Google's censorship has been circumvented: you can find my October 26 Dartmouth speech here and here.
I had an exchange with a commenter in this thread about the speech that I thought was worth reproducing as a post in its own right, since it sums up what I think are very common attitudes toward my work, and misunderstandings of it.
Here are the questions to me and observations from the commenter "Shlomo Michael":
Mr Spencer,Thanks for engaging me on this. I watched your entire speech, and have some concerns I hope you will comment on.
I acknowledge that you repeatedly distinguish between peace-loving Moslems and radical Jihadis. While this is certainly positive, it does not diminish the overall effects of your speech. Rather, I fear that your distinction between radicals and moderates is simply an attempt to cover your rhetorical bases.
You claim that the term "Islamo-Fascism" should be no more offensive than "Italian Fascism". But no one claimed that fascism was inborn to Italians, or was in some way the true embodyment of the Italian spirit. You are implying both of these regarding Islam and "Islamo-Fascism".
Repeatedly, you link violent Jihadism to Mohamed's actions, to "traditional and classic categories" of Islam, and to Salafist "revivalism". It is easy to see why my Moslem friends would be offended by this. They practice Islam faithfully, and consider it a part of who they are. I am sure that they do not consider blowing up buildings or beheading women a "revival" of Islam (you) or "sanctioned by Sharia" (Horowitz).
They would also object to your claims that the Moslem Brotherhood was the "first Islamo-Fascist group", given that most MSA's are derived from the Moslem Brotherhood. In essence, your claim is stating that these Moslems belong to an "Islamo-Fascist" group.
Perhaps most offensive was your venture into comparative religion toward the end of your speech. You said that Judaism and Christianity have had centuries of reinterpretations of holy texts, so as to prevent followers of the religion from becoming violent. Then you said that in Islam, this has "never been done". This even as my Moslem friends are doing what has "never been done" before my eyes, and as millions more worldwide do the same. Yet you claim it has "never been done". Throughout your speech, you emphasize the radical elements of Islam and minimize the moderate elements. One is the "essence of Islam", the other has "never been done". And then, after you have demeaned their efforts, you expect the moderates to join you? That doesn't make sense to me.
Best,
Shlomo
And my response:
Shlomo:I acknowledge that you repeatedly distinguish between peace-loving Moslems and radical Jihadis. While this is certainly positive, it does not diminish the overall effects of your speech. Rather, I fear that your distinction between radicals and moderates is simply an attempt to cover your rhetorical bases.False. It's simply a statement of fact.
You claim that the term "Islamo-Fascism" should be no more offensive than "Italian Fascism". But no one claimed that fascism was inborn to Italians, or was in some way the true embodyment of the Italian spirit. You are implying both of these regarding Islam and "Islamo-Fascism".Nothing is "inborn" to Muslims or anyone else, and I have never implied otherwise. Nor have I ever stated or implied that jihadism was the true Islam -- in fact, I've said repeatedly that no one can rightly claim that anything is true Islam, least of all me.
Repeatedly, you link violent Jihadism to Mohamed's actions, to "traditional and classic categories" of Islam, and to Salafist "revivalism". It is easy to see why my Moslem friends would be offended by this. They practice Islam faithfully, and consider it a part of who they are. I am sure that they do not consider blowing up buildings or beheading women a "revival" of Islam (you) or "sanctioned by Sharia" (Horowitz).Then they need to explain why. In my books and articles and at this site I've repeatedly pointed out the use that the Salafists make of Islamic texts and teachings. For example (and there are 100s of examples), Zarqawi invoked Muhammad's beheadings after the Battle of Badr to justify his killing of Nick Berg.
So if I point that out, and point out that Zarqawi wasn't lying, but that the Islamic sources do indeed depict Muhammad as beheading his enemies after Badr, why should that offend Muslims?
Peaceful Muslims should be anything but offended -- they should be energized to work for reform, to formulate a vision of Islam that neutralizes the potential of such texts to be used to incite to violence.
They would also object to your claims that the Moslem Brotherhood was the "first Islamo-Fascist group", given that most MSA's are derived from the Moslem Brotherhood. In essence, your claim is stating that these Moslems belong to an "Islamo-Fascist" group.Here again, these are statements of fact. Was and is the Brotherhood an Islamic supremacist group, committed to the imposition of Sharia all over the world? Read Al-Banna and the statements of their modern leaders. If your Muslim friends don't like this, they need to face reality, rather than blaming me for pointing it out.
Perhaps most offensive was your venture into comparative religion toward the end of your speech. You said that Judaism and Christianity have had centuries of reinterpretations of holy texts, so as to prevent followers of the religion from becoming violent. Then you said that in Islam, this has "never been done". This even as my Moslem friends are doing what has "never been done" before my eyes, and as millions more worldwide do the same. Yet you claim it has "never been done". Throughout your speech, you emphasize the radical elements of Islam and minimize the moderate elements. One is the "essence of Islam", the other has "never been done". And then, after you have demeaned their efforts, you expect the moderates to join you? That doesn't make sense to me.Please give me examples of where it is being done, and by whom. I see plenty of denial by Muslim spokesmen -- flat statements that the Qur'an teaches peace, or that the jihadists are misusing it. I don't see attempts by peaceful Muslims to engage their theology, except to haggle over whether jihad can be called without a state authority. So please send over examples of where you see this being done.
Meanwhile, watch your quotation marks, please. That "essence of Islam" phrase is one I did not use in the Dartmouth talk, and never use, except perhaps when pointing out that that is what the jihadists claim to represent. And they do -- there again, it's a statement of fact, not something I made up. I'm sorry if their claim is an...inconvenient truth.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Well said, Mr. Spencer.
Muslims really do hate it when Infidels know the truth about Islam....
ROBERT: "Please give me examples of where it is being done, and by whom. I see plenty of denial by Muslim spokesmen -- flat statements that the Qur'an teaches peace, or that the jihadists are misusing it. I don't see attempts by peaceful Muslims to engage their theology, except to haggle over whether jihad can be called without a state authority. So please send over examples of where you see this being done."
