - are you a megalomaniac, too, in emulation of your plagiarist "prophet?"

God you've got stamina, Robert.

And I was wrong to ban him. He is most useful. A most useful addition to the exhibition.

darcy,

Please produce some arguments instead of simply saying oh you are a Muslim so you're obviously lying. You've never heard of Islam before 911 !!! Where do you live ???? And now you learned so much ?? And from JW no less. Wow. If you really want to learn about Muslim culture, I urge to stick your head from the ground and go visit a Muslim country. Maybe R. Spencer can give you some tips.

Hugh

You've gotta be kidding. Naseem & Abdullah, I can understand. With Abdullah, he says here what Muslims say on Islamic sites, so that there isn't the two faced aspect to weed out. Naseem brings out the point that jihadi violence aside, a peaceful Islamization of the West and the East is another supremacist goal. But with this character, what you have is an assorted collection of denials, tu Quoque rebuttals, and citations from spurious sources. While the exercise on this thread has been instructive, I don't agree that he conveys the same exposure to the mind of a Muslim in the way the other two do.

Yeah Hugh,

One JW watcher : Ban the moderate and let the two other extremists express themselves.

Next JW watcher : why are there no moderates in the Muslim world ?

sublimer,

A moderate in denial, whose concerted denial is serving to enable the problem of extremism, is not a true moderate, but a pseudo-moderate. As Spencer put it when he wrote, above, to that particular moderate:

"Denial is not what we need -- honest reform is what we need. You are not aiding in this effort; rather, you are obstructing it."

Robert Spencer should publish a book of his debates.

Debates are often more dramatic and fascinating than straight prose exposition. And it might be great for Robert Spencer to publish not only debates with public intellectuals, like D'Souza and Armstrong, but perhaps any instructive debate, such as the one with An American/Rick/Chris/Watcher. Debates also have the virtue of attracting the attention of various adversaries who might normally be inclined to steer away from Spencer's books.

After all, everyone loves to watch a contest, right? A race, a boxing match, the Olympics, etc., can attract huge audiences.

I think Robert's exposition of Watcher/An American above is instructive and worthwhile.

From what I've seen, Islam apologists are almost always bluffing, presenting themselves as highly confident and knowledgeable about Islam, while denigrating their opponents as 'ignorant,' 'Islamophobes,' etc. Then, when solid arguments and evidence are presented, they get desperate, use smokescreens and deflections, start hurling insults, or just leave to seek refuge in more comfortable environments.

With someone like Watcher, who appears to be very focussed on capturing Robert's and Hugh's attention and time, one has to be careful. It is possible, I believe, that Watcher's recent shenanigans above are little more than attempts to tie up the JW members and posters rather than engage in real debate.

What is remarkable, though not unique, about Watcher is the sheer contempt that he displays for the entire process of inquiry, where he seems to believe he can claim whatever he feels to be correct without ever having to stoop to the task of having to support his claims with evidence.

Hey sublimer,

This may be tough for Muslims to digest, but the truth is most of us in the West paid no attention to Islam before 9/11. Islam had zero effect on the world we lived in, there was no reason to understand it or care about it one way or the other. Islam was irrelevant.

What has made it relevant today is not force of ideas or the attractiveness of its civilization. Rather, it is the constant violence and vitriol directed against the West, which with 9/11 finally became too destructive to ignore.

There are enough Muslims in the West that most of us don't need to go visit Islamic countries to understand their mindset. And there are now plenty of translations available (through MEMRI in particular) of what is being said about the West, in the native tongue, which one would never be privy to just visiting.

"You've gotta be kidding. Naseem & Abdullah, I can understand."
-- from a posting above

Here, on this thread, he has been useful as an exhibit which can be examined at leisure. Elsewhere, I admit, he hasn't been -- which is why I banned him. And Robert unbanned him because he felt I was being too harsh.

Horse. Makes. That's. What. Races.

