In my office, January 2007
If you're just tuning in, Omer Subhani is a CAIR operative in Florida who has penned a massive, if not weighty, eleven-part "exposé" of my work. Since many advance the claim that what I say is inaccurate, but Subhani is among the few who ever actually explain just where and what way they think what I am saying is false, I thought it would be a useful exercise to go through these eleven parts and respond to them. Part I is here and Part II is here.
They are illuminating in many ways: they show yet again that, for all too many Muslim spokesmen in the West, personal invective takes the place of rational debate. They do all they can to portray their opponents as evil and stupid, which may impress the credulous, but it also has the unfortunate effect of poisoning the discourse and making rational discussion of the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism impossible -- which is of course most likely exactly what they want to do.
One of the most common features of this personal invective is the charge of "ignorance": the Islamorealistic critic doesn't really know anything about Islam, you see, and so he can't be trusted as an analyst. Omer Subhani eagerly plays this game in the third part of his series, which is entitled -- with his characteristically careful eye -- "Exposing Robert Spencer Part II." (Really, I'm not making this up: if you go to the right-hand side of his front page and click on Part III of his "Exposing Robert Spencer Series," you get this -- a post labeled Part II, even though at the link that is actually labeled Part II he has a different post.)
But Subhani shows that he isn't quite ready for Prime Time on the CAIR Gull the Infidels Circuit, as he overreaches, and claims to know the contents of my personal library. Now, certainly if Omer Subhani showed up here at the Jihad Watch offices in Secure Undisclosed Locationville, I would welcome him in, show him around, offer him a cup of tea. But he has never been here, and he doesn't know what books I have and don't have. Even worse, he says specifically that I don't have certain books that I do have (and have read) -- and not only do I have them, but they're clearly visible on the shelf in a video I made here in the office in January 2007. I've taken a picture from that video (which is a bit crushed but you can watch it here) and posted it above, with arrows pointing to the books Subhani says I don't have.
So here's Subhani:
One would imagine that if someone was claiming to be an expert on Islam they would know Arabic, have many primary source materials at their disposal, would have an immense knowledge of secondary literature on their area of expertise at the very least. Robert Spencer, advocate of dhimmis everywhere, likes to blog about the Qur'an. Mind you, he doesn't understand Arabic and he relies on other people's translations of Qur'anic commentary because he can't access the thousands of commentaries out there because he... yea... doesn't know Arabic.
Repeating it three times in two sentences, Mr. Subhani, will do nothing to explain posts like this, this or this.
But in any case, this whole "you have to know Arabic" thing is just a dodge. The idea that you can't understand what the Qur'an or other Islamic texts say except in Arabic is undercut by the fact that Muslims themselves make translations of those texts. Also, we are evidently supposed to believe that "beat her" (Qur'an 4:34) in Arabic will somehow turn into "give her a hug." Arabic is a human language that can be translated like any other -- translation is always imperfect, but not so much as to render the meaning unintelligible. Imagine also if I worked from my own translations of Islamic texts: Subhani and Co. would be saying that I was translating them all wrong. So I use approved Islamic translations exclusively -- will he say that these translations are inaccurate?
One would also figure that if he was such a great scholar on Islam then Spencer would not have to rely on web translations of Qur'an commentaries, but he would simply flip open his primary sources at home - because he would own a copy of the Jalalalayn, the tafsir of Qurtubi, or at the very least, the Saudi tampered tafsir of ibn Kathir. Alas, he doesn't have any of that so he can only blog on the Surahs that Bewley has offered commentaries for.
Wrong: I am offering commentaries on all the suras of the Qur'an: suras 1-24 so far, and the series continues, whereas Bewley, as far as I know, has available on the web only commentary on sura 9. I did use that, as well as other sources on and off the web, because in the Blogging the Qur'an series, as in all my writings, I never ask readers to take my word for anything. I invite them to see for themselves. Bewley's web commentaries on sura 9 were useful when I went through that chapter, as I could link to them to allow readers to see for themselves that what I was saying was accurate.
Anyway, Subhani says at this point that if I really knew what I was talking about, I would own, among other things, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn (which he calls "Jalalalayn," la la la) and "the Saudi tampered tafsir of ibn Kathir." (The Saudi translation of Ibn Kathir is actually fine, but that's another matter.) Unfortunately for him, they're clearly visible in the January 2007 video, and I've pointed them out in the image above. In case you have trouble seeing exactly what they are in that picture, I've put them together and taken another picture this morning:
Yes, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn is in (gasp!) Arabic. Subhani continues by saying, "Pathetic, to say the least," and I agree: it is pathetic that a guy who gets what he knows about Islam from Wikipedia would play games like this, but there it is.