We're all waiting Shlomo....with baited breath.
Given the texts of the Koran and the Hadiths, it has boggled my mind for a while why we have any moderate Muslims at all. I believe I have found an answer.
In Christianity, most Christians are lightweight, lukewarm Christians. They go to church twice a year, they don’t pray unless stepping onto an airplane, they couldn’t explain the Trinity, don’t read the Bible, and couldn’t name a few bible verses if asked (such as the Democratic candidates).
True Christians do pray every day, do understand the Trinity and other theological concepts, and they can name a handful of Bible verses that are important to them. They do not like sin and try to live as Christ-like a life as possible.
And the fundamental Christians? They don’t like teaching evolution and decry Halloween as a pagan event to stay away from. They’re probably more judgmental than Christ would like. But they don’t kill people.
In Islam we have the same range of intensity of belief. In the West, the Muslims I know do not pray 5 times a day, do not wear beards, the women do not wear the Hijab, and they probably have an Arabic Koran handed down they cannot read. They are reasonably moral and live their lives much like the lukewarm Christians. But like the lukewarm Christians they do not understand key theological elements of Islam.
But as the intensity of belief increases, we find Muslims who do read the Koran, do pray 5 times a day. Like Christians who become more Christ-like, Muslims become more Muhammed-like. Paranoid, fearful of non-believers, fearful of his own salvation. And as one goes further down that path one becomes violent and hateful. The Jews are vile descendants of pigs and apes, the Christians are cursed and Islam must rule the world. Jihad is no longer that inner struggle.
There is no moderate Islam. We have moderate Muslims and Jihadists but only one Islam. This is my view at least of how we can have both moderates and Jihadists.
Robert Spencer:
Peaceful Muslims should be anything but offended -- they should be energized to work for reform, to formulate a vision of Islam that neutralizes the potential of such texts to be used to incite to violence.
I would believe that Spencer of all people would realize that there is nothing in these texts that suggests that there is any potential whatsoever for a reformed Islam. Why then does he want peaceful Muslims to work for reform, when reform is impossible?
I have yet to see any dialogue where a moderate Muslim acknowledges the violence and hate in the Koran and Hadiths. It is always denied. Why is that? Is it because moderates do not believe there is such violence and hate in their holy books? Are they afraid of the answer?
"They practice Islam faithfully, and consider it a part of who they are. I am sure that they do not consider blowing up buildings or beheading women a "revival" of Islam (you) or "sanctioned by Sharia" (Horowitz)."
Shlomo does a fair job disguising he is a sanctimonious gas bag who is sure about what muslims think. Give me a break please.
This was a nice exchange that was handily won by Spencer. It is clear to anyone, such as myself, who has taken the time to study both Islam and history that Robert is correct.
"So if I point that out, and point out that Zarqawi wasn't lying, but that the Islamic sources do indeed depict Muhammad as beheading his enemies after Badr, why should that offend Muslims"?-Robert
Because the truth is offensive?
"True Christians do pray every day, do understand the Trinity and other theological concepts, and they can name a handful of Bible verses that are important to them. They do not like sin and try to live as Christ-like a life as possible.
What is this about true xtians? You don't have to be xtian to be "xtian."
I adhere to all your above statements!
Robert, please point our where Judaism has ".....had centuries of reinterpretations of holy texts, so as to prevent followers of the religion from becoming violent."
I ask this as a Torah observant Jew.
I do have some thoughts and a question that is related to Schlomo's.
What if American Muslims -- the "peaceful" ones who do not beat their wives or abuse kaffirs, who actually have what they consider friends among the latter -- what if, in fact, they *are* "reinterpreting" Islam, just not in the way a theologian would do it?
For example, it is common knowledge that the Catholic Church bans all forms of contraception. This ban is extensively developed in the theology (though it is based in tradition more than the words of the Gospels). It withstood a serious and dedicated attack during Vatican II, and is not likely to change formally in the foreseeable future.
But yet the existence of this theology and the reiteration of its viability by Catholic authorities have not made a dent in lay Catholics' practice of contraception. In effect, lay Catholics have "reinterpreted" doctrine on the ground and on the fly -- there's just no piece of paper with the proper wax seals acknowledging it.
I know that such folks could be called "lukewarm Catholics." But whose term is that? A counterargument could be made that they are committed Catholics who see a cruelty and irrationality in their doctrine, but are unwilling to jettison the remainder, so they personally reject and ignore that particular failed doctrine. The fact that they do not stand on streetcorners agitating for everyone to follow them, I think, is not a reasonable criticism. The quiet pressure of the vast majority of believers might be more effective on the corpus of the Church than street demonstrations.
Is it possible that the so-called peaceful and moderate Muslims are doing something like this, at least in the United States? Now Catholics don't become violent or agitated when someone points out that contraception is prohibited by doctrine, or deny that such a doctrine exists, or try to silence people who bring up the issue. But these points are more window-dressing than anything. Could moderate Muslims in fact be reinterpreting the violence and hate from Islam, simply in the way they live? And if so, doesn't this urge recognition?
Shlomo didn't prevail on a single point. Not one. Basically, Shlomo's paltry writing performance represented the typical futile effort to whitewash all the disturbing elements one finds in Islam, accompanied by the usual distortion of what is said by those like Robert Spencer who merely speak the truth about the one major religion that Bertrand Russell correctly identified as the only major faith which is totalitarian in structure. Same old same old.
Thank you for your work Mr. Spencer.
Marwan,
One of the problems with that formulation is that the ratio of activists agitating against official Catholic doctrine vs. those defending it is far out of proportion to the ratio of Muslims doing the same in their "faith".
For every 100 defenders of official Catholic doctrine, there's 100 opponents. For every 100 apologists for Muslim doctrine, how many reformists are there? 10, even?
