At FrontPage this morning is a Symposium on the question, "Is the Muslim account of Muhammad valid?" I'm participating, along with Bill Warner and self-styled Muslim reformers Edip Yuksel and Thomas Haidon. Haidon once again scolds me for my "tone" after I refuse to be abjectly and uncritically grateful for anything that presents itself as an attempt to reform Islam, no matter how much of a farrago or how tissue-paper-thin it will appear to the jihadists whose interpretation of Islam it is supposed to be reforming.
I think Tom Haidon is in earnest, but the energy that so many of these "reformers" expend on trying to reassure wary non-Muslims that all is well and Islam is peaceful, rather than on trying to plug obvious holes in their argument from an Islamic standpoint, so as to convince violent and supremacist Muslims that they should live in peace with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis, is, I think, sufficiently revelatory of their true intentions.
Anyway, let me know what you think of the discussion.
UPDATE: In an addendum to the Symposium, Haidon has retracted the remark to which I referred above. I thank him for that. Also, Hugh tells me I should be sure to direct your attention to Edip Yuksel's agitated reaction to criticisms from Bill Warner and me, and his invitation to us to accept Islam. I do think they are revelatory.
I loved it that you were called to embrace Islam. Rather disappointed that you rejected it. :-)
@ ROBERT
Why hasn't anybody raised the issue of the motoon on the front of this website?
Don't they always have an anti-US hate fest every Friday? Not like this is any different........
Better watch out Mr. Spencer, the muslims has invited you to islam. You know what is next. You will have to pay the jizya or get the sword. Here's wishing you a long islam and jizya free life.
It was somewhat painful watching Yuksel's and Haden's genuine efforts at, what is obvious to the casual observer, an exercise in futility.
Moderating Islam, simply put, can only result in it's demise.
Recognizing this pitfall becomes apparent with Yuksel's and Haden's knee jerk, heated and defensive reactions to both Spencer and Warner.
It was especially satisfying to read the kafir point of view presented by Warner. I whole heartedly agree - the 'Qur'an based Islam" approach offers nothing of value to the 'kafir'.
Well done.
Well, certainly when a website confuses sarcasm and mockery with high-level intellectual debate I can understand why someone would take issue with your tone - whether he retracts the statement or not. How can a self-appointed scholar of Islam, who "blogs the Qur'an," be taken seriously beyond his sycophants when his agenda is so stridently anti-Muslim? Why should a so-called Islamic expert be taken seriously when he refuses to move an inch or offer alternative ideas when the issue of reform is brought to the table? You don't lead the debate or encourage debate. You stamp it out.
Wow, an "invitation to embrace Islam!?
Who could refuse? LOL!
"FP: Mr. Haidon, if you don’t mind me following up with you for a moment in terms of your own faith. If it is a difficult case to sweepingly disregard the historical account of Muhammad or to categorically say that it is false, as you say, how and why do you remain a Muslim?
Haidon: ....blah...blah....blah... In summary, I am Muslim and will remain Muslim because I believe in the primacy of the Qur'an and its wisdom. I believe that the Qur'an is complete, and provides comprehensive guidance to Muslims when interpreted contextually. "
In other words: "I am muslim because I believe in the Qur'an."
If I recall correctly from Logic 101 class Haidon's answer is a tautology.
(tau·tol·o·gy –noun, plural -gies.
1. needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.”)
It must be frustrating to hold oneself out as a as a "rationalist" with any rationale.
Great job by both Spencer and Warner!
I especially liked Warner's line of attack: the Koranic mistreatment of "Kafir". The so-called reformist Muslims had no answers to his effective articulation (and the bloody track record of his closest disciples).
I liked Spencer's arguments too, especially when he pointed out that Koran itself instructs that what Muhammed said should be taken seriously.
I also wish that one of the two pointed out that even the Koran itself couldn't be taken seriously. The way Koran was put together (based upon the historical evidence and Hadiths), it couldn't be an accurate or complete enough document of God's "revelations".
Thomas Haidon has been here at Jihadwatch many times.
I have had a few exchanges with him.
I asked him the same question, why not just become a Christian or Jew? He always says he will remain moslem. How can that be reformed? Allah is a blood-lusting, evil deity who divides the world's people into moslem and dirty kuffaar.
13 Martyrs:
Re your remarks:
This is a neat ad hominem attack, but where's the beef? I could just as easily say, Why should an author of custom car books stand in judgment of me? What qualifications do you have?
But hey, my late brother really liked your custom car books, and I hope you will keep 'em coming, and in any case the point is that what really is at issue here is the substance of what I say. What have I said that is false about Islam, jihad, dhimmitude, whatever? Happy hunting -- and I don't believe that the fact that all you have published about is automobiles disqualifies you from answering the question, so fire away. Look especially at the Q-Blog, since you mentioned it. It is an exposition of Islamic commentaries on the Qur'an. Please pinpoint what is wrong with it.
As for reform, I have repeatedly asked Muslims to acknowledge the existence of violent and supremacist texts and teachings, and repudiate their literal formulation, while offering an alternative vision by which peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis is made possible. Something wrong with that? Something debate-stifling about it? Sorry, but I don't see why.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
The Pope, Benedikt XVI, who started off strong against the ideology of Mohammed in 2006 A.D., when he examined the role reason played in the violence used to effect the conversion of non-believers, backed down soon afterwards, starting with his being humiliated during a visit to Turkey.
Whether it is preserve the Church in Moslem lands or whatever his motivation, he has fallen into the trap of "outreach" and "reconciliation" with what he deemd to be "moderate" Moslems--clerics yet.
Inviting Islamic clerics into the Vatican is akin to the shepherd inviting hyenas into his sheepfold.
Sorry to say that the Pope has fallen in my estimation as a strong leader against Moslems intent on taking over the non-Moslem world for Islam, unlike several of his predecessors who took on that role.
I bring this up as a comment to the above post because it deals with "moderate" Moslems and those who are or pretend to be that. Although to my mind, if you are a Moslem who believes that the koran is holy and comes directly from a Moslem god, and that the life of Mohammed was exemplary and that every Moslem should follow this journey in the world by this "perfect man," you cannot be "moderate."
It is, as has been said before ad nauseam, similar to being pregnant. You cannot be "moderately" pregnant as contrasted to "fully" pregnant. I mean the state either is or is not. Likewise, a Moslem either is a full believer or he is not.
Yes, there are "secular" Moslems or "Moslems-in-name-only" as Hugh so insightfully observed. There are Moslems who imbibe alcohol and do not emulate the "oh-so-pure" life of Mohammed (lacking in "purity" in sexual matters, however so there's plenty of room for them in that arena).
These "luke-warm" Moslems still feel their "Moslemhood" at critical times, such as when the umma celebrates a successful al qaeda strike against one of the two "Satans."