Subhani then goes on at great length to show that what I say about Qur'an 9:29 (Part I here and Part II here), which commands Muslims to make war against Jews and Christians until they "feel themselves subdued," doesn't mean what the Islamic commentators whom I quote say that it means. And he ends up with this:
In any case, my point here is that there are other interpretations that allow for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians and Jews under Islam.
Of course, this entirely begs the question, because I never denied that Islamic law allows for "peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians and Jews under Islam." It most assuredly does, as long as the Jews and Christians are indeed under Islam, feeling themselves subdued, and obeying the discriminatory regulations of dhimmitude. But he denies this also, concluding:
In reference to dhimmis, one of Spencer's favorite subjects, and I'm sure he has his copy of the Reliance of the Traveler readily at his side, the great scholar, Imam ibn an-Naqib, said that dhimmis should pay the tax... and that's it. No mention of them being "subdued." That's the orthodox Shafi'i view right there.
In the first place, note Subhani's endorsement of a religion-based tax. What would he say if some pol in the U.S. suggested taxing Muslims to pay for the War On Terror? Anyway, he claims there's no mention in Reliance of the Traveller of the dhimmis being "subdued." Oops, Omer! You missed a spot! Here's section o11.5 of Reliance of the Traveller:
Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation and property. In addition, they:(1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, though not for drunkenness;
(2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
(3) are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";
(4) must keep to the side of the street;
(5) may not build higher or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;
(6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
(7) and are forbidden to build new churches.
But oh no, they're not subdued!
His intent and misunderstanding is shown in calling you (and the rest of us) 'dhimmi'. The dimwit has no understanding of his ignorance. Still we must contend with the morass of the dimwitted since he does not argue from a standpoint of logic based upon certain knowledge.
Why do any of us have to know what Islam is about? Why isn't it confined to the mosque?
It's because Muslims tell us that Islam justifies their killing and conquering others. A lot of Muslims don't even know Arabic. They memorize the Quran in Arabic but that doesn't mean they know what it says. Does rocking back and forth and reciting gibberish make you a Muslim? Haven't there been Muslims who read translations of the Quran who were totally shocked at what they had been reciting all their lives?
I didn't need to know Latin in pre-Vatican II Catholicism to understand the Mass.
How many of the world's 3 billion Christians know Latin, Aramaic or Hebrew? How many of the world's nearly 1 billion Hindus know Sanskrit? So are all of them ignorant about their religions?
Besides, Mohammedans never tire of criticizing Christians for the inquisition (or even more laughably, WWII), as well as Hindus for idolatry, despite the fact that practically all of them are ignorant of both Latin & Sanskrit. Yet, I've never read anybody criticizing them on those grounds, for the simple reason that that's no barrier to knowing a religion.
"In the first place, note Subhani's endorsement of a religion-based tax. What would he say if some pol in the U.S. suggested taxing Muslims to pay for the War On Terror? "
I think this is a good idea considering the amount of money non muslims must spend for our own security because of well...Muslims.
"Anyway, he claims there's no mention in Reliance of the Traveller of the dhimmis being "subdued." Oops, Omer! You missed a spot! Here's section o11.5 of Reliance of the Traveller:"
That was a big Oops !
Also, as PMK alludes above, 85% of the ummah doesn't know Arabic - just add up the Mohammedan populations of Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and India, and you'll get 0.5 billion Mohammedans right there. In fact, of the 1.2 billion members of the ummah, only 0.3 billion are Arabs - i.e. 1 in 4. I've rarely seen any Mohammedan claim that non Arabs aren't Mohammedans, despite the fact that they'd be at the same disadvantage as most Islam critics.
The Arabic language spoken or written has no magical qualities. The Arabic chanter of the Quran receives no special powers, or understanding, or wisdom.
The whole idea of Arabic language supremacy is a farce, and has a racist ring to it.
It is an idea that sounds good, lasts a long time, does nothing...it is best used by muslims and apologists as something to hide behind...
Must... resist... bookshelf envy!
