Omer Subhani is the Communications Director for CAIR-South Florida, and he has undertaken a multipart "exposé" of my work, which I just discovered and have been responding to this week. And as we have seen in Parts I, II, III, and IV, he's just as honest and committed to fair dealing as his colleagues in that unsavory organization.
In Part V, "Wash Sins Away with Wudu!," it's more of the same. This one is all about honor killing, with a kind of bizarre detour into wudu, which is ritual washing, and things I supposedly said on Michael Savage's show in February:
You know, if doing wudu was a sure fired way of cleansing oneself from sin then I would be a wali of Allah. No doubt about it. According to Robert Spencer, who was on the Michael Savage radio show, Muslims like to kill people, especially their shameful daughters, for reasons of purity.He replied to a question Savage asked him regarding what Islamic rules there are that are out there that call for honor killings. Spencer replied, roughly, with the following: "Well, I think that the fundamental attitude comes from the purity emphasis, and the shame honor emphasis in Muslim culture. For example, the fact that in Islam there is no idea of the confession or being forgiven of ones sins before the end of one's life rather there is just purification you make various ablutions and wash after sin has been committed, but you can never be sure that Allah will forgive you."
"Spencer replied, roughly..."! Very roughly, indeed! I don't have a transcript or recording of this appearance on the Savage show, and certainly don't take Subhani's version of what I said as accurate, but wudu isn't for washing away sins. It is for ritual purity, undertaken before prayers and handling the Qur'an. It is broken, and hence must be performed again before prayers, if one breaks wind, urinates, sleeps, vomits, etc.
But it does not have to do with forgiveness of sins, and even in Subhani's representation of my remarks on the Savage show I don't say it does -- I was saying that there is no idea of the forgiveness of sins in Islam, only of ritual purity and impurity. But that doesn't prevent Subhani from taking my remark (as he represents it) that "you can never be sure that Allah will forgive you" and pretending that I said that wudu brings forgiveness:
Wash after the sin has been committed? This is just too easy to pass up that I have to point out the obvious stupidity of such a statement.So if a Muslim kills his mother and father, just because he got mad let's say, then all that Muslim has to do is wash up and he or she will be fine, forgiven by God, sin free??? Really?
Of course not, and I didn't say anything remotely like this even by his own account.
That's even easier than making a confession at church, wouldn't you say Robert? I mean, think of the gas you would waste for every time you had to go run down to the church to be forgiven.In all seriousness, I hope I misheard Mr. Spencer's brilliant analysis. The aspect of Savage's show that I found rather humorous was the idea they were promoting that "honor killings" are becoming more and more common in the U.S. The U.N. estimates roughly 5,000 or so the past year... in the whole world. There have been two incidents that have made national headlines in the U.S. related to the notion of honor killing. The Said sisters in Texas and Aqsa Parvez in Canada. May Allah have mercy upon all three of them. So... one was in the United States.
That's two more than there were in North America the year before, or at least two more that were reported, and isn't that two too many, Mr. Subhani? But of course he is too busy whipping himself up in a frenzy against Savage and me to take any pains actually to do anything to try to head off another honor killing in the U.S.
He concludes with this:
Anyway, the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, told his Companions not to kill their daughters when they were born because they were ashamed that they did not have a son so I would imagine that killing your daughter because she wasn't wearing a hijab would also be similarly looked down upon. But that's just me. Allah knows best.
Yeah, that's just you. Unfortunately, all too many Muslims don't agree with you. A few years ago the Jordanian Parliament rejected on Islamic grounds an attempt to stiffen penalties of honor killings. But I'm certain that Omer Subhani hasn't had a single word to say about that. No, his venom is reserved for uppity non-Muslims like me who have the temerity to notice.
No sense that sins are ever forgiven... No wonder they're all out of their minds!
Robert- You need to try to get on more cable news shows or something to elevate your profile and discuss such uncomfortable truths about Islam. I hope there's room for it. But the press keeps hammering away at the race issue (boring and rotting on the vine as it is), so they might not have the time for this vital discussion, unfortunately.
I must say, the guy's had you pinned pretty good until this point. The only thing you have been able to do thus far is whimper here on your own website "I don't think that most scholars believe that." --very scholarly of you. This time, his analysis is pretty stupid and he did mishear you.
During the show you were implying that Muslims who commit crimes consider their sins forgiven when they wash after killing. That is what he is arguing against. You are attempting to distract from his argument by pointing out his semantic mistakes, but not his argument. Good rhetorical response on your end, but the meat isn't there.
Also, just wanted to point out that the Jordanian government is currently in the process of prosecuting a crime of passion aka honor killing right now rather seriously. It's even gotten quite a bit of time in the Israeli liberal press, but MEMRI rarely translates those.
Just doing some thinking...
An American
Great to see you again!
Pardon me if I respectfully dissent from your view that Omer Subhani has had me "pinned pretty good," when he claims I don't own books that I do own, that ISNA, CAIR and Co. are moderate organizations, that there are no Sunni authorities teaching taqiyya, and on and on.
But pardon me again-- it is clear from your earlier comments here that anyone who says anything negative about me, no matter how outlandish, will be praised by you, and that you have about as much regard for truth and accuracy as Omer Subhani does. The latest example is your "quote" from me: "I don't think that most scholars believe that." Of course, I never said that in any of my responses to Subhani, but what do you care for truth?