When push comes to shove and an angered populace starts cleaning out berobed, koran-wielding Moslems from their midst, will these "in-name-onlys" side with us or will they feel the pull of their "Moslemhood" and side with their more devout ideologues.
More appropriate yet is an instance when, let us suppose, the ummah is more and more victorious, Europe has fallen to them and they have made such inroads in the United States as holding majorities in both houses of Congress as well as having, say, three Moslem justices on our Supreme Court, and of course Moslems in the cabinet, CAIR crowing triumphantly, and a couple of Moslem candidates vying for the presidency of the United States.
When "it is good to be a Moslem," will these "moderate," "slightly pregnant" Moslems join in with Islam triumphant? Or will we be able to depend on these Moslem "good ol boys" on being on our side, the Resistance, the underground, the people intent on taking our country back?
Nothing in the koran justifying violence--against "unbelievers" as claimed by Yuksel? Gimme a break!
Then as most of the "bad" stuff in the ideology called Islam is not from Mohammed, we're left with a "pure" koran--which, however, does exhort the "faithful" to do violence to Jews and other unbelievers.
I have also been approached by "moderate" Moslem leaders with organizations but neither have the patience nor temperament to engage in lengthy debates about what is from Mohammed in the koran and what was added or carried over from "before Islam," how is that called? "The time of Ignorance" or whatever.
These arguments deteriorate into something like the debates about how many angels fit on the head of needle and similar fine points that can be debated "until the sun comes up." The proof's in the puddin'! It what its adherents believe and act upon and how it affects us is what matters. I neither want to discuss verses of the koran--most disgust me, and the ones that have some merit were purloined from the religions that existed when Mohammed had his "revelations." By the way, the cause of these revelations are examined in The Supernatural Basis of Islam which I have cited in a previous comment to another post here.
Robert, thanks for the personal response to my post. You pretty much prove my point. A touch of sarcasm, a hint of mockery, the veiled putdown, your righteous anger over being challenged. Your insistence that you provide facts. It's the schoolyard bullying and belittling tone, Robert, that undermines every argument you make. You can accomplish so much more with objective presentation of facts with context and level-headed commentary that is without the juvenile editorializing. I must say, though, it makes for helluva good theater. No wonder Muslim leaders, Western religious scholars, academics and policy makers avoid posting here. They can't compete with your wit and panache (and neither can I!). You're kind of like the Don Rickles of pundits. I like you better on television. You have the smarts to tone it down and give a good argument. Too bad you don't have the courage to do it here. But then your traffic numbers would drop and what's the sense of that?
Car Dude:
Guilty as charged, man. Wow -- an insistence on proof! That makes me a bad man, doesn't it? If I were a good man, I'd let you defame me without asking you to prove your defamation. Alas, I just ain't that good.
I asked you to look at the Q-Blog. I ask you to do so again, and pinpoint any "juvenile editorializing" in it. Good luck with that.
More likely, they can't prove their broad and vague assertions about errors in my work, any more than you can.
Look, I'll spell it out for you. You don't like my tone? You think I'm sarcastic? Fine. I know I am sometimes. I admit, I like to needle the proud, the pretentious, the presumptuous, the self-righteous, the deceptive. You know how to make me go away? Prove me wrong. Find one scrap, one fragment, one half-sentence that I've written about Islam, jihad, dhimmitude, Muhammad, whatever, that is false.
Go on. Why is that so hard, if I'm such an evil fellow? Why can't anyone, ever, ever, do it?
Wow! Incidentally, when did you receive the power to read souls?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Oh, and one more thing, Car Dude:
I stopped by your site and see that, apparently not content with defaming me here, you're defaming the great and heroic Wafa Sultan over there.
I see that your site has only a glancing interest in facts and accuracy, but I had to stop at this one:
"Sultan, who considers herself a Muslim..."
She was quite open about being an ex-Muslim on her first and famous go-round on Al-Jaz.
Have you ever considered doing even the most basic research?
Cheers
RS
Mr. Wagner:
My apologies. I think I misread this:
I read that above as meaning that I insist that you provide facts, but I see that I read too quickly, and that you were saying that I insist that I provide facts, as if I don't really provide facts, but just claim to do so.
Even better. It ought to be easy then to find one falsehood here, and to discredit me thereby. I am standing by, ready to take my medicine.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
As long as they keep worshiping a fraud, their lame excuses, no matter how adept or articulated, remain fraudulent. Shahada is capitulation to fraud.
that 13 martyr guy stole the "self-hating" as applied to Wafa Sultan from the Jews. Not surprising as too much of Islam has been purloined from the same source.
As Robert Spencer pointed out though, Wafa Sultan is not a self-hating" Moslem, because she is an ex-Moslem. A "self-hating" ex-Moslem? Hardly. Why would anyone have to hate her- or himself when they no longer follow the most noxious teachings to have come down the pike?
Robert, good job as always.
The problem, as I see it, is that there is a great gulf fixed between those who Mark Gabriel aptly described as "Christianized Westernized Muslims" and their counterparts in the Muslim World. To mainstream Muslims, these Western reformers are as heretical as the Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan or the Bahiis in Iran or the Druze in Syria.
In my recent blog "A Question for Ed Husayn" at lookingfromthebalcony.blogspot.com I discuss why he and other reformers try so hard, for example, to convince us (in spite of all the historical evidence) that Aisha was a teenager rather than nine when Muhammad married her. Because they realize we are uncomfortable with the facts of the historical Muhammad, they are trying to reinvent him. I agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was asked why she did not become a Muslim reformer like Manji Irshad rather than leave Islam. Ayaan's reply was she could not live five minutes in that dichotomy.
Another thing Western Reformers are trying to do is reinterpret Shariah. If anyone is interested, my upcoming blog entry will be my translation and analysis of an hour-long recent interview on Al Jazeera with an Islamic scholar about "Renewing Shariah". Guess what? He's not buying it.
I wish reformers all the best - I just don't think it is going to work. Al Jazeera's recent "apology" for allowing Wafa Sultan to speak her mind on their TV shows how far mainstream Islam is - and will ever be - to reform. Better to follow the example of Wafa, Ayaan, Mark, and thousands of others and just leave.
Also, one last thing, Mr. Wagner:
Please pinpoint one place where I scorned, mocked, belittled, reacted sarcastically to, or played Don Rickles to anyone in this present Symposium.
And thanks.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
In reading Edip Yuksel's fancy response and chart, I kept thinking, "I can't wait to see how he explains away 4.34."
Lo and behold, nothing. In a long expose about Islam and women, nothing. As Robert pointed out.
How can he be serious? And Tom doesn't mention it either?
What on earth are these guys going to say to this guy?