By the way, for those who don't own a copy of Reliance of the Traveller, Amazon has one with a "Search Inside!" feature. Unlike other titles, knowing which keywords to enter seems to allow one to browse through this one more or less at will.
Happy hunting.
This response might also have been put up at the previous Omar-Subhani thread, but I thought it can just as well be put here:
“ Fitzgerald says that when Muslims say jihad is really a spiritual struggle they are not telling the truth. He asserts that the hadith that states that the struggle against the ego is the greater jihad has weak chains of transmission and he also states that this interpretation is a "recent one in Islam." He is wrong on both counts (honestly, this is like talking to a Salafi).
First, how could the interpretation of jihad being a spiritual struggle be a "recent one" when the hadith is mentioned in so many ancient Islamic texts that it couldn't possibly be limited to the last hundred years? The fact is, it is not a "recent" interpretation. The Muhaddithun, as Fitzgerald is wont to cite, and which ones he does not mention, have mentioned this hadith in many works, including by notable hadith shcolars like: al-Bayhaqi, al-Khatib, and ibn Hajr al-Asqalani. These scholars have criticized the chain of narrators, but none of them have said the hadith was forged, only that the chain was weak, which Fitzgerald is correct in noting.
But what does Fitzgerald know about hadith? Obviously nothing because if he knew anything then he would know that just because a hadith has a weak chain that it's [sic] meaning can still be sound. In the case of this hadith, many of the scholars of Islam, all before a hundred years ago, confirm the authenticity of the statement concerning the greater jihad being that of the struggle against the ego. In fact, some of the scholars say that the jihad against the ego is a precondition before a military jihad can be waged.”
--- from Omar Subhani’s original article
First, when I wrote that the “interpretation” of Jihad as a “spiritual struggle” – which has as its “authority” only that single, doubtful (doubtful according to the most respected muhaddithin, such as al-Bukhari and Muslim) hadith – is a “recent one” I meant, obviously, not that the hadith is of “recent origin” (there are no hadith, of any level of “authenticity,” that are less than a thousand years old) but that the very notion of such an interpretation of “Jihad” only has gotten going in the modern period, when some Muslim would-be reformers, early in the 20th century, aware of Islam’s weakeness vis-à-vis Infidels, sought ways to re-interpret the Jihad (because they knew that Jihad in the traditional sense, using the traditional means – qitaal – would lead to disaster for Muslims), and still later, with millions of Muslims now having managed to settle – without the Infidel elites realizing what folly they had committed, unaware of the grim but inexorable future consequences for Infidel societies, and for Infidel security – Muslims have become keenly aware of the need to keep emitting a steady smokescreen of misinformation, diversion, blague, in order to prevent the most obvious truths about Islam – just consult any of the scholars of Islam who wrote before the curtain of the Great Inhibition descended, and the Saudi-funded School of Apology managed, step by well-financed step, to take over so much of the academic teaching about Islam.
The espositos and armstrongs, and of course the Muslims themselves, have been quick to claim that “Jihad” does not mean what a billion Muslims think it so obviously means, and what for 1350 years it has been taken to mean. And they keep repeating this, and there are some Infidels – but a diminishing number – who fall for this nonsense (among those falling for it, of course, have been, at least publicly, Bush and Blair, but it becomes harder and harder for anyone to maintain this with a straight face, or without fear of being the object of corruscating and well-deserved ridicule). Intelligent Infidels have begun to take note not only of the world’s Jihad news, the news that comes every month, every week, every day involving Muslim attacks on non-Muslims, whether in Dar al-Harb (in India or Thailand, in Sudan or Nigeria, in France or Great Britain, in Netherlands or Sweden, in Denmark or Italy) or in Dar al-Islam (in Pakistan or Bangladesh, in Egypt or in Iraq, in Algeria or in Morocco, in Indonesia or in Malaysia), but also have begun to find out about and read the texts (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira) and therefore, to find out about the tenets, of Islam, and not only the tenets, but the attitudes and atmospherics of states, societies, peoples, even families and individuals, suffused with Islam.
Omar Subhani attempts in similar fashion to call into question my understanding of the Hadith (I use “Hadith” for both the singular and the plural, because I find the Arabic plural “ahadith” an example of Fowler’s pedanticism). He states this in a remarkable way:
:The Muhaddithun [sic], as Fitzgerald is wont to cite, and which ones he does not mention [sic], have mentioned this hadith in many works, including by notable hadith shcolars like: al-Bayhaqi, al-Khatib, and ibn Hajr al-Asqalani. These scholars have criticized the chain of narrators, but none of them have said the hadith was forged, only that the chain was weak, which Fitzgerald is correct in noting.