Hi materialguy,

You must know by now that sites like Memri and Jihad Watch only select the negative sides aboput Islam and post them. If you're going to learn about Islam from those two sources, you are really getting a biased and skewed knowledge. What I am atelling you is not an insult to Memri or JW. They both acknowledge the fact that they're in the business of tracking down jihadi activities. Good for them. what they don't do is list all the positive (or for that matter ordinary stuff) that comes from all different Muslim cultures. If you want to learn about the political objectives of Jihadis, then do come hear. If you want to learn about Islam, this site will not help a lot. The best would be to visit an Islamic country or learn Arabic and watch Arabic TV for yourself.

sublimer said

The best would be to visit an Islamic country or learn Arabic and watch Arabic TV for yourself.

Best if we learned Arabic, memorized the Qur'an (in Arabic), and submitted to the will of Allah? Yeah, we'll get right on that.

sublimer-

Do you criticize a doctor for only concentrating on illness?

The healthy aspect of Muslims are irrelevant.

That's not what is attacking the West.

As I mentioned elsewhere, Hitler liked dogs and cream cakes, but neither FDR nor Churchill were concerned about these aspects of his character.

This site is concerned with violent jihad as a specialized subject.

It doesn't need to consider what does not threatened us.

As a phsyician does not look at your four other healthy toes if only one has a roofing nail shot through it.

The jihad is like a roofing nail driven through one of our toes.

We're trying to prevent the rest from following suit.

By derailing this tyrannical, terroristic strain of Islam. (Rooted deep in many Koranic verses - Sura 9:5, 9:29-30, et al.)

If Muslims want peace, they need to disavow, delegitimize and even kill the militant, despotic jihadists.

If, however, they agree with the aims of the jihadists and also want a theocratic world gulag, then they need to openly and honestly support the violent jihad.

I wish the "moderates" were as honest as the Bin Ladens.

Right now, I suspect their diffidence to be, at best, passive acquiesence, and, at worst, silent agreement.

special_guest,

No you idiot. Learn Arabic and go to an Muslim country so you can broaden your narrow mind and see what's really going out there, instead of simply accepting what Robert Spencer is spoon feeding you. You can submit yourself to allah or spencer, I don't really give 2 f**k's. I am just encouraging you to educate yourself a little - through your own will.

"Do you criticize a doctor for only concentrating on illness?"

If the doctor, to cure somebody's cancer, decides to shoot the patient ? yes. That's what most people here are doing. The Amalgam between jihadi (cancer) and islam (patient) is a favorite sport.

That's what makes horse races. Do I get an A!

A plus.

"The Amalgam between jihadi (cancer) and islam (patient) is a favorite sport."

Actually, the prevalent sport throughout the West is the exact opposite: the dominant and mainstream paradigm under which most Western academics, journalists, politicians, pundits and artists (along with millions of ordinary people) operate requires the absolute separation of jihad (cancer) and Islam (patient) -- in order to keep Islam blameless while at the same time isolating and localizing a tiny minority of extremists who have "hijacked" Islam without deriving any substantial inspiration or motivation or support from that same blameless wonderful Islam.

So actually sites like Jihad Watch and Memri represent a very small minority of alternative news & analysis, collecting data and offering interpretations with an eye to opening up a discussion about a possible "amalgam" between jihad and Islam and its consequences, amid an overwhelmingly dominant climate of political correctness that tends to inhibit and marginalize such discussion.

"If you want to learn about Islam, this site will not help a lot. The best would be to visit an Islamic country or learn Arabic and watch Arabic TV for yourself."
-- from a propagandist for Islam above

What makes you think we haven't visited Arab countries, or other Muslim countries? What makes you think we can't monitor what is in the Arab and Muslim press, radio, television? What makes you think we are incapable of attending Outrreach Nights at mosques, or to appear at all sorts of phony interfaith "dialogues" to participate, or to take notes, or to tape? What makes you think we are unable to talk to the growing number of defectors from Islam -- those who were born through no fault of their own into Islam, and raised in families or societies or countries suffused with Islam, and yet managed to escape from this Total System? What makes

Clap - Clap - Clap - Oh goodie! Me so smart.

Hugh,

Maybe you've done all that stuff. That does not stop everyone else in the forum from visiting an Arabic country or if you already learn Arabic that does not stop everyone else from learning Arabic. Everybody has a right to knowledge. With all my respects, I think this site is called Jihad watch so your focus (Robert Spencer repeats this during his debates) is the Jihadi phenomenon in Muslim culture. If people want to learn about other aspects of Muslim culture (movies, music, art, etc.), maybe they should go to another site or - why limit ourselves to the virtual world - a different country. Don't you think ?