Another thing people have never answered to my satisfaction is why would a Muslim want to give up on ideas of Muslim supremacism? Did whites just give up on ideas of white supremacy? No, a bloody war killing 60 million people had to be fought to defeat the last real manifestation of it, Nazism. To think that Muslim supremacist ideas are just going to fade away among the Muslim population because white people think that those ideas "aren't nice" is to ignore thousands of years of study of human nature. We're going to have to beat it out of them like we beat it out of the Germanic population of Europe.
Marwan's Daughter: The flaw in your argument is that those practicing Catholics who ignore certain Church doctrines are not "reinterpreting" any doctrine that calls for violence or world domination. Muslims, by contrast, who attempt to ignore the many calls for violence and domination over those who don't accept Islam are attempting to look away from Islamic doctrines that are menacing to all of mankind. No Catholic tenet is a threat to the entire human race, while many Islamic tenets are about as disturbing and threatening as one can find. In short, the Catholic theological blueprint is innocuous, however it is interpreted; the Islamic theological blueprint is not. Huge difference. A classic case here of comparing apples and oranges.
Veni, I see your point, but ask you this: were certain prescriptions in Deuteronomy and Leviticus (those prescriptions so often cited by the relativists) "beaten out" of the Jews, or did they just wither away? What exactly happened?
Bingo, Clay Marley, on that first post of yours.
Shlomo Michael has Muslim friends who don't go around advocating "death to the infidel", etc. Fine; that's good. However, some individual adherent's choosing not to embrace the whole of their religion's texts does not address the problem of those passage's existence, and their affect on others who do choose to act on them. It's a case of "can't see the forest for the trees" thinking, I'm afraid.
And Marwan's Daughter asks, 'Is it possible that the so-called peaceful and moderate Muslims are doing something like this, at least in the United States?' Well, it's great that they don't run around setting off bombs on the subway, but again, their individual non-action does not do anything to affect the future actions of those who do. The texts and interpretations remain the same for those who do adhere more closely to the texts. Unfortuately for the rest of us, we're impacted far more by their actions, than those following Catholic officialdom's stance on birth control!
Schlomo is another Muhammedan who uses a Jewish moniker to put up strawmen. Schlomo is a fraud.
Well, Shlomo has had his fifteen minutes of fame. Now, it's November; maybe he'll go into hibernation.
"I don't see attempts by peaceful Muslims to engage their theology, except to haggle over whether jihad can be called without a state authority. So please send over examples of where you see this being done."
OK: Reza Aslan, for one. The folowing is from the end of his book, "No God But God":
"What has occurred since that fateful day [9/11] amounts to another muslim civil war -a fitna- which, like the contest to define Islam after the Prophet's death, is tearing the Muslim community into opposing factions.
It may be too early to know who will write the next chapter of Islam's story, but it is not too early to see who will ultimately win the war between reform and counterreform. When fifteen centuries ago, Muhammad launched a revolution in Mecca to replace the archaic, rigid strictures of tribal society with a radically new vision of divine morality and social egalitarianism, he tore ap[art the fabric of traditional Arab society. It took many years of violence and devestation to cleanse the Hijaz of its "false idols." It will take many more to cleanse Islam of its new false idols -bigotry and fanaticism- worshipped by those who have replaced Muhammad's original vision of tolerance and unity with their own ideals of hatred and discord. But the cleansing is inevitable, and the tide of reform cannot be stopped. The Islamic Reformation is here. We are all living in it"
He/she/it is a TROLL, albeit an *almost* intelligent sounding one, but a TROLL nonetheless.
Andrew Benyamin Stein
skevin-replaced Muhammad's original vision of tolerance and unity
Muhammad replaced it himself after he gained power.
I don't have a lot of time for posting these days, but I remember almost doing so in response to one of Schlomo's early posts. In it he claimed to be an "Orthodox Jewish Zionist," which I thought odd. Then he admonished Robert to set up a school for women in Tehran if he's so concerned about the plight of Muslim women. (That was rich indeed!). At that point I was pretty certain we had ourselves a troll.
Schlomo's style is reminiscent of that of bygone trolls who've worn out their welcome. If I were a betting man I'd wager he is a reincarnation of "Salahudin" or "American," or a number of other trolls that have come and gone.
Don't expect anything new from him. Robert asked for examples, and I'll bet Schlomo is preparing a voluminous list of entirely irrelevant and pointless examples of Muslim moderation and reform. That's his style--bombard 'em with BS--if he's who I think he is.
And this too shall pass.
Regards,
HAID
I wonder which--if any--of these suspicions apply:
Schlomo claims he has genuine Muslim friends.
Either, then, 1: these feign friendship to ingratiate themselves with unbelievers like Schlomo, thus manipulating and dividing them; or 2: both Schlomo and his friends are ignorant of the Quran's contents and meaning, or choose to ignore them, especially the injunction against taking kuffar as friends; or 3: "Schlomo" is a troll and a brother in the Umma to his friends [or else a Leftist ally].
In Robert's post about his Dartmouth address on Nov 1, there is this reference:
QUOTE:
Dear Mr. Spencer,
I am a student at Brown University. I wrote an op-ed response to your recent speech which has appeared this morning in the Brown Daily Herald.
I have posted a copy of it on my blog
I would be interested in your response. That being said, I strongly hope that we can maintain a civil debate that focuses on substance and avoids any personal attacks.
Regards,
Jeb Koogler
:UNQUOTE
They did a follow up at this link
http://fpwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/spencer-and-other-critics-respond.html
Their entire article is one long non-sequiter.
So i decied to respond to them... their response to me was essentially twisting everything I said or non-squiter too.
But I keep going back at them
I think I did a good job.
This was my first comment on that URL... see the URL for all the comments
Hugh-Fitz:
The enemy - MSA, CAIR, ISNA, AMC - has power because they try to appeal to politicians. There is no anti-jihad lobby. There are only well intentioned opponents of the Muslim menace, who chose to take the message to college snots. Since many snots are members of the Islamofascist lobby, they have considerable leverage over Front Page, Jihad Watch, Little Green moneymaker, and the rest of the quixotic wheel spinners.