But what does Fitzgerald know about hadith? Obviously nothing because if he knew anything then he would know that just because a hadith has a weak chain that it's [sic] meaning can still be sound. In the case of this hadith, many of the scholars of Islam, all before a hundred years ago, confirm the authenticity of the statement concerning the greater jihad being that of the struggle against the ego. In fact, some of the scholars say that the jihad against the ego is a precondition before a military jihad can be waged.”
First, Subhani is wrong that I fail to mention the muhaddithin that Muslims themselves consider the most authoritative. There are two, above all others, and I never fail to cite them: al-Bukhari and Muslim. And one can see that Subhani not only fails to mention that I mention them, on every conceivable occasion, but his own little list of “hadith scholars” (i.e., muhaddithin) who mention this hadith, contains the names of “al-Bayhaqi, al-Khatib, and ibn Hajr al-Asqalani” but not al-Bukhari, and not Muslim. Why not? And besides, my point still remains: that hadith’s isnad-chain is not given any high degree of reliability by any creditable muhaddithin. Perhaps Omar Subhani would care to explain why he left al-Bukhari and Muslim off his list, or would he like me to give the answer?
Most astonishing and preposterous of all, it is he, Omar Subhani, who in attempting to call into question my judgment – or rather, not my judgment but the judgment of the most respected muhaddithin about this hadith purporting to interpret Jihad as a spiritual struggle, which I merely transmitted – starts to question the very role of the muhaddithin in their main function, which was to study isnad-chains (that is, the train of transmission of a particular hadith, as relayed down through time – a study that requires the muhaddithin to do the reverse, and to go back in time, to see how far back, and through what transmitters, a particular hadith can be traced – obviously the more reliable each transmitter, or human link, in the isnad-chain, and the farther back it goes, ideally right to the Prophet Muhammad himself (these are the ahadith al-qudsi) , or, as good though not quite as good, to one or more of the Companions of Muhammad, or failing that, to one of those called the Successors. And of course there are isnad-chains where a “link” is missing, and obviously that affects the judgement of the muhaddithin as to likely authenticity.
Since 80% of the world’s Muslims are non-Arabs, it was desirable to provide such guides to Hadith, and how they have been studied, in languages other than Arabic. I would recommend, in English, a little guide, “Studies ies in Hadith Methodology and Literature” by M. M. Azami, which explains helpfully in 120 pages the methods used by the great (i.e., most “authoritative” for Believers) muhaddithin. There one will find all of the considerations that have gone into judging which Hadith-scholars are to be regarded as the most trustworthy, and what elements go into their own judgments as to what makes this Hadith receive a higher ranking of authenticity, and that one a lower ranking.
While I cannot reproduce all of the considerations so clearly set out in Azami’s book, I think the ranking system (Azami, p. 61) deserves to be understood:
“Grading of Ahadith:
Hadith can be graded into two groups:
Accepted (maqbul) and rejected (mardud)
(1¬) The accepted ones may be divided into two groups:
Sahih (accepted)
Hasan (agreeable)
Both groups are sub-divided into two sub-groups:
Authentic by itself (Sahih li dhatihi)
Authentic owing to the presence of others (Sahih li ghairhi)
Hasan li dhatihi (agreeable by itself)
Hasan li ghairihi (agreeable owing to the existence of others)
As a matter of fact this last one is a weak hadith which acquires strength from other ahadith which verify it because the same subject or the same sort of problem dealt with it in other ahadith, which thus support the weaker one.
(2) The rejected ones may be divided into two groups:
Rejected as such, but may be accepted if it acquired strength from outside. However, rejected ones have many names.
Rejected totally.”
Every hadith consists of two parts. One is the content of the Hadith, what it says. And the other part is the isnad-chain, that is the list of people who transmitted th8is hadith. And this isnad-chain is for Muslims not a minor matter, not something that Omar Subhani can dismiss, or appear to, for everything hangs on the hadith’s authenticity, which is to say on the study of that same isnad-chain. His attempt to suggest that one muhaddithin is practically as good as another, as a way of dismissing my point that the hadith in question is a “weak” hadith of doubtful – in Muslim terms (we non-Muslims can doubt away not only at the authenticity of any of the “Hadith” as more than the product of imaginative reworkings of the Qur’an, then attributed to Muhammad) – authenticity.