How can someone be "debated" when they harbor only pre-disposed contempt for the opposition? When there is no heartfelt, honest search for truth, or at least common understanding, how can a discussion evolve into something meaningful? It cannot. The absence of such sentiment and disposition is immediately obvious, even after reading only a few words in a post. Ostensibly Muslim writers, especially those who believe their intellect to be superior, usually stand out for what they are: hagglers and quibblers, arguing only for the sake of arguing (knowing that neither side will cave) and continuing a fine tradition of ancient Araby.

Thank you Mr Spencer for your implacable and zealous work.

sublimer, that namecalling is not nice. And actually it was my plan after college (many years ago now) to go on a bicycle ride from Casablanca to Algiers, but my French tutor, an Algerian woman, talked me out of it for my own safety. She had some hair-raising stories that helped explain why she was so eager to leave there.

Nowadays, if and when I have money for travelling, it will be to countries that do not want me dead (there's alot of them). But that's just me. If someone wants to experience the excitement and frivolity of the Gaza Strip, or experience true Islamic hospitality by visiting Mecca as an infidel, go for it. I'm no provincial xenophobe, but personally I think I've spent enough time on your cr*p religion.

from profitsbeard:

"If Muslims want peace, they need to disavow, delegitimize and even kill the militant, despotic jihadists."

Very well said. I would only add the need for Muslims to similarly address and reject the rapidly growing pool of radical imams and "scholars".

Sublimer- we know what you are saying, perhaps in an effort to find some reassurance that not everyone here is diametrically opposed to Islamism, or is without any consideration of other cultures minus the nasy bits. But in spite of the now celebrated and magnificent culure of traditional Japan, how many Americans do you think cared about this before or after Pearl Harbor? Doubtless their ignorance of same was comparable to that of Islam prior to 9.11 Regretably, this has not changed much since then.

As Hugh suggests, you should not make assumptions about where anyone here has or has not traveled, based on only a few sentences. As another poster said, any ME travel is irrelevant to the issue of jihad and its basis in the Koran and ahadith. There is no countering the "bad news" with "good news". When a gun is pointed at your head you don't care if the triggerman gives to charity or restores old Airstream trailers. Get real.

"The Amalgam between jihadi (cancer) and islam (patient) is a favorite sport." --sublimer

Supremacist Islam is a cancer alright, but for the most part afflicting Non-Muslims.

In fact the only times when mainstream Muslims (aka 'moderate' Muslims; the ones we hear so much ABOUT from so little FROM) seem to take much notice is when other Muslims die by radical actions (such as with the bombing of the wedding in Jordan). THEN there is outrage, protest, etc. This is in line with the strict prohibition against killing fellow Muslims in the Koran.

But when "Infidels" are targeted and killed there is hardly a peep out of that vast middle Islam we keep hearing about. And this is also in line with Koranic teaching which degrades and dehumanizes Non-Islamic life and belief.

This duality is not an accident. It was constructed this way, to reward followers/believers and punish non-followers/non-believers. The love and compassion therein is reserved for fellow members, fellow Muslims. The hate and intolerance is directed outward at those who resist, those who have their own way and do not want or need Allah's suffocating bear hug.

"Believe It Or Else!" is a fitting motto for Islam.

make that: 'moderate' Muslims; the ones we hear so much ABOUT *but* so little FROM.

The very first thing Sarcozy should do is outlaw Islam in France. Confiscate all land and holdings held in the name of Islam (schools, mosques etc., as being against the norms of French society. Use the money then to create a task force employing French citizens to report Islamic activity. Any person cought bowing on a rug, washing thier feet, in posession of a Qur'an etc. should be deported to the country of thier nearest anscestry.

sublimer

At least 80% of Muslims worldwide don't know Arabic - other than what some of them might have memorized of the Quran. Between Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and India, you have some 60% of the world's Muslim population. Granted, Arabic is taught in Pakistan, but even there, it's not a vernacular language - that country's language is Urdu. Bangladesh broke away in 1971 due to language issues - they didn't want Bengali replaced by Urdu, or start using the Arabic script. Similarly, in Malaysia, Malay ethnicity is the vehicle used to enforce Islam, but for all its devotion to Islam, Malays don't speak Arabic. Neither do Indonesian Muslims.