Start attacking the Bush-lunacy, and the centrist majority might earn some sympathy for the anti-jihad.
I see you didn't give airhead-one - Karen Hughes - an appropriate send-off back to back woods Texas.
I stopped reading "Shlomo's" letter at THIS line:
"I watched your entire speech, and have some concerns I hope you will comment on".
I won't waste my time. The fact is, only STUPID and/or OBSTINATE people have a difficult time comprehending Spencer's work. I am personally tired of hearing people carry on about their "concerns", "misgivings" and "misunderstandings" with regard to the entire subject of jihad and militant Islam. They are only trying to manipulate the facts so they can avoid seeing the truth for what it is and thus, be forced by their conscience to take some worthwhile action in their lives. What have they done that is useful to the subject matter? Have they done research? Have they published articles? Have they studied the Koran and Islamic teaching/law? Have they written any books? How many years of experience and study do they have on the subject? I am sure the answers to these questions are a big fat "none/zero/no/nothing". Yet they will sit around, all high and mighty, and pound out letters to make EXPERTS explain themselves. Appalling. They are emotionally childish and intellectually lazy, and so bedazzled by their own liberal agenda that they can't see what is right in front of their nose. They pretend to not understand and need to have their hand held and have simple concepts explained to them in a language toddlers can understand. I get so impatient seeing good people *who have already done THEIR homework* have to explain themselves repeatedly (I'm looking at you, Dr. S.) just to try to drill some sense into these stubborn people.
Or maybe I'm just in a bad mood.
Hello all,
Sorry for the slow response time. It is customary for Jews to abstain from electronics on the Jewish Sabbath. I posted a response, it should be up shortly!
Quit confusing him with facts, Robert!
Shlomo Michael:
I don't know where you posted your reply. Your statement, "It should be up shortly!" would suggest that you have posted it here at Jihad Watch, and that would, of course, make sense. Then the fact that it hasn't appeared might make it look as if we were deliberately suppressing it.
In fact, however, while the email is down the posting mechanism seems to be working fine, and no post from you other than the one above has appeared since the conclusion of the Jewish Sabbath.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
"no post from you other than the one above has appeared since the conclusion of the Jewish Sabbath"
LOL! You rewl.
I've tried posting twice now. Neither time has it shown up. Instead, I get this:
"Jihad Watch
Thank You for Commenting
Your comment has been received. To protect against malicious comments, I have enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment. I'll approve your comment when convenient; there is no need to re-post your comment. Return to the comment page"
Maybe it will work if I post in two parts.
Mr. Spencer,
1. "False. It's simply a statement of fact." [That there's a difference between radical and moderate Moslems.]
Won't argue with you there!
2. "Nothing in "inborn" to Muslims or anyone else, and I have never implied otherwise. Nor have I ever stated or implied that jihadism was the true Islam -- in fact, I've said repeatedly that no one can rightly claim that anything is true Islam, least of all me."?3. "So if I point that out, and point out that Zarqawi wasn't lying, but that the Islamic sources do indeed depict Muhammad as beheading his enemies after Badr, why should that offend Muslims?"
It is true that Islamic sources are being used to justify terrorism. That is a fact. But it's possible to create a very slanted viewpoint on reality, even if everything you say is true. For example, I could give you a history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that included every tiny Israeli killing, but excluded all Palestinian terrorism. I could be very selective about which facts I conclude, construct such a narrative without lying, and draw from it certain conclusions about Israel.
Surely you'de agree that this account would be very distorted! How can I say that snipers shot a Palestinian schoolgirl, without mentioning that Hamas fired rockets from the schoolyard? How could I say that Israelis bombed a Palestinian teen as he walked down the street, without mentioning that he was about to carry out a terror attack? I could not. I would be guilty of lying by omission.
In my opinion, you, too are lying by omission. You give a speech outlining how all these terrorists use Islam to justify their actions, and you bring in speakers to talk about how Islamic governments use Sharia to justify abuse of women--and every few minutes or so, you mention that moderate Moslems exist. Then, you go back to talking about al-Zarqawi.
Your selection of facts has the cumulative effect of excluding moderate Moslems, or at least, of assuming that they are just a passive backdrop for the more dynamic extremist movements. This creates a skewed a negative portrayal of Islam as a whole, which is why peaceful Moslems would be offended.
4. "Peaceful Muslims should be anything but offended -- they should be energized to work for reform, to formulate a vision of Islam that neutralizes the potential of such texts to be used to incite to violence."
How would peaceful Moslems be energized by the knowledge that, no matter what they do, you will ignore them?
5. "Here again, these are statements of fact. Was and is the Brotherhood an Islamic supremacist group, committed to the imposition of Sharia all over the world?"
How did you arrive at this fact? Could you trace for me a clear historical path between a radical cleric in the 1930's, and the interfaith Ramadan feast I went to a few weeks ago?
6. "I see plenty of denial by Muslim spokesmen -- flat statements that the Qur'an teaches peace, or that the jihadists are misusing it. I don't see attempts by peaceful Muslims to engage their theology, except to haggle over whether jihad can be called without a state authority. So please send over examples of where you see this being done."
With pleasure.
A. http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?mid1=777&&ArticleID=8761&&name=n&&currPage=1
"We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him."?--Center for American Islamic relations, anti-terror petition.
?B. http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism/FatwaAgainstTerrorism.aspx
"In the light of the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state:
1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam. ?2. It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence. ?3. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.
We issue this fatwa following the guidance of our scripture, the Qur’an, and the teachings of our Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him. We urge all people to resolve all conflicts in just and peaceful manners."
--Fiqh Council of America, fatwa against terrorism.