In other words, what has been the major work of so many Musliim scholars, what has been their essential task, the study of isnad-chains (see pp. 32-45 in Azami), and the attempt to rank according to authenticity many thousands of hadith (and tens of thousands of claimed “hadith” were simply dismissed altogether by the authoritative muhaddithin who had first to patiently study them and their claimed chains of transmission, in order to perform that dismissal) had to be studied.
One can find, at any Muslim website worthy of its name, not merely a “hadith” but in what collection, of what particular muhaddithin, that “hadith” is included, and still better, among the real authorities, one finds the isnad-chain set out.
Yet here comes Omar Subhani, and wishes you to ignore the very essence of the study of the Hadith, and thus the very essence of the Sunnah, because he wishes, if he can, to undercut my contention.
Well, he’s failed. Completely. And in failing, he has belittled, almost dismissed, feats of scholarship and research that are at the heart of Islam. He has dismissed, he has dissed, al-Bukhari and Muslim. And all for the sake of attempting to undercut a few Infidels who hardly matter.
Well, well. That’s quite a performance.
Make that 75% - although I believe that the percentage of Arabs in the ummah is actually lower than that.
Also, Marisol, you can search various hadiths and Reliance of the Travellers by visiting this Islamic search engine:
http://www.muhaddith.org/cgi-bin/e_optns.exe
Reliance of the Traveller can be found under the 'Fiqh' column.
Mr. Spencer, do not let Mr. Subhani's criticism of your scholarship bother you. Surely, Mr. Omer Subhani realizes that a vast number of islamic scholars would generally agree with you. Mr. Spencer just because you are an infidel, does not change the fact you are a koranic scholar!
The nerve, you should be cited with approval by all major islamic religious authorities. Some immams said the Fitnah movie (with minor tinkering) was a good recruiting poster for young religious muslims.
This ignorant Subhani, knows nothing. You are as good a contemporary source for islam as any authority classical or otherwise. Keep up the good work!
IN LOOKING AT THIS guys blog it shows how pathic he is in imo
Thanks again to the most rational and honest thinker, the tip of the spear, the light cockroaches fear, the man, Mr. Robert Spencer. As always, advanced Islamic Taquiyya (bullshitting to protect a failed faith) falls flat on it's jacked ass.
...and hank YOU Mr. Omer Subhani for exposing yet again the shadowy intentions and whitewashed crap of your Islamic supremacist front organization, CAIR.
Robert, keep up the good work. It's not often that someone comes forward with specific issues against you, so it's good to see their points dismantled individually.
Mr. Spencer has no reason, as he himself has demonstrated, to be affected by Subhani's denunciations. Indeed, it seems ever more likely that the "criticism" of such persons as Subhani isn't meant for non-Muslim consumption. For whom, then, is it meant?
Could be that Subhani and his ilk are attempting to calm American Muslims about the danger posed by their more militant co-religionists? So far, this nation has been little afflicted by domestically originated Islamic terrorism or Muslim unrest. But we know that foreign communities of militants are eager to establish themselves on these shores. One of the requirements for doing so safely is to ensure that Muslims already in America will collaborate, by accepting and shielding them.
Food for thought.
I've seen this multiple times on JW where trolls, stuck in an apologetic pickle, start jettisoning translations, the hadith, the sahaba, tafsirs, etc.
If they would only do it for real.
Well, well, the Islamic, cherry-picking deceivers think they're so smart every time, are ripped to shreds, again, by Robert Spencer only to put another nail in Islam's own coffin.
LOL Robert, you have to see the funny side.
By trying to "expose" you, they've just proved their own ignorance about Islam!
Mr. Subhani is doing what any sleazy defense attorney would do when they have a client that can't really be defended.
Throw out of lots of smoke and dirty the water.
Essentially Subhani can't attack Spencers scholarship and resorts to personal attacks,etc.
If anything Subhani exposes the widespread intellectual and moral rot among Muslim apologists.
Robert, you're having far too much fun dismantling this twerp. :)
It's pretty clear that Subhani has no audience. The only blog post of his that I saw that had significant (4) comments was about sports. Most of the other comments, which are few and far between, offer opposition.
I suspect as well that CAIR has no audience, and little support from anyone in America, other than the US government, and some news channels and reporters looking for someone to interview for a story about poor downtrodden muslims.