We revile Ibrahim Hooper and Abu Abdullah as much as we revile, say, Mahmud Abbas or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He speaks English - we have no problems understanding him. We have the same problems with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Bosnia, Albania... none of these countries are Arabic speaking. The Serbs have a problem with the Albanians because the latter are Muslims, but those problems aren't due to the Serbs not knowing Arabic. The Indians have a problem with the Pakistanis despite knowing Urdu (and the Pakis aren't too shabby at Hindi either).

Let's take my example. Personally, I have a very low opinion of Bangladesh. They don't speak Arabic, so my knowing Arabic wouldn't do squat for me. Is it because I don't know Bengali? Nope! It's because not only are they Islamic, but their Mohammedan losers are infiltrating into India, and have already made West Bengal - the part that Bengali Hindus fled to post independence - into a shithole. Those who recongize this problem with Bangladesh aren't going to be more empathical towards Dhaka just because of their enhanced linguistic skills.

sublimer said

If the doctor, to cure somebody's cancer, decides to shoot the patient ?

You don't get it, do you? We have read the Qur'an. Not as spoon fed to us by Robert Spencer, but as published by mainstream Islamic sources. We have read the ahadith. It is truly repulsive stuff. I can honestly say that I've never read any book, fiction or non-fiction, or seen any movie or play, that can measure up in brutality or depravity. Islam IS the cancer. The words and deeds of Muhammad are the method of transmission.

You came to tell us that there is only some small core group of "extremist" Muslims who have twisted a noble religion of peace. Well, news flash: that is the story that has been spoon-fed to us for the past several decades. That is the interpretation that we are all too familiar with.

sublimer,
I've traveled and worked (primarily in Jordan, Sudan, and Israel) and became "educated" very quickly on the nuances of Islamic culture. I saw unbelieveable (to my Western eyes) poverty and human degradation in the Islamic countries.

The Israeli section of Tel Aviv was modern and clean with businesses and entertainment, while the adjacent Islamic area was dirty, and run-down with beggars, street hustlers, grafitti and covered women.

sublimer:
Of course there are some lovely things and people in Muslim countries. And, just maybe, they have of late been making some very modest progress here and there in terms of human rights and religious freedoms.

But the fact remains that the Muslim-majority nations of the world, on the whole (i.e., with some exceptions), lag behind every other region of the world in terms of civil liberties and political rights. (See the "2006 analysis" at Freedomhouse.org. Freedom house monitors, imperfectly, every nation and territory in the world in terms of civil liberties and political rights.)

To me, the fact that Muslim-majority cultures have been so resistant to freedom -- though there are signs of a modest progress here and there, which may yet be reversed -- is very troubling when one notices that the Muslim population of the West is growing so rapidly. You seem to underrate the importance of such facts. You are what I would consider "soft on totalitarianism." You seem to have no allergic reaction, as it were, to growing potentials for authoritarianism and theocratic intimidation where Muslims congregate in sufficiently large numbers.

Even in liberal democratic societies there always seem to be plenty of people around who take for granted and are ignorant of what is required to maintain civil liberties and religious freedom and political rights, people who feel no special alarm toward collectivist movements such as communism or Islam. So many were soft on communism, seeing no special danger in it, even when the dirt on it was so visible. My grandfather for the longest time didn't see that Stalin had been one of the hugest mass murderers in history. And similarly today, many refuse to see the dangerous totalitarianism that is a significant part of the core of Islam. Worse, Islam is arguably far more dangerous than communism, when one considers Islam's human, financial, psychological and other resources, and its techniques and habits of disinformation, deception and domination vis-a-vis non-Muslims. Look how far Islam has gotten in Europe, and yet many people there are still asleep to it! But the French have just elected Sarkozy, so perhaps they are waking.

traeh,

Although I thought your post the most considerate and the smartest, I thought I could challenge you re a sentence in your post :
"To me, the fact that Muslim-majority cultures have been so resistant to freedom --"

Can you tell me what freedom is ?

