The Truth hurts
In Human Events today I discuss the rage over my newly-discovered nearly two-year-old book:
The Al-Arabiya news channel last week discovered a sixteen-month-old promotion for my book The Truth About Muhammad, and worked itself into a fine lather of indignation – and the jihad terror group Hamas soon got into the act as well.The Hamas website thundered that the book was part of a “campaign by Western extremists against the religion of Islam and values that are sacred to Moslems,” and was “another in a series of actions designed to distort the image of Islam in the public eye. This follows the re-publication of the Muhammad caricatures in Denmark and the intention of a Dutch Parliament Member to air a movie against Islam.”
The Al-Arabiya headline was “US magazine distributes free anti-Prophet book: Book is said to contain lies and hate.” The article seemed to be playing to Leftists as well as jihadists: it was loaded with Leftist scare words, referring to Human Events as “right-wing,” “neo-conservative,” and “Republican-oriented,” and to Regnery Publishing as a publisher of “controversial neo-con books.” It quotes the non-Muslim Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong as saying that the book was “written in hatred” and contains “basic and bad mistakes of fact.”The only problem was that neither Al-Arabiya nor Hamas could demonstrate that anything in the book was actually false.
Al-Arabiya tried valiantly, however, asserting: “The book claims that Muhammad said terrorism made him victorious and that he used to tempt people with paradise so they would crush his enemies.”
While they present this as if it were a false claim, unfortunately for them it isn’t – unless with my Zionist black arts I have the power to cast material into the Qur’an and other canonical Islamic texts. “I have been made victorious with terror” -- so says Muhammad not according to me, but according to Bukhari. Sahih Bukhari is the hadith collection, that is, the collection of traditions of Muhammad, that Muslims consider most reliable.
And what about that bit about Paradise? Here’s another Islamic tradition from Bukhari: “On the day of the battle of Uhud, a man came to the Prophet and said, ‘Can you tell me where I will be if I should get martyred?’ The Prophet replied, ‘In Paradise.’ The man threw away some dates he was carrying in his hand, and fought till he was martyred.”
Yes, more of Spencer’s lies!
Al-Arabiya tries again with this: “The author also accuses Muhammad of treason, breaching the Treaty of Hudaybiya with the Meccan tribe of Quraish, and instigating Muslims to kill Jews.”
According to Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, the Treaty of Hudaybiya contained this provision: “If anyone comes to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian he will return him to them; and if anyone of those with Muhammad comes to Quraysh they will not return him to him.”
That is, those fleeing the Quraysh and seeking refuge with the Muslims would be returned to the Quraysh, while those fleeing the Muslims and seeking refuge with the Quraysh would not be returned to the Muslims.
But soon thereafter a woman of the Quraysh, Umm Kulthum, joined the Muslims in Medina; her two brothers came to Muhammad, asking that they be returned “in accordance with the agreement between him and the Quraysh at Hudaybiya.” But Muhammad refused: Allah forbade it. He gave Muhammad a new revelation: “O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine and test them. Allah knows best as to their faith: if ye ascertain that they are believers, then send them not back to the unbelievers” (Qur’an 60:10).
In refusing to send Umm Kulthum back to the Quraysh, Muhammad broke the treaty. Although Muslims have claimed throughout history that the Quraysh broke it first, this incident came before all those by the Quraysh that Muslims point to as treaty violations – as even Islamic apologist Yahiya Emerick acknowledges in his own CAIR-endorsed biography of Muhammad. So I suppose Emerick’s book also contains “lies” and “hate”?
And as for the bit about killing Jews, both of the earliest biographers of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa‘d, both zealous Muslims, record his telling his followers at a certain point: “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.”
And finally, Al-Arabiya makes one last attempt: “Spencer, the director of the Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch websites, also claims that the prophet encouraged Muslim men to take women captive to control them.”
Yes, it is I who wrote into the Qur’an the permission for Muslim men to have sexual relations with women “whom your right hands possess” (4:24).
So it is Al-Arabiya that is either lying or ignorant about what the earliest Islamic texts say about Muhammad.
I challenge anyone at Al-Arabiya, or Hamas, anyone anywhere, to substantiate a single lie or hateful statement within the book. They haven’t yet.
The implications of this are larger than just my book. With Al-Arabiya and Hamas denouncing an accurate portrayal of Muhammad as he is depicted in Islamic texts, it appears that in their view non-Muslims are not to be permitted to examine those texts and investigate how jihadists use them to justify jihad violence and Islamic supremacism. In other words, non-Muslims are not to be allowed to investigate the motives and goals of those who would destroy them.
In the context of today’s global jihad, that puts us all at risk.
I can't wait to read this book.
(Don't worry Robert, I've read "Religion of Peace?" and dozens of your articles, but this book is next on my list and has been for a while).
You evil distorter, you..!
They are going to be very upset when they read the book (Just kidding, of course they won't actually read it) and find out it's contains direct quotes from their manual of death.
Hard to argue those facts.
Is this commentary any surprise coming from a faith that sanctions lying? Only in Islam does proving a lie, a lie, never requires proof. It is right up there with well documented opinion. Neither of which are worth a plugged Nickel.