I rather suspect that Subhani has decided to make these inept posts about Robert in order to attract some visitors to his own blog. Much as children in need of attention will resort to misbehavior to get it. After all, any attention is better than none. Unfortunately, drawing the world's attention to one's own ignorance is not the way to success.
Most likely the only visitors he is getting are unsympathetic mouse clickers from JW.
PMK,
Your comment about Muslims who read the Koran in translation for the first time after years of incomprehensible Arabic reminded me of this:
http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/indexMembers.html
just scroll down to 'Kamran Sheikh'
Congratulations Robert, they are writing books about you. It means that you are having an impact, so they must try to discredit you.
As for the "knowing Arabic", that's BS. I suck at Biblical Greek and Hebrew, and I've got a bunch of good commentaries by folks who know their Biblical Greek and Hebrew so well its scary. To understand the theological interpretations of the Bible or Koran is a good survey of the respected commentaries. You've done that Robert and they are just being liars. This is another example of how Islam is a cult. A religion is not afraid to have its beliefs laid bare and criticized. A cult must protect its image even if it means obscuring the truth about what it really teaches.
Keep up the good work Robert! You're in my prayers man!
Spencer & Fitzgerald are the muslims' 2 worst nightmares: they can't be bought; they can't be threatened; they can't be deceived; & they can't be refuted.
Nice work. And I don't mean from Omer Subhani.
I would be willing to bet that Omar is not doing all this work himself. He probably has three to five CAIR staffers or muslim buddies gathered around the monitor. or doing research for him. I think Robert is probably up against a gang in this...
"I think Robert is probably up against a gang in this..."
My money is on Robert.
I am still having problems with Batman using a Macintosh, though.
StephenA55,
Thanks for the link. It's good reading.
I think I will have a nice pork chop and a glass of wine for lunch while I muse and reflect on that massive Tsunami of scholastic weight crashing into old Omer's haid.
Hey Omer, dont pin prick the giant unless your prepared for him to roll over on you and squash you flat!
All good comments. I am now thinking of the best offense to use when drivel like this is posted. The thought I have is to title the rebuttal exactly like the original. This will force both POV to come up close together on searches.
The content of Roberts reply is spot on and effectively nullifies the intent of the originators baseless comments. Robert points the reader back to the original problem. Keep doing it that way and repeat it many times in the rebuttal. It is fun to shame them but prove in the shaming why it is deserved. Roberts use of links is also important. People say all kinds of things but credibility goes to zero if there are no links. All scholarly work (no matter what field) has links and subscripts to back or counter what the writer is saying. Subhani had none on these articles or anything on other subjects. Just hot air with no weight.
If people are seriously looking for the truth this style of rebuttal will help them see the problem of Islam. That is after all what all of this is about. Informing the ignorant of the danger.
Sue the bugger.
"peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians and Jews under Islam."
Um....under? Not alongside, no hand-in-hand with....under.
How about "No, not ever will we be under islam!".
Subhani (CAIR rep.): "In any case, my point here is that there are other interpretations that allow for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians and Jews under Islam."
Robert: "Of course, this entirely begs the question, because I never denied that Islamic law allows for "peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians and Jews under Islam." It most assuredly does, as long as the Jews and Christians are indeed under Islam, feeling themselves subdued, and obeying the discriminatory regulations of dhimmitude."
1. Note that Subhani does not mention people who are not Jews or Christians (polytheists, atheists, agnostics, Muslim apostates, and so on). This is a common tactic used by Muslim apologists when they believe they are addressing predominantly Christian and Jewish audiences. It often works, because the Islam apologist is seldom called upon to explain what Islam has in store for the rest of humanity.
2. Re "peaceful coexistence." Living under a perpetual death threat for doing or saying anything that might even remotely be characterized as against Islam or Muhammad is not "peaceful coexistence" in any meaningful sense of the phrase.
Moreover, in some Islamic law, dhimmis could be prosecuted for "highway robbery" simply for attempting to physically move themselves out of the Islamic state. (Dhimmis were regarded as property of--and a source of income for--Muslims. Hence, for them to leave by their own volition was regarded as equivalent to major theft and a serious breach of the dhimma).
The Jihad or Holy War According to the Malikite School. Edmund Fagan. In Andrew Bostom (2005), The Legacy of Jihad. pp. 251-266.