Ameriki,

You probably don't know that Sarkozy was the one who tried to institutionalize Islam in France. Read this excerpt from his this entry in wikipedia :

"Religion and state

Sarkozy, a Catholic, has caused controversy because of his views on the relationship between religion and state. In 2004, he published a book called La République, les religions, l'espérance (“The Republic, Religions, and Hope”),[27] in which he argued that the young should not be brought up solely on secular or republican values. He also advocated reducing the separation of church and state, arguing for the government subsidy of mosques in order to encourage Islamic integration into French society.[28][29] He flatly opposes financing of religious institutions with funds from outside France. After meeting with Tom Cruise, Sarkozy was criticized by some for meeting with a member of the Church of Scientology, which is classified as a dangerous sect in France.[30]"

I think its rather ironic that 'An American'/watcher/Rick/Chris has blasted people on here a number of times for "not knowing Arabic," yet when Robert or someone else posts and discusses in Arabic, or asks him to do so, he mysteriously disappears from the thread. This has happened on at least three occasions that I have observed. Then we have the arrival of 'sublimer' who suddenly wants to shift the subject to Christian theology in a weak attempt to build some sort of moral equivalence. Last time I checked, this is not a Christian site, nor are the topics Christian-centric. I am not a Christian, and I doubt that posters with names like 'Jewdog' or 'Arjun Sevak' are either, although I'm sure many other posters here are. But we are not here to discuss Christian dogma. This is Jihadwatch. Trying to shift the focus to Christian theology is pure trolling, and should be dealt with as such.

Abu Allah,

Have you ever heard of comparative analysis ? Maybe not. Let's just concentrate our hatred with the narrowest mind possible. Oh, this is Jihad Watch ? So let's focus on Militant Jihad instead of doing an amalgam between Militant Jihad and Islam or Muslim Culture. Since that's what you like, we can narrow our minds a little bit more. Ignorance is bliss. Mmmmmmm.

Okay then, why limit ourselves to a 'narrow minded' discussion of Islam and Christianity? Why not a full and thorough comparative analysis between Islam and Buddhism? Anything to shift the focus of inquiring minds away from the motivations behind and goals of the global jihad and Islamic supremacy. The important thing is to ignore the jihad and thereby "keep an open mind." After all, we're all really the same anywhere you go, right? Regular moms and dads in Iraq want the exact same things we do right? Thats what the president says, right? Ignorance is indeed bliss.

Abu Allah,

Enlighten me. what do Iraqi moms and dads want? What do American dads and moms want ? If you care to expound, please contrast and compare Islam and Buddhism.

Sublimer-

Freedom is living under a social order or state where you are at ease to express yourself in terms of interaction with others, religion, learning and other aspects of what humans are and do. It means not having to worry about persecution or prosecution because you believe differently than your fellow citizens, and that these rights are guaranteed. People being people, the system is upset from time to time (wars and other emergencies) but the general principle remains understood and unwavering. This "condition" is the result of much sacrifice of comfort and blood.

Islam, as currently practiced by a large number of its adherents, is in opposition to these ideas. It is made more so by the hateful offerings of many imams who see a global umma as the only goal worth pursuing and the only way there will be "peace."

Can you reconcile these two conflicting worldviews, recognizing that the choice is between compromise or one side being defeated?

Lycaste,

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. You say "This "condition" is the result of much sacrifice of comfort and blood."

Do you think that the tumultuous period in Islam will mean that it will bring about more liberty later on ?

I completely agree with your definition of freedom. However would you say that the average American is free in the sense that we are most of the times following our desires and ambitions and not necessarily our will. we are constantly asked to buy the new i pod or the new song by so and so or to watch the new show starring some sex symbol. I think what I am trying to get to here is two different visions of liberty in both the West and Islam.

In the West, people say that Muslims are not free because they cannot express their political ideas or practice whatever religion that suits them. In a lot of Muslim countries this is true. (I say a lot because I try to avoid generalizations. There are also other countries where you can criticize your leader and can change your religion without being prosecuted).

In Islam, people say that Westerners are not free because they are enchained by their own desires. They think they are free because they can buy anything they want, but this at the end of the day does not get you happiness. It is a way of filling a void with material means. Bush himself urged Americans to do their part of the war by going shopping.