C. Even in the Palestinian Territories:?http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism/Expressionsofgriefandsympathy.aspx
D. There's more. Much more. ?http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx
E. I'm especially interested in the your response to this:?http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/CAIR%20on%20Terrorism.pdf
Best,
Shlomo
Alright, that's it! I think the post kept getting blocked because it had so many links.
Heh! Shlomo's quoting CAIR as if they're moderate.
Shavua tov, Shlomo. You obviously don't know the first thing about CAIR.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who uses CAIR as a reference to debate Robert's position is obviously being disingenuine in their representation of who they actually are.
Shlomo wrote:
"It is true that Islamic sources are being used to justify terrorism. That is a fact. But it's possible to create a very slanted viewpoint on reality, even if everything you say is true."
This is CAIR-like, Islamist logic. Schlomo actually agrees Robert just simply wishes that he soften the commentary about the jihadists into a less-slanted viewpoint.
Nonsense. Those who are genuine would focus on the actions of the jihadists and the problem that they represent as opposed to the rhetorical vein of a well-known commenter on the subject.
Shlomo also wrote:
"For example, I could give you a history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that included every tiny Israeli killing, but excluded all Palestinian terrorism. I could be very selective about which facts I conclude, construct such a narrative without lying, and draw from it certain conclusions about Israel."
Well, the first part is true, You could create a completely slanted viewpoint for a completely pro-Palestinian position. Rergarding the second, you could not however make that true, no matter what you say. You would be challenged and rightly so. Therein lies the difference. You cannot challenge Spencer, and must agree with him, but you simply wish to "tone him down"?
Valueless and nonsensical your position is, Shlomo.
I wonder if Shlomo is truly trying to defend Islam because he feels it is being unjustly attacked, in which case he is simply a victim if Islam himself, or if he is purposely trying to distort the facts in order to deceive Americans in thinking that Islam truly is a "religion of peace.”
If Shlomo is a victim, I hope it will become clear to all before it is too late, first for Shlomo and then for the rest of the victims of Islam who are being deceived by the greatest of deceivers. This is not a battle for America or Israel or the West against Muslims. This is a battle for the souls of men whom Satan has taken captive to do his will. One life will soon be past-only that which was done for Christ will last!
Shlomo, I beseech you, be reconciled to God. God made him who knew no sin to become sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. Jesus is our peace! Not Islam.
Sorry for multiple posts, this computer is slow!
awake,
It's not a question of whether or not I object to Mr Spencer's "tone". It's a question of how parading around the country with Jihadi quotes is "empowering the moderates". That's what I'd really like to know. Sorry if I've annoyed anyone too much with inconvenient perspectives, but IFAW was supposedly about educating evil college kids like myself.
Or has that gone the way of "empowering moderates"?
Shy guy,
I'm not an expert on CAIR, but I know that certain people have been trying quite hard (and failing) to link the organization to terrorism. Is there anything else I should know?
Joe,
I appreciate your concern for me. But overall, your post made me a little uncomfortable. Neither Christianity nor Islam has been a "religion of peace" for my people, and it was often because both were too busy fighting each other. I'm hoping for something better in the future, and I hope you'll join me.
Dumpling,
I'm afraid that you were in a bad mood. In no way do I claim to know everything about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. If I am wrong, I would like to be corrected and to learn the truth. Although I have strong opinions on this, my opinions are not set. Also, eventually you'll have to deal with clowns like me if you wish to raise awareness.
It's not a question of whether or not I object to Mr Spencer's "tone". It's a question of how parading around the country with Jihadi quotes is "empowering the moderates".
What Shlomo Michael perhaps doesn't realize, is that there is no point in "empowering the moderates", at least not if the goal is to make them come up with a moderate Islam, because a moderate Islam cannot actually exist - it is a logical impossibility. That Robert Spencer telling the truth about Islam is somehow an obstacle for the moderates' efforts is merely a symptom of this.
To Joe61, quit shoving your savior into everyone else's face. It's imbecilic.
Shlomo, Boker tov.
Doesn't it bother you that the moderates can't "empower" themselves?
What is the implication of people with a given belief who cannot simply disprove what they claim to be erronious assumptions made about their religious texts, philosophies, prophet and texts?
As Country Joe and The Fish said: "What's that spell???"
Shlomo, have you ever read the Quran, Sunnah, and the aHaddiths? If not, please do so. You'll find them all here. Note the link is managed by USC on behalf of the Muslim Student Association. I'm not pointing you to some anti-Islam hate site.
Big caution before you start: the Quran is not compiled in chronological order. I'll let you chose a link about this from Google.
After reading, you should be able to ask more specific questions, such as "where does the Quran advocate beheading?" or perhaps just the opposite: "where does the Quran condemn beheading?". It will depend on the depth of your studies and your grasp of what the Quran is conveying to its Muslim adherents.
Yep. I think we were harsh with you, myself included. We've all pretty much been-there-done-that already. For example, search JW for "CAIR" and you will find enough material to understand that CAIR says one thing to the naive public while its founders and leaders advocate something else altogether while going into complete denial at the same time. Are you familiar with the term "Taqiyyah"? And contrary to apologists, it's not just for Shi'ite Muslims. After all, Mohamed is the one who said "War is deceit" and Sunis and Shi'ites do not dispute this Islamic teaching.
Please show us the failure. We're quite familiar with the opposite. Or do you just burry your head in the sand hoping the facts will just disappear?
By all means, study Islam. You don't need to buy a single one of Mr. Spencer's books. Simply begin studying the texts and Islam's own historical writings.
Shlomo wrote:
"It's not a question of whether or not I object to Mr Spencer's "tone". It's a question of how parading around the country with Jihadi quotes is "empowering the moderates". That's what I'd really like to know."
No one said that it would empower the moderates. Spencer is here to educate non-Muslims about the abject threat that Islam poses. Muslims fully understand what certain tenets of their ideology mean to all things in dar al harb, whether they choose to admit it or not.