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1594.htm
Pretty pathetic, I think, when a casual infidel reader of JihadWatch, with no formal training in Islam at all, can see right through these weak (and misleading) arguments. If I can see through it, what would a learned Muslim say?
Tom? You're a Qur'anist. What do you say about 4.34?
I do not know if anyone else noticed it, but the following words from that guy Edip:
"Ironically, most of those who call themselves Muslims are not muslims according to the Quran. The flowers, insects, trees, animals, planets, stars, galaxies, everything in the universe, with the exception of human mind, are entirely muslim, since they follow God's law without deviation."
That is mind boggling, to say the least! …. So, when I toss a coin in the air, and when it inevitably falls to the ground, the coin is being the best of muslims, because it followed God’s law of gravity? LOL … … next time I’ll advise my coin not to even think about doing something other than to fall to the ground, Otherwise it risks being called a non-muslim by our self-aggrandizing muslim reformer Mr. Edip! LOL ….
These two Muslim "reformers" (unicorns) clearly idolize Muhammad. They're idol worshippers. I've always found Haidon's bizarre syncretistic approach unsettling -- but I've always hoped to find in his opinion some kernel of rationality or something of any sort to base an approach which will work for the ballyhooed "reformation" of his hideous religion. But the more I read the more dissonant and even insane his approach becomes. He clearly is chronically split between admitting the absolute and iredeemable horribleness of Islam's "prophet", and wishing to see that "prophet" sanitized of his criminal psychopathy. Only a crazed and broken person can both see the horribleness of Islam's founder Muhammad and then cling so desperately and tenaciously to the futile lunacy of his apotheosis.
It also is vile to think of the time he and other "reformers" spend lecturing and attempting to assure we filthy kuffir, while the entirety of the Muslim world ignores his lunacy.
Pied pipers leading the gullible kuffir to their destruction at the hands of more pious Muslims than they.
It also is grotesque to see the arrogant way this Yuksel lays claim to the entire universe under his Islam, and even has the temerity to lay claim to Christians and Jews as being "muslim( miniscule)" if they follow "God's way" or Islam. He says:
"The flowers, insects, trees, animals, planets, stars, galaxies, everything in the universe, with the exception of human mind, are entirely muslim, since they follow God's law without deviation. So, superiority is only through righteous acts that follow right thoughts and ideas (See Quran: 49:13)."
This is an exhibition of arrogance of such staggering proportions that the jaw might drop if such things were not habitually spewing from from the mouths of the Muslim lunatics of planet earth. All of his comments amount to little more than hollow triumphal self referential pseudo-intellectual masturbation for the sake of obfuscation, confusion, and the treacherous spread of more Islam in the world.
Bill Warner in the Front Page exchange cuts to the bone with unassailable logic: the Koran-only idiots, Yuksel and Haidon, are not merely trying to construct a wildly unrealistic Islam that ignores the Sunnah -- that would be bad enough; no, they end up trying to construct a Koran that ignores more than half of the Koran itself!
And notice in the exchange how neither Yuksel nor Haidon addressed Warner's key points about how bad the Koran itself is:
"51% of the Koran written in Medina is about the kafir... Every mention about the kafir is negative. "Kafir" is usually translated as unbeliever, but this is wrong. The word "unbeliever" is neutral. The Koran defines the kafir by its usage and says that the kafir can be killed, hated, punished, raped, mocked, enslaved, plotted against, beheaded, tortured, insulted, condemned, stolen from, deceived, kidnapped, humiliated and on and on."
and
"let’s go along with the argument that without the Mohammed of the Sira and the Hadith, a good Islam would be a Koran-only Islam. Mr. Haidon and Mr. Yuksel are so immersed in dualism of believer/kafir that they cannot see what a dreadful document the Koran is for the kafir. They love it when the Koran says that they are the “best of people”, but they cannot see how horrible it is that I and all other kafirs are called the worst things in Allah’s creation.
"The Medinan Koran has brought political misery to the kafirs for 1400 years. There is not one good statement in the Koran and Islam for us. It says that we can be tortured, beheaded, crucified, robbed, raped, enslaved, mocked, and humiliated. These are political actions and they define the Islamic worldview. Why does any Muslim think that I get a warm feeling and a smile when I am told that Allah plots against me and hates me?"
_________
The silence of Haidon and Yuksel in the face of these arguments by Warner is not only palpable, it bespeaks a collusion with the evil of the Koran. Or else Haidon and Yuksel are clinically insane (which seems less likely).
I found this symposium, and the discussion here fascinating. Here are some points I found telling:
-Not one of the "Qu'ranists" dealt with the wife-beating verse, or how the Qu'ran's was compiled in much the same way as the "false" hadith, or anything Mr. Warner said about how it treats the kafir.
-How "13 Martyrs" comes in here with sweeping generalizations and accusation, and when called to back any of them up, he can't be found. Hmm...
-How the idea of "the Bible is also bad" comes up. In my own personal interactions, it is inevitable. It always, always always comes up. (My response is that if an accused murderer said "Well, Hitler killed lots more than me", would the accused suddenly be innocent?)
-Also, the "invasion and occupation" canard is thrown out AGAIN. How does that explain beheading in Thailand, or any of the other atrocities committed by jihadists all over the world, in places the US or Israel HAVEN'T invaded? (Or why after Israel LEFT Gaza, the rockets kept coming?)
I really enjoyed this symposium.
Yuksel's attempt to feign that there is a likelihood for meaningful reform in Islam, by simply operating exclusively as a strict Qur'anist, was exposed and shown to be irreparably flawed by both Spencer and Warner.
Yuksel did not address Robert's points about the specific passages contained in the Qur'an which rebuke his claims and provide the giant obstacle to reform which Yuksel so desperately wants non-believers to buy into.
He thought he was sly about the call to conversion and then, when called out, went into a typical illogical Islamic rant, drifting grossly off topic but effectively, it belied his true intention...deception.
Islam is a self-cornered animal. Even if a complete renouncement by Muslims of the Hadith and Sira occured, though this concept is illogical since it is the entire reference to the 'perfect man' whom Allah mandates that all Muslims emulate, it would not adequately alleviate the intolerance towards all other faiths which is so prevalenmt in the Qur'an itself, as Warner has bluntly yet accurately stated.
justamomof4 wrote:
"Moderating Islam, simply put, can only result in it's demise."
This is exactly true. The Qur'an itself should offer no solace to the unbeliever, in any way. The suggestion that it is possible to gain any momentum in the Islamic community to the idea of modifying it, is quite simply, preposterous. Apparently, even Haidon cannot escape this mental trap.
The book is deemed as divine by many, many Muslims. This is the cornerstone of their justification of Islam's "superiority" over the other "corrupted" Abrahamic faiths.
If the Qur'an is changed, it is essentially stripped of its divine status, and then whole ideological 'house of cards' is sure to come crashing down in short order.