I've been reading this book again in preparation for interviewing Robert on The Gathering Storm Radio Show this Friday, March 28.
Muslim sensitivity over MTP puts me in mind of these words, reworded to fit the situation: Methinks that Muslims doth protest too much over their prophet.
MTP is their "perfect man." Well, he wasn't so perfect after all. And Robert proves so from Islamic sources.
nother in a series of actions designed to distort the image of Islam in the public eye.
hmm funny i thought islam and its apologists did this anyways
"The Hamas website thundered that the book was part of a “campaign by Western extremists against the religion of Islam and values that are sacred to Moslems,” and was “another in a series of actions designed to distort the image of Islam in the public eye."
Hamas said that? lol
>>It quotes the non-Muslim Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong as saying that the book was “written in hatred” and contains “basic and bad mistakes of fact.” --RS
I can't figure out what's wrong with this former nun! Did she fall on her head while in the convent, or something?
Spencer, of course, is an expert. But even a layperson can open a Qur'an and see for themselves that much is not kosher about Islam! LOL - loved using the word "kosher" there!
Generally speaking, people don't like to be taken for fools. And Islam has been taking the West for fools now for many years since 9/11. Even the President of the United States has been taken for a fool by Islam! However, time has passed, and peoples' knowledge about Islam has increased immensely. The Mohammedans are going to find very shortly that the West is not going to permit itself to be taken as fools any longer by the Barbarians. That's what I think, anyway.
great book. I am glad hamas is reading it.
Robert Spencer -- The Wizard of Zion -- LOL!
Yo, Roberto WIZ -- lemme see you pull another fast over on Dar al-Islam, how'bout it, huh?
We are ALL waiting for your next trick, for you to announce your next great act of Powerful Black Zionist Arts!
Mohammedans are perpetulantly seething about something. If it wasn't the book it would be something else.
I wonder if they all tend to suffer from Hypertension?
The Danish cartoons only caused a 'seethe' many months after their original publication.
I think they must have full time 'seethe-seekers' who scan every possible publication throughout the world for a new excuse to have an official seethe day!
It is too late to prevent people in the West from reading their 'holy' manual - the cat is out of the bag! By trying to deny what is written there, they prove themselves to be liars -- albeit dangerous liars!
... another fast [one] over on Dar al-Islam, how'bout it, huh?
".....another in a series of actions designed to distort the image of Islam in the public eye."
The only thing distorted here is Islam itself, as the book is simply designed to align individuals with the Truth.
Just say "Yes" to the Truth, and "No" to Islam.
In other words, non-Muslims are not to be allowed to investigate the motives and goals of those who would destroy them. -JW
I think you've hit the nail on the head! That is a real good reason to expose this evil cult more and more openly. Which is an anti-Jihad, exactly what we are discussing and spending our otherwise valuable time on.
Exposing the roots of Jihad is anti-Jihad, I cant think of it any better way.
In other words, non-Muslims are not to be allowed to investigate the motives and goals of those who would destroy them. -JW
I think you've hit the nail on the head! That is a real good reason to expose this evil cult more and more openly. Which is an anti-Jihad, exactly what we are discussing and spending our otherwise valuable time on.
Exposing the roots of Jihad is anti-Jihad, I cant think of it any better way.
I seem to recall that one of the 'Rules for Dhimmis' was that dhimmis were not allowed to study the Muslim sacred texts:
from the Pact of Omar -
"We will not teach our children the Qur'an".
In other words - non-Muslims are not supposed to know what is in the 'sacred texts'. This rule (which looks like a vulgarisation of the esoteric/ exoteric divide maintained by ancient 'mystery' cults) logically means that historically most non-Muslims who were 'converted' must have been forced (or deceived) into becoming Muslims without knowing anything like the full details of what they were getting themselves into.
The last thing Muslims want, it seems, is Infidels knowing what Islam is about. (Perhaps because Infidels who DO read the Muslim sacred texts, are - in general - that much harder to deceive?).
'JUST SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE! SIGN NOW!! DON'T READ THE FINE PRINT!!'
Ah, the approach of the classic con-artist, always and everywhere.
All that seething! Makes a person tired just thinking about it.
Let's see, where does seething fit into the list of Seven Deadly Sins?
* Lust (fornication)
* Gluttony
* Greed
* Sloth
* Wrath (anger, hate)
* Envy (jealousy)
* Pride
Well, it seems seething could probably be included in "Wrath" but it appears that many Muslims who are most vocal in their defense of Islam would also be guilty of several other of these sins.
Just a question on the final sentence:
"In other words, non-Muslims are not to be allowed to investigate the motives and goals of those who would destroy them."
I read recently the Umar's Pact: one of the rules was:
"And you will not teach the Quran to your children" (more or less)
Is this an official Islamic rule, not allowing, rightly, non-Muslims to study and comment Islamic Scriptures at least in public? In other words, is it an Islamic rule to allow the teaching of Islam only to Muslims?
If this is the truth, I'm afraid Muslim's are right!!!
Robert, you're not allowed to speak! Be quite kaffir! (by the way, did you paid your dhimma yet?)
Salaam
Buraq