Look at the top left hand border of the main page "Why Jihad Watch". Please find somewhere that Robert's goal is to empower "moderate" Muslims.
Shlomo also wrote:
"I'm not an expert on CAIR, but I know that certain people have been trying quite hard (and failing) to link the organization to terrorism. Is there anything else I should know?"
No, indeed you are not. I don't know what "certain people" you are referring to, but CAIR has been definitively linked to terrorism:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016754.php
Also, CAIR members were previously convicted like Ismail Royer and Ghassan Elashi:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/April/04_crm_225.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43805
What about Bassem K. Khafagi?:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={463F0AC7-8950-4B6B-9DC3-F38B5DD068D8}
The HLF trial? A mis-trial, not acquittal and exoneration. Certain to be re-tried.
Are you being willfully ignorant on this subject or are you merely being intellectually lazy, forgoing even the most rudimentary research?
Methinks Shlomo has been listening to too much taqiyya from the Muslims and been watching the news far too little.
Shlomo also needs to go out on a date with Karen Armstrong. Now, wouldn't THAT be a match made in heaven (or wherever)!
Shlomo is one of those types that probably still clings to the belief that Israel's existence is the cause of virtually all Islamic terror around the globe. He will cling to this belief in spite of the fact that their are absolutely huge numbers of Islamic militants terrorizing such places as Kashmir or Thailand that have no relation to Judeo-Christianism or Israel whatever, and where thousands upon of thousands of non-Muslim non-combatants continue to be brutally murdered by Islamic jihadists.
So, Shlomo is now trying to sell us on the (patently ludicrous) notion that the Muslim brotherhood is not militant or homicidal. Why WOULD anyone ever believe the Muslim Brotherhood is or was homicidal or jihad-oriented? Maybe, duh, that its founder al-Banna struck up a relationship with Adolph Hitler before WW2 and advocated the slaughter of all Jews everywhere, then there was that leading Brotherhood member, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who attempted to construct a death camp in Nablus, Palestine for the extermination of the Jews. Or maybe that Yasser Arafat who launched jihad incursions into Lebanon that killed thousands of non-combatant Maronite Christians there and who also founded the Fatah movement aimed at destroying the Jewish state of Israel was by the way ANOTHER leading member of the Bortherhood. Then there is always the internationally notorious terror-master Ayman al-Zawahiri who was a student of Qutb's, who himself was a strong sponsor of the Brotherhood.
Shlomo also seems to have a soft spot for Islam's "founder" Muhammad, apparently blissfully unaware that this man is recorded to have captured and decapitated hundred of Jews in a single evening (such benignness--I wish the IRS was this forgiving).
Sooner or later, Shlomo will be forced to take the blinders off. But for now we are stuck with having to listen to the ravings of this self-made ignoramus.
Robert, please point our where Judaism has ".....had centuries of reinterpretations of holy texts, so as to prevent followers of the religion from becoming violent."
I ask this as a Torah observant Jew.
Posted by: Shy Guy
-------------------------------
Shy Guy,
Although I'm not Jewish by religion, nor am I an expert like Robert, I hope you'll indulge me taking a stab at your question. The entire body of the the Midrash would fall into this category, not to mention the writings of Hillel, Philo, the Rambam etc. etc.
Beyond these one can find such reinterpretations within the Tanakh. Here is one small example: The Torah commands the utter extermination of the Hittites. Yet early Jews did not take this literally. Just the opposite. When Nathan confronted King David about the murder of Bathsheva's husband Uriah, the response of David was not, "well he's a Hittite, I'm commanded to kill him" but instead David repented of this grave sin. There are many more examples beyond this.
Provoslavni:
I claim just the opposite. Site an example, please.
Um, Uriah was either a Hittite convert or Jewish from birth and he dwelled among the Hittite. A Jewish woman, Batsheva in this case, can never be considered to be legally married to a non-Jew under Jewish law. As such, David wouldn't even have to kill Uriah to marry Batsheva.
Keep trying.
Shy Guy,
It is likely that Uriah was a convert or at least an observer of the Noachite Covenant, but he is clearly called a Hittite. I believe the Midrash also considers him a Hittite in, I think Sanhedrin 107a but my memory may be faulty. Whether he was a convert or a righteous gentile actually is to my point since the Torah commands the Israelites to "utterly destroy" all Hittites (Deuteronomy:20:17) without making such a distinction. However, it is clear that even Joshua did not physically exterminate all of them, nor did David. These nations were wiped out, not by the Jews, but by the Assyrians.
If my memory serves me, most Rabbis interpreted these seemingly violent commands to demand we utterly destroy the evil ways of the Hittites, Jebusites, et al from our hearts and lives. That is not to literally kill heathen people but to "know not the ways of the heathen". To act otherwise would certainly go against the universal promises of Hashem that are repeated throughout the Nevi'im.
Also, unlike Islam, Judaism has never had a fundamentalist reading of Scripture but relies on the Oral Tradition to understand these difficult passages. It is the Oral Tradition that reinterprets, or more correctly, interprets Torah.
I cannot look them up right now but the Talmud and Medrash is full of lessons of what a terrible mistake it was for Israel to have shown pity to these nations and be lax in their obligations to eliminate the Seven Nations from the land.
Please site just one of the "most" of these rabbis you refer to. Just one.
You've lost me here on this one sentence.
Yes, I am very much a Torah observant Jew myself, of the Pharisee variety, not the Sadduci variety. I'll be more than happy for you to point out the Oral laws and traditions that support your views above.
But what you say is not accurate. When there is no special interpretation of verses, the Oral Law has a rule that states "Ein mikrah Yotzeh midei P'shuto" - "the verses should not be interpreted outside of their literal meaning."
Looking forward to your reply but for me it will have to wait till the morning.