This form of ideological suicide is not likely to happen.
"The book is deemed as divine by many, many Muslims."
And by Haidon himself; he said so in the exchange. He therefore must believe that the over 50% of the Koran which drips with violent hatred against the non-Muslim is the word of God Himself. And yet he claims the Koran is the basis for peace, love, harmony and a true relationship with a God who is infinitely good and merciful.
Haidon is therefore either:
1) a remarkably unusual imbecile
2) clinically insane
or
3) practicing sinister taqiyya.
There is no fourth option here that can be rationally adduced.
#1 seems highly unlikely, given his obvious signs of intelligence.
#2 also seems unlikely, though of course one can never tell, since many insane people can express themselves in ways that seem sane.
#3 seems the most likely.
There is no fourth option.
Cantor,
Apparently Haidon has left some wiggle room to a possible re-interpretation of the Qur'an, at least he did by his own admission, historically:
"While I recognise (as a Muslim) that the revelation from God to Muhammad is "perfect", the Qu'ran in itself is an extraordinarily complex document, often not fully understood by the most pre-eminent scholars. As such, it is essential, in the twenty-first century that efforts be made to develop a new modern and moderate exegesis (tafsir) (in contrast for example to that of Sayd Qutb's "In the Shade of the Qu'ran")."
"I am not advocating the abandonment of the Qu’ran or its de-emphasization in any respect, although it must be recognized that while the revelation of God to Muhammad may be "perfect", the fact that the written Qu'ran has been tampered with and reordered by men, with certain verses omitted should indicate that our holy scripture as codified by man, may not be as perfect as we might think. This is why the development of a new, radically new modern and moderate exegesis is essential."
--Haidon--
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=2432359E-F8AA-44C0-A08D-C35AF31B096E
ooops
please insert "without" in place of "with" in the last sentence in my post above.
Cantor
I agree with you more and more about Haidon, particularly given his solutions involve inventions such as a new tafseer, which would somehow re-interpret 'kill the infidels wherever you find them' as 'leave them alone'. I find Muslims against Shariah more honest in conceding the impossibility of such an exercise, and instead cleanly deleting inconvenient verses. I don't think either approach has a worse chance of success.
Reading the piece, I particularly agree with Bill Warner when he says
This section is brilliant, not only because it points out how the Qur'an is more virulently judeophobic (even though Islam may allow Jews the option of Islamizing, unlike the Nazis), but how words like 'unbeliever' or 'infidel' are inadequate translations of 'kafir'. Maybe there is something to the claim of Mohammedan apologists that you have to know Arabic to understand the Qur'an, although not in the way they intend.And this is the part people overlook when they for understandable reasons don't want to get involved in the inner workings of Islam (just as I'm not interested in whether Catholic priests are ever allowed to marry). So much of it is about Islam vis a vis Infidels (which some Mohammedan poster here was yesterday touting as a positive that the destruction, or at the minimum, an overwhelming distortion of Islam is what would be required.
Another brilliant obervation from Bill Warner
I do not know if anyone else noticed it, but the following words from that guy Edip:
"Ironically, most of those who call themselves Muslims are not muslims according to the Quran. The flowers, insects, trees, animals, planets, stars, galaxies, everything in the universe, with the exception of human mind, are entirely muslim, since they follow God's law without deviation."
Actually the part that I noticed was that he ascribes the human mind as being non-muslim for failing to follow the laws of God (or the laws of nature if you prefer). That says to me that he ascribes the theory that the koran should be followed without benefit of thought, i.e. blind allegiance. To me, the ability to reason outside of basic animal instinct is what distinquishes us from the natural world. And why, in the book of Genesis, God placed dominion over all the creatures of the earth to man.
In the movie Dragnet, Sgt Friday said "two things distinguish us from the animals, we use cutlery and we control our sexual urges". Yet muslims insist that women are to be relegated to a separate room and are forced to wear burkas so the men won't be sexually distracted during prayers. Now it makes sense, muslims are like animals, unable to think for themselves and/or exercise self control.
awake,
Those quotes from Haidon you provided indicate that I might have to slightly adjust my three options to explain Haidon: it might be more likely that he is clinically insane, with sinister taqiyya being a close second as a plausible explanation.
While I recognise (as a Muslim) that the revelation from God to Muhammad is "perfect", the Qu'ran in itself is an extraordinarily complex document, often not fully understood by the most pre-eminent scholars.
1) How could a perfect communication be so complex that it has "often" eluded the understanding of the "most pre-eminent scholars"? That is illogical. God in his absolute omnipotence and perfection surely would be able to communicate with clarity, and certainly wouldn't communicate his absolute truth for Mankind upon which their eternal salvation hinges, in ways that throughout Islamic history into our own present have been ostensibly massively confused by God's recipients and have made millions of Muslims (from "pre-eminent scholars" on down to ordinary Muslims) wrongly interpret it -- wrongly, that is, according to Haidon's special wisdom.
2) Haidon is here saying he knows better than all those "pre-eminent [Muslim] scholars". Haidon knows better about Islam than Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, the first four Caliphs, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ibn Kathir, Al-Kortoby... this is so preposterous that again, Haidon is either delusional on a psychopathological scale, or he is practicing taqiyya.
As such, it is essential, in the twenty-first century that efforts be made to develop a new modern and moderate exegesis (tafsir) (in contrast for example to that of Sayd Qutb's "In the Shade of the Qu'ran")."
1) Haidon is effectively saying that a new Sunnah needs to be developed, and the old one scrapped -- in part, that is: In the round-table, he admitted that parts of the Sunnah must be correct, and parts incorrect, and that the way to tell the difference is to judge the merits of the Sunnah's Hadiths by whether they accord with the Koran. This, however, runs into the sticky problem that Haidon himself has admitted the Koran is too complex to provide such a simplex solution: thus, logically, Haidon's project of winnowing out the good from the bad Hadiths will require this new "21st Century Tafsir" of the Koran itself, before the Koran can be used to salvage any good parts of the old Sunnah. And on what will this Tafsir Project be based? Why, upon the human reason and decency of Thomas Haidon and like-minded Muslims, of course! And what connection does that human reason and decency have with the Koran itself? None can be established -- except by Haidon's circular logic.
2) It is not merely Sayyid Qutb that Haidon has to worry about. It is the vast majority of Muslim scholars from the beginning to now. His mention of Qutb is a "straw Muslim" fallacy and/or a distraction.
the fact that the written Qu'ran has been tampered with and reordered by men, with certain verses omitted should indicate that our holy scripture as codified by man, may not be as perfect as we might think.