By the way, I don't think this is Muslim point of view per se. I think a lot of Christians think the same. I would say it is religious, and people in Muslim countries happen to be more religious than in the West.

I guess the perfect symbiosis would combine the two forms of freedom. We can say whatever we want and at the same time not be led and encouraged to confuse freedom with the necessity to satisfy our desires. I believe they are two different things.

Are you French by the way ?

"There are also other countries where you can criticize your leader and can change your religion without being prosecuted)...."

Posted by: sublimer

...but not in Muslim dominated countries....

sublimer,

Freedom, as the concept has come to be understood in the modern West, embodies two crucial features:

1) maximum allowance for individual freedom possible within a context of the collective need for social order;

and

2) a sociopolitico-legal framework endowed with power to guarantee, as much as possible, equal rights for all individuals (with individual rights inclusive of any individual's membership in groups that contribute to that individual's self-perceived appetites and dignity).

With regard to feature #1, it revolves around a central conviction of the modern West: respect for the individual to pursue his or her own life under his or her own terms, whether that means wasting life in trivial or self-destructive behaviors or whether that means doing more socially and spiritually important and noble things with one's life.

This conviction, in turn, is based upon another conviction that is the fruit of centuries of blood, sweat and tears, personal, social and political arguments, acrimony, violence and outright wars in recent Western history since the 16th century: no individual or group of individuals should force their beliefs of what the "truth" is onto another individual or group of individuals. This is not an absolute or perfect conviction: but it has become a superior value which modern Western societies try to encourage and cultivate and protect as much as possible, given the tension of the competing interests (of order and morality) of society at large. The modern West has learned the hard way the truth that no religion represents an easily accessible, non-paradoxical verbatim transcription of God's laws, and the attempt, therefore, of trying to concretize such a religion in sociopolitico-legal existence constitutes a threat not only to the individual, but also to social order and morality. And furthermore, proponents of such a religion are either deluded or lying when they claim their dictates are superior because they are not human, but divine, since such direct and perfect access to God's mind is not possible, according to modern Western wisdom. To the modern West (once it recovers its senses from the PC virus that currently blurs its vision), then, Islam itself -- to the extent that it must express itself politico-legally and geopolitically -- is Fitna: it is dangerous and immoral disorder in the land.

As for feature #2 above, I would direct your attention to a very revealing inability of representatives of the vast majority of Muslim nations to accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as expressed in their clever proposition of an alternative declaration (the Cairo Declaration of 1990) that cleverly and subtly undermines the essence of human rights as the modern West has come to understand them, as analyzed in the following article:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus30816.htm

Another free college-level course by the fine posters of JW....
It's just like all of a sudden being able to look at those "Magic Eye" paintings, and every single time being able to see the sailboat, without even trying very hard.

sublimer's most recent post is so instructive and typical of the way a person who clings unconsciously to a totalitarian dogma would express himself.

Take the little turns of the phrases...there is no way he could be mistaken for anyone but a Muslim or an apologist with his nose so deep that he might as well be.

"I completely agree with your definition of freedom. However would you say that the average American is free in the sense that we are most of the times following our desires and ambitions and not necessarily our will."

"I completely agree..." (Debate device used to set up agreement for the sentiment that follows that completely refutes or is a non sequitur to the prior argument)

"...free in the sense..." (completely not understanding the concept of freedom, as if there is freedom only where it is granted to us by someone else, not that it is a divinely given and inalienable right)

"average American....most of the times (sic)following our desires and ambitions and not necessarily our will." (Now, I will concede that there may be some vernacular/English language issues at play here, but taken at face value, sublimer seems to hold that "desire" and "ambition" are inately at odds with freedom, and that "our will." (sic) is an opposite thing.)

It's as if "our will." could refer to "the Ummah", or perhaps "our (individual) sense of responsibility and obligation", or even God's (Allah's) will. But where I come from, "will" is an individual trait, innate to those who are born free. The way he writes this phrase, one can see how indoctrinated the Muslim mind is, that even freedom can be casually transmuted somehow into a love of material acquisition and hedonism, as well as an American (Western) inability to follow "our will", which the writer may mean to be our obligations. Further, I find the confusion over the use of the word "will" funny, because those who follow Islam, as proper submitters, have no "will", except for that which is imposed upon them.