Shy Guy:
I don't usually read all the comments on Jihad Watch because I agree, some posts truly are stupid. I am sorry you think I am "imbecilic," or my that my post was below par in mental acumen, but I truly believe Jesus is who he says he is and that he came to bring peace between between God and man, Jew and Gentile as well as to heal the broken family of Abraham. Your refusal to accept Jesus as the Messiah from God Almighty is what is imbecilic, if you ask me. I am not saying that you are a dolt, but your refusal to accept Jesus as the Christ is not helping anyone, especially not yourself!
Shlomo_Michael:
I pray that both you and Shy Guy will accept the Prince of Peace into your heart and then join with me in seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder, And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. —Isaiah 9:6
Joe61,
I understand your position as a Christian, but I must emplore you not to let this thread become derailed.
There is no reason to let Shlomo_Michael off that easy, with the drivel that he has put forth here.
Joe, I didn't say you were imbecillic. Anyway, dont'ya know there's no compulsion in religion?
Just a slight problem there, Joe. The next verse says:
How could Isaiah refer to anyone supposedly born over 500 years later and say "from now"?
If you'd know what Isaiah was talking about in the first place in Chapter 9, you'd know that the child under discussion was King Hezekiah. But this is what happens when Christian sources simply quote everything out of context to make their empty proofs of legitimacy.
I'm willing to cease this discussion when you are. But I know you won't. Happens every time.
Shy Guy - Just from my perspective, when I read this part:
"...from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this."
It seems to imply that god's zeal will accomplish what he has set out to do from this point forward i.e. present the world, at the correct time, with his representative, his son. It does not read correctly to assume that this sentence refers to "Isaiah refer[ing] to anyone supposedly born over 500 years later and say "from now"?"
If, as you say, this King Hezekiah's son was the subject of the commentary, why was this son being referred to as "...Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."?
These are names reserved for god aren't they? That's assuming this is an accurate translation from ancient into modern.
This is just my observation and I'm not taking sides here....
Xeno, the words for "to eternity" in the verse are the Hebrew words "ad olam."
Have a look at Samuel I, 1:22. You'll find the exact same words there, telling of Hannah's intention to have her son, Samule (Shmuel) the prophet, dwell with the Tabernacle (precursor to the permenanet Temple in Jerusalem) "for eternity" - "ad olam".
And all it simply means in both Samuel and Isaiah is for the entire life-times of the subjects of the verses, Samuel and Hezekiah.
As far as the translation of Isaiah 9:5 (not 9:6 in our editions), we have as an example:
To quote Rashi on the verse:
There are also those that translate to verse as follows:
In this case, the whole latter half of the verse is one very long descriptive name for Hezekiah, highlighting his major traits. What's important here is that in this case the Hebrew words "El Gibor" do not mean "mighty God" but rather "mighty ruler". This is a minority opinion of the Ibn Ezra and others but the majority understand the verse similarly to Rashi, previously quoted.
But the big picture is that nothing handed down throughout Judaism since its formation has anything to do with what Jesus is claimed to have said and what his followers claim to be his teachings. And there are dozens of verses in Isaiah alone that state over and over again that Israel, the house of David and Jacob are forever G-d's nation and messengers and will lead the redemption at the end of days.
Had you asked anyone from the simplest Jew to the greatest scholar in Isaiah's time (or Isaiah himeslf) if they understood anything Isaiah meant to refer to some flesh and blood deity who would replace the Torah and eliminate practically all of G-d's commandments, you would have received quite a few stares and unpleasant remarks. The concept is simply alien to G-d's Torah. Always was. Always will be.
Thanks for replying. That was very interesting.
Shy Guy,
Thanks for the detailed response. I alway apreciate your posts. As I said, I'm not Jewish but have many Jews in my family and I know that Jews have never been a genocidal people. Yes they were commanded to eliminate the seven nations but never forget the sheer perversity of these nations: child-sacrifice to Moloch being one example. Since these nations were the dominant culture there was a real danger that ancient Israel would be co-opted into their disgusting ways, as happened many times in history. Also all the verses that seem to command violence are tempered by those that command not to oppress the stranger in our midst. Perhaps Uriah, if a Hittite, would have fallen under that protection.
But even if there is no mitigation in the Tanakh or the Oral Tradition at all, I still think Robert's point is valid for one simple reason. The ancient Assyrians took care of the issue. Although one can argue that people like Ahmedinejad are spiritual Amalekites none of the nations that Torah commands to be destroyed even exist anymore.
So there is nothing in Judaism today that can be remotely compared to Islamic jihad: Observing Torah is not the moral equivalent of living under Sharia and we should never let the Left or the secularists tell us otherwise.
Shy Guy, I apologize for leaving this out. When I wrote that "Rabbis interpreted these seemingly violent commands to demand we utterly destroy the evil ways of the Hittites, Jebusites, et al from our hearts and lives." and you asked me to name one...
I was thinking of stuff like this, particularly in regard to Amalek:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/267677/jewish/Wipe-Out-Amalek-Today.htm
I know the Rambam wrote that this doesn't apply if they accept the Noachite law, and the Rashi explains the third mitzvah against Amalek as requiring that his name be blotted out, clearly a command relating to belief more than bloodshed. If this was what the Rabbis taught relating to Amalek, the worst of the worst, certainly the Hittites would get off better?
Anyway I accept your judgement but still stand by what I wrote immediately before relating to Jews and Muslims.
Provoslavni, just some short replies.
Even the Chabad article itself states that there simply is no way to identify an actual Amalekite today. It simply extends the concept to apply in a figurative philosophical sense. However, Chabad is not negating the original meaning and carrying out of the command.
Neither the Rambam nor Rashi state otherwise, either. Case in point is King Saul not slaying Agag, king of Amalek. The consequence was Agag's descendant, Haman, almost destroyed every last Jew on the planet several 100s of years later. It was Mordechai, from the tribe of Benjamin, who corrected Saul's tragic error. Saul, too, was from the tribe of Benjamin and the connection between the 2 makes for an interesting discussion but not here.