This hypothesis of Haidon's buttresses his previous assertion that the Koran is so "complex" its "perfection" cannot be normally clear, but requires extraordinary and laborious efforts by teams of new scholars who are somehow even better than all those "pre-eminent scholars" of the past and present. With the quote above, Haidon provides additional wiggle-room to get out of the corner he has painted himself into by claiming the Koran is "perfect": Why, this perfect Koran has been tampered with! This little loophole can give Haidon license to do anything with the Koran; for how will he be able to tell the difference between a verse that is "perfect" and one that has been "tampered with"? Surely not from the Koran itself, nor from the Sunnah that by his own admission is shot full of holes. No, once again, we are left to the devices of the reason and decency of Thomas Haidon himself. Hundreds of millions of bellicose, fanatical and irrationally devout Muslims are hardly going to be impressed by that -- particularly when they possess through their Islamic texts, laws and tradition, a ready-made air-tight box to put people like Haidon in, the box of "apostate" and "innovator" and ultimately "kafir".
This is why the development of a new, radically new modern and moderate exegesis is essential.
No, this is why the ruthless ridicule of preposterous pundits like Haidon is essential.
Infidel Pride,
"Another brilliant obervation from Bill Warner"
Yes; one wonders why the latter half of the "Update" was necessary, since Warner already noted with scintillating effectiveness, as you quoted, what Hugh had picked up on.
'13 martys' above sez:
'Why should a so-called Islamic expert be taken seriously when he refuses to move an inch or offer alternative ideas when the issue of reform is brought to the table?'
Because Robert Spencer is serious and makes sense, you Islamic twit. You don't.
When did Islam ever move an inch? When did Islam ever present 'alternative ideas' apart from conquest and submission? What 'reform' was brought to the table? Nothing, nothing whatsoever!
You yourself are full of vitriol & hatred and insist on bullshitting infidels into some kind of 'reform' when you know that the gates of itjihad are shut since several hundred years.
Your 'reformers' above are just trying to conceal the sword of Islam by wasting our time about packaging.
It won't wash.
I don't really appreciate the rude and personal attacks here. They are unnecessary. To JSLA who states that I apparently "worship" Muhammad. You could not be more wrong. Learn to read, and then re-read. I have always been critical of Muhammad, and the acts attributed to him. I DO NOT CONSIDER HIM TO BE AN EXAMPLE FOR MANKIND. DO your homework...
It really troubles me that Cantor finds the need to accuse me of being insane, an imbecile or an Islamist. Its easy for alot of readers here just to throw up personal, and almost defamatory insults. I am none of these three. I have witnessed with my own eyes the horrors of Islamic terror and tyranny, so I am under no dis-illusion about what the real problems and challenges are.
But I do concede, that I did not answer the questions in the way I should have. I think one of the posters above is right, I did not adequately address some of the questions... but I am certainly not "complicit", as one poster refers to, with Islamist violence. That is an absurd charge.
Your 'reformers' above are just trying to conceal the sword of Islam by wasting our time about packaging.
It won't wash.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami
Exactly!! You always have such great insights - you are my role model!
Mr. Haidon,
I for one appreciate your willingness to come and post here. I think we all would like to better understand your perspective; I hope you will answer some of the requests for more detail.
In particular, I would like to see you address Robert's point that there is plenty to worry about in the Qur'an itself. What do you make of 4.34, 9.5, 9.29, 2.223, and 4.11, for example?
And how do you reconcile 33.21 with your statement, "I DO NOT CONSIDER HIM TO BE AN EXAMPLE FOR MANKIND"?
Notice that Haidon did not address my detailed argument that led me to my "ad hominem" conclusion.
And people wonder why we are fed up with Muslims, "moderate" or not.
All I can say is if you 'embrace' islam expect to be bear-hugged in return.
Kind of like Russia.. You don't join party - party joins you.
Dear Mr. Haidon,
I recognize that you are not appreciative of my intense skepticism regarding your theories and philosophy. I'd like to make a request:. Would you kindly reveal to the readership at this site the number of Muslims you claim to have influenced or persuaded with your approach? How many follow your approach? If you've already made such a claim or provided such a measurement metric, I have missed it so far.
From my observations, you seem to have an Islamic constituency of approximately one. If that is true, why would any sane Westerner listen to what you have to say about the topic of Islam?
Mr. Yuksel proudly proclaims that, “After about thirty years…there are tens of thousands of Turkish people accepting this [his] message.” 30 years/tens of thousands versus X years/1.3 billion? This “problem” will come to a head long before X years pass.
Yuksel starts out sounding as if he is full of reason and good will. He introduces us to his “reform” efforts, and sets out, in exhaustive detail – this symposium was conducted not as a live discussion, but as a submission of texts and answers to texts – in what ways the Hadith are a danger, and suggests that the path to the reform of Islam lies in recognition that the Hadith cannot be simply interpreted away, or assigned levels of putative “authenticity” different fro those assigned to them by the most authoritative muhaddithin in the past, in order to render them less noxious, but rather to simply refuse to recognize their validity altogether. For Yuksel sees the Hadith, correctly, as a post-Qur’anic invention, and he wishes not only to demystify them, but also to jettison them altogether, so that his goal of “sola scriptura” in the Muslim context – that is, reducing the canonical text to the Qur’an alone, may be achieved. He tells us, for example, that the Hadith are later concoctions, some woven out of whole cloth, and others only partly so, but in all cases they reflect, he claims, the desire of this or that Muslim ruler or tribe, or other special pleader, for the authority they could obtain for this or that act, or to increase, possibly, their own prestige, by concocting, manipulating, or promoting certain Hadith.
All this while, Yuksel fails to display any recognition of several things.
The first is that the Qur’an itself, as Robert Spencer points out, contains many passages that are disturbing, for women, and for Infidels, and that the removal of the Hadith would do nothing to correct the problems in the Qur’an itself. The second is that while Yuksel is apparently willing to see the Hadith as a product of history, as subject to the kind of study and criticism that, for example, the texts of both Christianity and Judaism have been subjected to ever since the Higher Criticism began in the nineteenth century,he is not willing to consider for one minute that the Qur’an itself may exist not outside but within history, a product of its age, and so susceptible to study. For him the Qur’an must remain sacrosanct, uncreated and immutable, and he does not recognize that just like the Hadith, the Qur’an could be subjected to similar rigorous study – of the kind, for example, that Christoph Luxenberg, and not only Luxenberg, have started to offer.
The second is that Yuksel almost comically fails to recognize is that his time-line is quite different from what the age, and the situation, demands. He complacently explains that in Turkey, over the past 30 years, his “reforming” methods have attracted the support of “tens of thousands.” Now let us assume those tens of thousands are, for the sake of arithmetic, 30,000. That would mean that over 30 years, he has been converting Muslims to the notion of relying solely on the Qur’an at the rate of 1,000 a year. Given that there are at least a billion Muslims, at the same rate we should have to wait a million years to persuade all Muslims that they can safely do without the Hadith, and perhaps even the Sira. Can we wait a million years? A thousand? A hundred? Fifty? We can’t wait even twenty years for the Western world, or the larger world of Infidels, to take drastic measures to protect ourselves from the menace to our own societies, and wellbeing, that Islam presents, and the instruments of Jihad that have been most effective – not “terrorism” but rather the Money Weapon, Da’wa, and demographic conquest of the Dar al-Islam, or parts of it.