He poses paragraph four as if it isn't a problem that people can't speak or act or practice religion freely, then poses paragraph five as an opposite viewpoint, when in fact, it is a non sequitur (another frequent Islamic rhetorical tactic). In six, he posits their moral equivalancy and then trots out the "all religious folks...(can be terrorists, marry children, are pedophiles, subjugate their women, etc.)"...in this case, dislike a lack of moral discipline.

"Do you think that the tumultuous period in Islam will mean that it will bring about more liberty later on ?"

This is a typical third-party responsibility rhetorical statement that is often used by criminals or perpetrators who (pathalogically) cannot admit their own culpability: i.e. 'I'm sorry that cop got shot.' or 'I regret you were offended by that.' or 'I'm sorry that happened.' Why is it tumultuous, do you think? Could it be that there is a rash of terroristic activity and abhorrant human rights violations committed by Muslims against Muslims and others? Or, do you think he means a tumultuous assault on Islam by ignorant infidels? Oh, it's all just so tumultuous...what to do?

Closing with the opening: "You say 'This "condition" is the result of much sacrifice of comfort and blood.'"

sublimer, if you think that hiding in the hills of Pakistan and Afghanistan and fighing coalition occupiers, both of which satisfy the sacrifice of comfort and blood, will somehow result in a glorious erution of Islamic liberty and freedom, dream on. Sacrifice doesn't bring freedom. Sacrifice for the freedom of others ensures others' freedoms. Sacrifice (a la jihadi martyrdom) for the ultimate domination of others (the caliphate) will not result in liberty, hate to break it to you.

Then, just for fun, (you'll love this one)

"I don't think this is Muslim point of view per se. I think a lot of Christians think the same. I would say it is religious, and people in Muslim countries happen to be more religious than in the West"

but

"...I try to avoid generalizations." (that is, when he can't find any Islamic countries where one can change religion and not be persecuted in some way, and needs to be perfectly vague on purpose.)

I don't think we could take logic courses that could help us more in dissecting the lying, self-deluding, propaganda that Muslims and their apologists are capable of proffering as discourse.

Watch the shape of the argument, before responding to the individual inflammatory elements, to see if the argument holds any water.

Thank you, Robert and others, for teaching us about rhetoric vs. research.

I had stopped posting but Winoceros' reply just made me smile. wow. I actually feel somewhat flattered that you accord me all that rhetorical skill. I have powers which I didn't even know I possessed. I can write a few lines and you can write a whole exegesis about it. That's great. Yeah in your next posting, you can go ahead and say that in this sentence I use sarcasm. You are so paranoid that you really believe there is a subterfuge in every little word I write. HA HA HA. You really made me laugh. A man no longer has the right to agree with someone else. It's a subterfuge. This is exactly why arguments with the likes of you is impossible. It is either taqqiya or a rhetroical device. No matter what I do I am guilty in advance. Bye bye you paranoiacs !

Oh my. No, I don't think it's a subterfuge by any means. That would be intentional. It's simply the only possible end-product when the raw input is Islamic thought.

Sorry to use you as classroom example. Frankly, the post on which that was based was the first one that shows that you actually were thinking.

I believe you are completely sincere, and I believe you are genuinely hopeful about the reconciliation of the two concepts you mentioned. It's just that your arguments are useful to those of us learning how to dissect and counteract the sophistry and straw men often given during debate with Islamic apologists.

We will need the skills if we want to survive politically in our undisciplined, hedonistic, Western societies.

Well don't be too harsh on Western societies. You must be one those Dinesh D'Souza types. Sorry, I can argue with the Robert spencer types, but the dinesh d'Souza types I find too masochistic. They just love to indulge in self-hatred.

No, sublimer, I was being sarcastic, too! I'm glad you don't find the West too detestable. I'm glad you can be a part of it.

I knew you were being sarcastic but your sarcasm was slightly arrogant. That's why in my reply, I played the naive foreigner - knowing that you would think your sarcasm went over my head. Your more amicable mood in the next reply, "I'm glad you can be a part of it." was the result.

Maybe you can include that rhetorical device in your notebook. ; )

You win that one for sure. Got me.

Good post in dissecting and holding up for view with pincers the slickly tortuous entrails of sublimer's mind, winoceros.