I repeat that the laxness of Israel not removing the 7 Nations as they were commanded in Deuteronomy resulted in numerous punishments that visited the land of Israel up until the destruction of the 1st Temple. We were constantly warned. No one changed the law or altered its meaning.
I'm very busy. Otherwise I would start looking up all the Midrashic quotes that point out how not driving out the 7 Nations led to nothing but misery for Israel.
Shy Guy,
Thanks. I dont disagree about the laxness of ancient Israel. Remember, except for Yosef's Egyptian wife, all his brothers married Canaanites. But that is ancient history. What should our response be today?
I have repeatedly advocated that Israel drive out all the Muslims, humanely of course, with legitimate compensation and without genocide. This is in the interest not only of Jews but also the only hope of survival for the remaining Palestinian Christians, (themselves mostly descendants of ancient Israel as well). The result would be a more secure Israel that includes Hebron and Jericho confederated with an autonomous Christian Palestine in Bethlehem, Ramallah and the Nazareth triangle. Although the Muslims wouldn't like it, they would have Jordan, itself 70% of the old Palestine Mandate. This would also mean no more ugly security walls marring the land since the Jordan River is a more defensible border.
Not only would this plan bring Jews and Christians together in a workable and mutually prosperous alliance but it is probably the only chance to keep both communities from being drowned under the Hagarene demographic tide. Sadly few, if any, Israeli politicians have the foresight to see this.
There was no commandment to bannish them at the time of Jacob.
I feel no obligation to provide them with air conditioned buses.
Whatever it takes.
Nothing that Arab oil money couldn't cover.
Care to site proof of this latter claim of descendancy?
"Care to site proof of this latter claim of descendancy?"
-----------
That one's easy. Christian families in Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem have been there continuously since the time of the Romans. They are the very first Christians who were almost all Jews. Until a few generations ago they spoke Aramaic as well. Of course there were also Samaritans and Hellenes who also became Christians as well as Nabateans, but the Nabateans had all been Judaized by that time.
According to local Christian legend, Rabbinic Jews not only "excomunicated" those Jews who followed Jesus but declared them "to be to us as Philistines". The Jewish Christians then becan to call themselves "Filistin" as a badge of honor. However, I believe this legend is spurious. All Jews in Israel during the first and second centuries called themselves Palestinian as the name of the Palestinian Talmud attests.
Whatever the various bloodlines of the natives of Bethlehem and Nazareth, there is one group of Pali-Christians who are of purely Jewish ancestry: the Christians who founded Ramallah five hundred years ago. These are from the six clans of the Haddadeen tribe and have maintained careful documentation of their generations. They were originally Ebionites (Jewish-Christians) who were exiled by the Romans. They went to Yemen where they settled at the Oasis of Najran.
Whem Muhammed's deathbed decree expelled all the Jews and Christians from Arabia they tried to make aliya to Jerusalem. However, Abu Bakr would not let them enter so they settled at the Shobak across the Jordan. Three hundred years later they asked the Crusader King Baldwin to build a castle there and were all regularized into Orthodox Christianity. Five centuries ago, a war broke out between the Haddadeens and the Muslim Emir Ibn Kaysoom when they refused his demands for a Haddadeen girl as a wife for his son. They then crossed the Jordan and founded Ramallah.
Even to this day, many of these Pali-Christians maintain archaic Jewish customs such as dedicating a son for a period of time and not cutting his hair (the Nazirite vow). There are many others but space and time don't permit. Clearly the Christians, although Arabized, are not Arabs and Israel should stop classifying them as such.
Provoslavni,
Jerusalem was totally destroyed by the Romans, with the very last residents abandoning the city, Jews or otherwise.
As for Bethlehem, it was destroyed in the Bar Kochva revolt. The first church constructed there was in the early 4th century.
According to Wikipedia, the Evyonim (Ebionites) seem to have disperesed to Jordan and to Cyprus.
Why is that classification incorrect? There were no lack of Christian natives throughout the Arabian peninsula when Mohamed came around, converting and slaughtering many of them. Why is it assumed that Arabs are only either Muslims or moon worshipping pagans?
Shy Guy,
At the time of the Bar Kochva revolt, Christianity was still a minor sect of Judaism, and most historians believe that it was this messianic claim in favor of Bar Kokhba that alienated many Christians (including Jewish Christians), who believed that the true messiah was Jesus, and sharply deepened the schism between Jews and Christians. Since the Jewish-Christians did not support Bar Kochva many avoided deportation. However most simply fled to Nabatea and returned to rebuild Bethlehem and other towns after the war ended. Christians of Jewish origin in Nazareth were not expelled and at that time many of thier brethren from Judea and Samaria joined them in the Galil.
Jerusalem, after it was destroyed, it was soon rebuilt under the name Aelia Capitolina. Jews were forbidden to live in the city but by that time the Christians, although many were of Jewish ancestry were no longer considered Jews. The persistent Roman persecution of Christians was then in a lull. By the time that Constantine legalized Christianity, they were again the majority of the population of Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
The Christian populations in Arabia were not as large as the population of Arab Jews, except in the kingdom of the Ghassanids. After the Muslims destroyed the Ghassanids, many of them fled to Byzantium. As for the legal classification of Today's Palestinian Christians as Arabs, this is correct only in a linguistic sense, but that classification would also correctly apply to many Mizrahi Jews as well.
However, politically this classification is not wise. Just as the Maronites asserted their Phoenician identity against the Arab Muslim dominance, it would be wise for Palestinian Christians to assert their non-Arab identity as well. In fact, just as Jews revived Hebrew as a spoken tongue, it would probably be useful for Lebanese and Palestinian Christians to revive Aramaic, the language of their great-grandparents. Never forget that any action which undermines Muslim dominance is in the interests of both Christians and Jews.
I just read the Wiki article you cited. It points out that: "Many of the Jewish Christians residing at Pella renounced their Jewish practices at this time and joined to the mainstream Christian church". These are the ones that fled to nabatea that I mentioned above. Much of the Pali-Christian population today is descended from them.