15. Breach of the head tax contract.
“The fate of the tributary who flees to an enemy country and is recaptured [is determined by the imam]; more particularly, he can be reduced to slavery, as long as his flight was not provoked by abusive acts, since in this case he is regarded as being guilty of highway robbery. If a band [of converted infidels] apostatizes and indulges in highway robbery, the individuals who make up the group are treated as [Muslim] apostates.”
Other evidence pertaining to this issue of "peaceful coexistence":
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 388:
Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi:
We said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, oh Chief of the believers! Advise us." He said, "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.) " (parentheses in M. Muhsin Khan’s translation)
The Legacy of Jihad, p. 261. From The Jihad or Holy War According to the Malikite School. Edmund Fagnan.
14… The dhimmi is punished if he “…manifests his religious opinions, if he speaks in a disrespectful manner…”
15… “The protection agreement is breached…when he insults a prophet using expressions permitted by his faith, such as the following which has been reported: ‘He is not the prophet, God did not send him—the Qur’an was not revealed to him—he’s the author of it—Jesus created Muhammad—Muhammad is a poor man: he tells you that he is in paradise, but why, then, could he not defend himself from the biting dogs?’21 The guilty party [in this last case] is put to death if he does not convert.”
The Legacy of Jihad, p. 207. From Shara ‘i’ u ‘l-Islam. Al-Hilli (d. 1277).
“The six conditions to which the infidel tributaries must be subjected are as follows:
…193 A tributary who blasphemes the prophet must be put to death.”
194. A tributary who speaks irreverently about the memory of the Prophet incurs a corporal punishment only, if the terms of the treaty did not include a prohibition of this act.5”
Note 5: “5. Otherwise, the treaty can be dissolved, since it has been violated.”
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6985.
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4366: Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:"Umar heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: 'I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims.'"
From Shara ‘i’ u l-Islam, by Al-Hilli (d. 1277), pp. 205-212. in Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad. (This refers to various laws and provisions for dhimmis by the thirteenth-century Shia jurist and scholar, Al-Muhaqqiq Al-Hilli).
“167. Some infidels are permitted to retain the privilege of practicing their religion, in return for a tribute; they are Jews, the Christians, and those whose revealed scripture is of doubtful authenticity, that is, the guebres [Zoroastrians]. Any infidel other than those who profess one of the above-mentioned religions must be compelled to embrace Islam.”
[brackets added]
“177. When an infidel slave has been set free, he can be compelled to leave Muslim territory or else pay the tribute.”
“181. An infidel minor, upon attaining maturity, must be compelled to embrace Islam or else to be subjected to the tribute; if he refuses, he is to be reckoned as an enemy and treated as such.”
--- a non-Muslim woman is to be held captive by Muslim state, even if she, after having embraced Islam, had apostatized.
“222. The infidel woman captive or refugee who has embraced Islam must not be returned, even if she apostatizes, since her conversion brought her into the bosom of Islam.”
“230. An infidel who embraces a religion not recognized by his coreligionists must be prevented from doing so and compelled to choose between Islam and death.”
“234. An infidel who performs publicly an act that is not forbidden by his religion but which is prohibited by the precepts of Islam must be punished according to the precepts of Muslim law with respect to a Muslim.”
Taqiyya doctrine or not, the clearest case for distrust of so many Muslim apologists comes from the examples of open deception provided in those Muslim apologists' own statements.
Subhani: "Alas, he doesn't have any of that so he can only blog on the Surahs that Bewley has offered commentaries for."
Robert: "Wrong: I am offering commentaries on all the suras of the Qur'an: suras 1-24 so far, and the series continues, whereas Bewley, as far as I know, has available on the web only commentary on sura 9."
It simply boggles the mind that Subhani would make such obviously false, easy-to-check and easy-to-refute claims. Yet, I've been following this site for a few years now, and have had probably hundreds of exchanges with Muslims here and elsewhere, and it seems that almost every Islamic apologist engages in deception. It is not merely a question of differing interpretations or opinions. They make obviously false claims and accusations. I shouldn't be surprised, by now, but I am surprised every time I see this sort of thing.
Bah. That's nothing, Robert. I've got photos of you promoting children's literature! Explain THIS if you can. No I didn't think you could.
;)
This is the most entertaining thing I've seen since the last time I watched Father Ted. [Catholics, by the way, have a long tradition of laughing at themselves, which is one reason why they don't go blowing up people and things when they're insulted.]