(Btw, I didn't craft my long post to sublimer with the foolish notion that he is a rational human interlocutor who might surprise me with a reasonable reply, but mainly as a means to sharpen my own rhetorical blades.)

Sublimer:

I learned all I needed to know about Islam from 2 sources:
1) 9/11, including the ridiculous efforts of most Muslims to shift blame to the CIA, the Jews, or anybody else once the identity of the terrorists became clear.
2) The first passage of the Koran, i.e. that "there is no room for doubt in this book" (that's the sense of 3 on-line translations from Muslim sources). I deal with corporate types for a living, and this is the kind of line spewed by the likes of Tyco's Kozlowski, Enron's Lay and Fastow, or any of a number of other fraudsters. Its one step in getting those ready to become true believers to actually drink the Kool-Aid.

And I didn't need to know Arabic for any of that.

From sublimer: "... at the same time not be led and encouraged to confuse freedom with the necessity to satisfy our desires. I believe they are two different things."

Lest this post be flung out of orbit completely, I will try to be brief. The idea that someone would submit totally to G*d by their own free will is a beautiful concept. Freedom to worship is all the more valuable in society where it is not compelled-- such a faith has passed the acid test and stands as an example that makes people think about spiritual matters, among other benefits. Where religion is comprised of a ruthlessly strict ideology, with extremely harsh rules about apostasy, it undermines the idea of aspiring to any true faith since there is no choice but one, with all rules for life already pre-formed.

It is an impoverished thinker who believes that submitting to G*d- or not submitting to any deity- is somehow in conflict with the pursuit of happiness, or that the latter must somehow conflict with a good moral code. If you should desire to promote the idea of essentially flattening the human race in terms of behavior, you should try herding cats for practice.

No, not French, who I do not especially like but admire very much.

It is useful to remember that mainstream muslims, including 'sholars' and 'preachers' never ever question the fact that Aisha was married at age 6.

In fact, if you remember Bilal Philips who was caught on the 'Undercover Moseque' expose, was clearly heard saying that since the Prophet had done so, he had legitimized marrying pre-pubsecent girls forever.. and muslims need not have to apologize for it at all.

Here is a video of the same sheik backtracking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_ZqeR27Mg

Re. effects of Islam on a society: I have a handy little factbook that compares the countries of the world. Obviously, for many populous and poor countries with less than orderly government, all figures have to be assumed to be rough. Nevertheless, it's still useful.

Out of curiosity I sat down to compare three figures - female literacy as opposed to male literacy; female vs. male life expectancy; and infant mortality rates - for three countries. To wit: Pakistan (used to be part of India); India proper; and Bangladesh (used to be part of India). Note that Pakistan centres on the Indus River valley and delta, and Bangladesh on the extremely fertile and well-watered lower Ganges/ Brahmaputra junction and delta, so in a sense you could argue that when India was divided the Muslims got the 'plums': fertile river deltas.

Now, these figures are a little out of date (1999). However.

Bangladesh - infant mortality = 97.67 per 1000 live births (i.e., of every 100 kids born, 9 die). Female life expectancy 56.63, male 56.69 [note: MALES live a bit longer than women, though not by much - this is very unusual in human societies today, even the poorest and most chaotic]. Literacy: average = 35 %, female 23.7 %, male 45.2%.
Pakistan - infant mortality = 93.48 per 1000 live births. Female life expectancy 59.96, male 58.23. Literacy - average = 35 %, female - 22%, male 47 %.
India - infant mortality = 63.14 per 1000 live births. Female life expectancy 63.73, male 62.11; literacy average 52 %, female 37 %, male 65%.

So the part of India that remained non-Muslim-dominated is doing just a bit better than Muslim-dominated Bangladesh and Pakistan. Women live between four and seven years longer, fewer babies die, more people can read, more women can read. Go figure. (it gets even more interesting when you compare the average annual income: Bangladesh $US 360, India $370, Pakistan $500). Despite its citizens theoretically being some $130 richer per annum than India's, Pakistan has higher infant mortality and lower female literacy than India; and India, though its citizens are on average only $10 richer than Bangladesh's, still manages to educate more of its citizens - including its women - and keep a few more of its babies alive).