The third is that he fails to recognize that because the disturbing texts are not to be found in the Hadith alone, it is better to try to find ways to allow Muslims to re-think the Qur’an, to see it not as an uncreated and immutable text, but as a fallible human document, not outside but inside of history.
The fourth is that he fails to explain how Believers, those who rely on the Qur’an and the Sunna, will simply manage to do without the Sunna, when it is the Sunna that provides all the rules for daily life, what is commanded and what prohibited, and it has frequently been observed that the Sunna is at least as important as the Qur’an.
But Yuksel cannot meet a single one of these objections. For he remains a Believer, and so there is a limit to what he can, intellectually and emotionally, permit himself. He simply cannot bear to contemplate the idea that the Qur’an is not the literal word of God, uncreated and immutable, and while he cannot refute Spencer when Spencer adduces the evidence from the Qur’an of support for the mistreatment of women and the even more horrendous mistreatment of non-Muslims, he simply becomes angry. How dare, he seems to say, that Spencer is so ungrateful for the effort that he, Yuksel, has put into his “reforming Islam” project? Can’t Spencer simply be glad that the Hadith will be, in time, undercut?Why does he insist, that Spencer, on continuing to point to problems with the Qur’an? The fact that Spencer is merely pointing out what is there, and not inventing a thing, and that Yuksel’s tone quickly degenerates, first when he invites Spencer and Warner to become Muslims, and gives the usual Muslim view about the universe in essence being Muslim anyway – and then, still more telling, erupts into that hysterical display that those raised as Muslims, even the “reformers,” so often exhibit, no matter how even-tempered and moderate they at first appear to be, whenever they are confronted with objections to which they have no answer, and their whole enterprise is exposed to Infidel view as faintly, or greatly, beside-the-point and even hopeless.
Let me simply let Yuksel speak for (or write for) himself:
“Yuksel: I will attempt to clarify my statement. I meant what I said. Either Muhammad was one of God's messengers or he was an impostor. Since, I am convinced because of substantial evidence that the Quran is the word of God, it follows that I should consider those who have devoted themselves to distort the truth about the Quran and its messenger, to be on the wrong path. Unlike Sunni or Shiite Muslims, I support their freedom to choose any path they wish and express their faith or conviction without fear. I will side with them against any group that would try to deprive them from their God-given right to freedom.
So, if these gentlemen have the right to depict Muhammad to be an evil guy and his supporters being as evil or duped, then I should also have the right to expose their so-called scholarly work, which is merely based on hearsay books and distortion and contortion of the Quranic verses by the followers of those hearsay stories. For instance, brother Spencer generously uses the hearsay stories fabricated centuries after Muhammad's life to assassinate Muhammad's character, while he knows well that according to the same sources which he trusts, Muhammad reportedly split the Moon causing half of it to fall in Ali's backyard, or Muhammad reportedly made trees walk, Muhammad ascended to the seventh heaven with his body, and many other stories. Scholarly integrity requires consistency and honesty in using sources in evaluating a historic personality. But, your gentlemen pick and choose from those books as they wish. They take advantage of the crazy noises created by Jingoists, Crusaders and Jihadists, and hideously try to justify a bloody imperial Crusade with its resurrected Spanish Inquisition mentality against Muslims. I consider the work of these gentlemen a dishonest or ignorant attack against one of the most progressive and peaceful leaders in human history. I would like to repeat my invitation to Spencer to discuss his book about Muhammad at the Celebration of Heresy Conference, which we are organizing in Atlanta by the end of March. See: www.hereticmuslims.com.”
That is Yuksel. He will not give up his Muhammad, who is either the Messenger of God or he is nothing, an imposter. He cannot conceive of Muslims investigating the nature of the historical Muhammad, as Western scholars study the historical Jesus, attempting to separate fact from fiction. It is, for Yuksel, all or nothing at all. So while he is willing to jettison the Hadith, he is not willing to see Muhammad as anything other than the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and, furthermore, Yuksel does not touch the details of Muhammad’s life that we Infidels are becoming familiar with (the mass decaptation of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the attack on the Khaybar Oasis, the assassinationss of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf, the marriage to little Aisha, the deliberate breaking of the treaty made with the Meccans in 628 A.D.). “Ne touche pas a mon prophete” appears to be his motto. And do not change one diacritical remark in the Qur’an, and no doubt Yuksel would be appalled by the work of Ibn Warraq, noting that there is more than one received version of the Qur’an, for this is a delicate matter for all True Believers.
He disappoints far more than Haidon, who is simply a Western convert who, without knowing much about Islam, got into it, and now is too frightened – physically frightened – to leave, and so has created his own private Islam which he allows himself to believe has something more than wishful thinking to back it up, and yet at the same time he can recognize many – but not all – of the disturbing sentiments that Islam inculcates. I presume he feels caught, and thus his bizarreries are emotionally comprehensible, if intellectually unacceptable.
Spencer's criticisms of Yuksel were offered in a spirit of sympathetic realism: just how are we to handle what is in the Qur'an? Pretend it isn't there (or simply, as Yuksel does, become furious when anyone dares to notice what is there)? And just how likely is it that a billion Muslims will now be willing to jettison the hadith? And if the Hadith, would they be willing to concede that the first biography of Muhammad, that of Ibn Ishaq, was not written down until 150 years later, and then attempt to simply read out all the unpleasant bits -- the Banu Qurayza, Asma bint Marwan, the Khaybar Oasis, little Aisha -- as later interpolations that have nothing to do with the real, the good, the perfect Muhammad, on the theory that since Muhammad was so perfect, he couldn't possibly have lead a raid on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, couldn't have decapitated the helpless prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, couldn't have expressed delight at the murder of Asma bint Marwan, couldn't possibly have had sexual intercourse with little Aisha when she was nine. That's a way out, but Yuksel showed no signs of presenting that.
Recently, on MEMRI, a dignified Saudi reformer expressed his pessimism about Muslims. He said they were mired in myth, and were "regressing." he did not have much hope left. Clearly, he understood that the minds of men on Islam are not like the minds of men who were adherents of other religions, but much more akin to the minds of those men who had been raised up in societies suffused with the ideology of such political Total-Belief systems as Nazism and Communism.
It's a pity. A pity for them, and a pity for us. But it is us we must care for, us we must protect. They will have to fend for themselves, those minds on Islam.
“You make me…” sez Yusuf
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/03/08/you-make-me-sez-yusuf/
"The first is that the Qur’an itself, as Robert Spencer points out, contains many passages that are disturbing, for women, and for Infidels"
Warner also pointed this out, though Hugh fails to mention Warner's contribution. Warner's contribution was water to a person nearly dying of thirst in the desert. Spencer's was pictures of water.
Posted by: cantor at March 7, 2008 10:58 PM
That is unfair criticism, Cantor. Laud Warner's contribution as it should be lauded, but do not criticize Hugh's post here or Robert's initial comments based on his participation in the symposium.
Robert and Hugh were both spot on. I fear that you fail to understand the basic principle behind the adage that "you will attract more bees with honey than with vinegar".
Spencer and Fitzgerald do not throw softballs at Islam, Islamists or Islamic apologists in any way. They simply do operate according to your personal standards or at a level that you are apparently accustomed to. Deal with it.
Your insightful ability to contribute to the topic at hand is nearly limitless at this site, but your pride does tend to outshine your usefulness at times.
JSLA
It wasnt your healthy scepticism that I was peturbed by. You have every right to be sceptical. For me to honestly say otherwise is disingenous. Muslim commentators feed non-Muslims with bullshit day in and day out. You are right to question me, especially when my responses are unclear and almost inomprehensible as they were in this symposium. I'm a bit embarassed by it actually.
Contrary to Hugh Fitzgerald's statement that I knew far too little when I came into Islam, he is wrong. I came in with my eyes wide open. I was acutely aware of the problems with traditional Islam going in. This is the same old attack from Hugh, who refuses to engage me personally. Its easier to attack me by calling me naive. But he knows absolutely nothing about me or my background.
JSLA wrote
Would you kindly reveal to the readership at this site the number of Muslims you claim to have influenced or persuaded with your approach? How many follow your approach? If you've already made such a claim or provided such a measurement metric, I have missed it so far.
It is a good and fair question. What I advocate, is not my own vision of Islam, it is a shared vision. I have spoken and worked with hundreds of Muslims, and probably influenced a small percentage of them. Is it adequate? Of course not. This is a problem endemic to reformers.
I'm a bit too busy at the moment to respond to Cantor's and Hugh's conclusions in this post today. I will try and repond in another way, hopefully with more substance. Have a good night all....
Cheers
TH
I'm to the stage where I'm no longer interested in participating in these symposiums. It raises expectations that are simply unrealistic. For reform to take place you need two things:
-the impestus/collective will, and
-an effective approach.
Without these, its just empty, empty rhetoric. While I advocate a Qur'anist approach, and I think there is a strong theological base for it (Check out the links I provide in the symposium), there is no collective will.
I think "reformers", including myself, need to revisit our approach with non-Muslims. We arent spokespersons for Muslims or Islam we are outsiders. While we may have good intentions, they are not mainstream and not likely to be anytime soon. So, I think we really need to stop convincing you of how Islam can reform and just put our heads down and get to work (myself included)...
Haidon
You could start by working with 'Muslims against Shariah'. I know that his approach of deleting virulent verses from the Quran (including the entire surah 9) is unlikely to have any takers, but it doesn't have an order of magnitude of less success than your efforts apparently do.
I guess I won't ask you how's that new tafseer coming along.
Recognisisng the Truth
After this symposium and the deliberations of its able participants; now it should be ample clear to Mr Robert Spencer that where he stands; if only he has the ability to understand and can differentiate between the sanctity of Word of God and concocted practices and concepts being adhered to, by the certain groups of people in the light of their adopted restraints of culture which may be requiring reformations in certain areas of their traditional and social conduct found in our modern religion.
May it may be the Moses* era followed by a short period of reformation by Jesus* or later recognition of reformation of Jesus by his follower called the Christian or may it be the present day era of Islam; the ‘Word Of God’ has successively been revealed through His Prophets for the people of the times. Under the divine instructions from their concerned Prophets; the righteous people have been on a continuous move for seeking the blessing of God Almighty. People have been achieving the state of piety after shedding what all is not desired by God.
Where as Robert Spencer seems like doing good job that under the auspice arrangement of Frontpagemag.Com a symposium like this is held and contributing a great service for the common readers; but I hope that he does take a heed; comes closer to the truth and duly recognises that the Holy Book of Quran as a last Book of Word of God revealed to Prophet Muhammad, Peace be upon him. Because it is observed that many a people are being miss lead from the path of God, owing to the hatred and despondency being generated by this website.
---------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for none
(* May Peace be upon them all)
Dear kamala and friends
(With reference to Posted by: kamala at March 7, 2008 6:04 PM)
BAD OLD HABITS
It is a centuries old habit of some Jews Scholars to obliterate the facts; especially the verses of Holy Scripture and the commandment from God for their own use and with their ulterior motives. They had tried it earlier by obliterating their own book ‘Torah’. They could not earn any thing out of their exercises except wrath of God Almighty and they were placed defunct, rejected.
Quran says:[4:47]There were some among the Jews who pervert words from their proper places [4;161]So, because of the transgression of the Jews, We forbade them pure things which had been allowed to them, and also because of their hindering many men from Allah's way’.
Mr Robert Spencer repeating the same folly and trekking the ways of his ancestors is now trying to mixup and obliterate even the Quranic Verses with the aim to keep the common folk away from the word of Truth and misguide the masses.
The heading of Chapter 9;‘Repentance’ clearly denotes even by it name that some one has done a folly and is being guided to repent and come back on tracks. These verses pertains to the glory and triumph of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his clear vindication after the Fall of Mecca and re-entry in his City from where he was earlier forced to leave.
The verse makes a solemn declaration that Islam and Holy Prophet have completely vindicated by the Fall of Mecca; Earlier Prophet was driven from Mecca as a friendless fugitive and with a price on his head also. It was a declared in unmistakeable terms that he will come back to it in triumph and glory. The prophecy was full filled with the Fall of Mecca and establishment of Rule of Islam through out Arabia.
The details are that with the fall of Mecca and the defeat of Hawazin in the ‘Battle of Hunain’, the rule and authority of Islam had been established through out Hijaz (Arabia). Certain tribes had made treaties with the Muslims and had laid down arms. These treaties were to be fully observed but there were other tribes who had not yet made formal submission. They had not laid down their arms and also had not made any treaty with the Muslims to ensure the required maintenance of peace and the observance of law and order. They had again commenced hostilities against Muslim and though they had in effect been vanquished; they had not yet acknowledge defeat nor had agreed to live in peace with the Muslims. These tribes were given a four months period of respite during which operation against them would remain suspended. They could go about freely in the land and satisfy themselves that their further resistance was useless. They could make their submission and make treaties and it is to these tribes that verse refers to. The introductory part (few verses) to clarify this as follow:
The Holy Quran: Chapter 9: (Al-Taubah)- The Repentance
[9:1] This is a declaration of complete vindication on the part of Allah and His Messenger to the idolaters to whom you had announce a commitment that Islam would triumph in Arabia.
[9:2] So go about in the land for four months, and know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah and that Allah will humiliate the disbelievers.
[9:3] And this is a proclamation from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage, that Allah is clear of idolaters, and so is His Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you; but if you turn away, then know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah. And give tidings of a painful punishment to those who disbelieve,
[9:4] Except those of the disbelievers with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely Allah loves those that are righteous.
[9:5]And when the forbidden months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them and take them captive, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakaat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
[9:6] And if anyone of the idolaters seeks protection of thee, grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allah; then convey him to his place of security. That is because they are a people who have no knowledge.
[9:7] How can there be a treaty for these idolaters with Allah and His Messenger, Except those with whom you entered into a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So, as long as they are true to them. Surely Allah loves those who fulfil their obligations.
[9:8] How can it be when, if they prevail against you, they would not observe any tie of kinship or covenant in respect of you. They would please you with their mouths, while their heart repudiate what they say and most of them are perfidious.
[9:9] They have bartered the Signs of Allah for a paltry price and have turned men away from His way. Evil indeed is that which they do.
[9:10] They observe not any tie of kinship or covenant in respect of any believer. And it is they who are transgressors.
[9:11] But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakaat, then they are your brethren in Faith. And We explain the Signs for a people who have knowledge.
[9:12] And if they break their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion, then fight these leaders of disbelief --surely, they have no regard for their oaths, - that they may desist.
[9:13] Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger, and they were the first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
[9:14] Fight them, that Allah may punish them at your hands, and humiliate then, and help you to victory over them, and relieve the minds of a people who believe;
[9:15] And that He may remove the anger of their hearts. And Allah turns with mercy to whomsoever He pleases. And Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.
----------------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for None
This is hearting to know that Mr Robert Spencer have very earnestly been invited to recognise and accept the latest Word Of God Almighty...Islam. Word of God travel like a breeze that it reaches even the darkest of the holes where the light may not penetrate. You have just to make a sincere, tender leap to reach for it.
This is God’s design that truth is always upheld at ‘all the times’ and, in a very clear, vivid, and distinguished way. Jews know about Christianity very well, same is the case of Christian that they know Islam in details. But there is always a mind set of some zealots found in these religions, which keeps a close watch to guard against any intrusion affecting their vested interests. They will make it sure that their created myth remains twisted at all times and at all levels. Any cross over is checked with iron fists. Then there is exclusive business of ‘capital riches and property assets’ involved in their vested arenas. Economic empires of enormous heights are found erected on these twisted foundations. The splendour, opulence and pomp and show and prestige enjoyed by the ‘Holy Order’ of these old fogy empires, all this simply restrict them to accept the truth knocking so loud at the doors.
A tremendous courage, is required to step out of delude and attempt a cross over toward the known truth. He is very wellcome.
-----------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for none
OOPS
Sorry !
In the post above @ 11:21 AM.Please amend;
For: hearting to know
Please read: heartening to know
Many Thanks
A Khokar
In one post:
"...slay the idolaters wherever you find them and take them captive, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush."
"fight these leaders of disbelief..."
"Fight them, that Allah may punish them at your hands, and humiliate them..."
And the crown jewel, A Khokar's signature:
"Love for all, Hatred for none"
Gotcha. Thanks for explaining.
It just kills me when A Khokar--after bushels of ill-formed syntax, misspellings, and unintelligible gibberish--corrects himself on one typo. It did get me to look again at his last post a bit more closely though, since I was admittedly on super-speed-read the first time through, just scanning for anything at all related to the fascinating discussion above. Thus I almost missed this gem by the master Muslim wordsmith:
"Word of God travel like a breeze that it reaches even the darkest of the holes where the light may not penetrate."
LOL.
HAID
Robert,
I realize this thread is a couple of days old and you might not get back to it, but I thought I would run this question by you nonetheless. You might see and think it worth a response.
With both of your Muslim interlocutors on the panel, why did you not ask them if they would publicly state, either in affirmation, qualification, or negation, what they think of the traditional textual hermeneutic applied to the Qur'an, viz., that is is the perfect, uncreated, eternal words of Allah? In other words, a divine dictation.
As I had read through Mr. Yuksel's very long first segment, that is precisely what came to mind. If he is proposing that Islam get rid of the Sunnah, and make the Qur'an the only authority within Islam, then surely he either choses not to pay attention to the duality that Mr. Warner refers to, wishes it away, or would prefer that we not look at it.
If he affirms the Qur'an as a divine dictation, then it begs the question as to how Islam can be purged of its imperialistic violence towards the kafir and the other forms of violence divinely sanctioned.
The second point I wish to bring to your attention is related to the first. And it involves the principle of abrogation used when Muslims read what the Qur'an dictates. Where do these gentlemen stand in relation to that traditional principle?
It seems to me that this is the correct cornerstone upon which everything else rests. I'm sure you would agree with this. One could be tempted to get bogged down in the lengthy minutiae and polemics of Mr. Yuksel, but at the end of the day everything has to be answerable to what one holds about the nature of the Qur'an.
Am I the only one who fails to see any substance, elucidation or intelligence in the rebuttals posted by Muslims?
"Word of God travel like a breeze that it reaches even the darkest of the holes where the light may not penetrate." --A Khokar
Now I know what the "A" stands for.
Priceless find, Haid.
Dear Jsla and Friends,
You Might Have Not Seen Your Best Days Yet!
In our religion; it is not a matter of being less noble or more; it is all about the Word of God and our recognition of the Truth and accepting it as such…whole heartedly; that is all. Nothing more, nothing less!
It is also not the matter of living in the prevalent stalemate of interfaith non-harmonious quagmire or the numerous self created myths of monopoly of different kind, pursued so vehemently in older religious denominations like; Judaism or Christianity. It is simply to believe in our living God and come to the terms to submit to His will and thereafter, to show our stead fastness to stick to His latest commandments under all the circumstances.
His latest commandments happen to be in the Holy Quran; giving us the final Word of God revealed to Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. Islam is not some thing new; these are same old teachings of our common father Abraham*; but duly reformed, refined on the anvil of the time, upgraded and selected by God for the whole of the mankind to come.
To resist the Word of God is not an option. We may come forward willingly or unwillingly; but to come to the terms…we have to!
-------------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for none
(* peace be upon him)
A Khokar wrote: "To resist the Word of God is not an option."
Sounds like The Borg from Star Trek.
Sorry, but we will resist and just like at Vienna or in the '67 war, Islam and Allah will lose!
(At least, the future of mankind will be dismal, horrific and an unmitigated disaster if they don't!)