I must say I'm amused that you keep coming back, especially since you never did get around to producing those Arabic texts that you claimed to have, and that would have proved your case the first time you endeavored to expose my ignorance to the world. You remember those texts, right? The ones from the Arabic hadith collection that you claimed to own, and that just happens to coincide with the citations in that bastion of honest scholarship, Wikipedia, contesting the mainstream Islamic position about Aisha's age:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016333.php
And then there was the time when you informed everyone that I was completely misquoting Sura 9:29, which, you said, did not mention the People of the Book -- the only catch was that it does, as I showed you from the Arabic. That one is in the comments field here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017476.php
And now you're back again. I tell you, sir, if I were Meadowlark Lemon, I certainly would offer you a position on the Washington Generals!
But you will not respond to this. You never have, when I've posted it before. That, of course, suggests that you're not in the least interested in rational debate, but only in character assassination and mudslinging.
Oh, and re Jordan, AFP reported this on April 10, 2008:
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/darticlen.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2008/April/middleeast_April108.xml§ion=middleeast&col=
Now it's 18. Yes, they're prosecuted, as you point out, but given light sentences.
And I can't help but notice that this is yet another example of your habit of claiming that evidence exists that disproves what I say, but failing actually to produce that evidence.
Just doing some thinking, Old Sod!
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Subhani claims:
"As far as I know the only case of an honor killing occurring in the U.S. was the murder of the Said sisters. But there are Spencer and Savage - dumb and dumber - whipping up the crowd, telling anyone who will listen to their crap that honor killings are on the rise in the U.S. Well, I guess it is on the rise technically since the last count of honor killings in the U.S. totaled zero."
Wrong again. For Subhani's education, the Said sisters were not the first known victims of "honor" killing. The case of Tina Isa was well-documented.
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art47666.asp
Tina Isa
I admire Robert for engaging posters here instead of simply banning them like the Free Republic and Little Green Footballs.
...that is, the Tina Isa case was the first well-documented Islamic "honor" killing in the U.S., to my knowledge.
Bingo,
I'm always glad to see "An American." His entertainment value is very high: he is practically a caricature of the arrogant fool whose only weapons are a sneer and a lie.
This is a character I have encountered often in my work, but seldom in so pure a form, and so fanatically persistent despite repeated drubbings, as "An American."
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Subhani wrote:
"Anyway, the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, told his Companions not to kill their daughters when they were born because they were ashamed that they did not have a son so I would imagine that killing your daughter because she wasn't wearing a hijab would also be similarly looked down upon."
We don't have all the facts yet in the Aqsa Parvez case, but there were probably more Islam-related issues there than just the hijab.
In any case, some Islamic laws allow for the reduction or removal of punishment for the parent who kills his/her offspring. It may be debated as to whether this has any basis in the primary Islamic texts, but it is dealt with in some Islamic laws.
Hey, isn't Adam Gadahn "An American" also.
Spencer: To An American: That, of course, suggests that you're not in the least interested in rational debate, but only in character assassination and mudslinging.
Yep, now you have to deal with a second assault front opening up.
I think Omar should just give up. He is so busy trying to come up with new stuff that he does not have time to refute the refutations. And this is part V, only six more to go. Omar is rambling and stretching. He is all over the ball field, but he does not have the ball. He dropped it in part 1.
Abu Dawud: Book 38, Number 4348:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.
To An American
just an advice.... change your pseudo and show your true color....
Maybe you are one of those touched by the grace waiting for the day when AMerica is totally Muslim , sit tight and wait because the true Americans are getting ready to fix your problem.
You are not good enough to tie Robert Spencer 's shoes.
Kinana is correct. . .the Tina Isa murder was among the first American murders to be labeled an "honor" killing.
And in Jordan, thanks to various penal code articles (viz., Articles 97, 98, and 340), the average sentence for these crimes ranges from three months to two years, but averages six months. Only when the prosecution can show premeditation do they get stronger sentences, and that is because technically they no longer qualify for the light sentences.
In actually, it is probably the case that most Jordanian dishonor killers walk, since so many of these crimes are never reported or are disguised as accidents or suicides.
Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
"Reclaiming Honor in Jordan"
An American,
I too applaud your chutzpah in coming back here. I remember the exchange RS mentions about the Arabic translations you said you had, but then never produced.
I was thinking, boy, if I was you and wanted to "get" RS at least once, here was my chance and then you went and completely untterly BLEW it! You couldn't produce one single translation to bolster your argument that wasn't on Wikipedia.
If you had the translations, how difficult would that have been? Based on that, I believe you were lying and have no reason to believe anything else you have to say.
Just doing some disbelievin'...
"A Liar"....hey now, that would be a more appropriate nick for, An American. Much more accurate, don't ya think?
"So... one was in the United States."
No, two were in the United States. One victim was Sarah Said, and the other was Amina Said. If you want to argue that these both took place during one incident, I will reply that when "Dad" Said is caught, and he will be--no one so arrogant can stay hidden forever (ego doesn't allow it)-- he will find himself charged with two murders.
At first I gave "An American" the benefit of the doubt: maybe his criticism or attacks on Spencer have some validity, I thought. So I went back over "An American's" earlier visits to Jihad Watch and I thought my way through the details of each of his posts, and boy was I wrong. Having carefully and with an open mind read his various posts and having observed the way he has dealt with Spencer's replies, I don't see how a reasonable person can come to any other conclusion than that "An American" is deliberately lying when he comes to this site. His real purpose is not debate or discussion, but sneaky defamation and slander. Not sure comparison to the Washington Generals is the most apt one, insofar as the Washington Generals, though they were always ridiculous losers, were not cheaters (or were they?). Anyway, since "An American" has shown himself to be "pseudo" in every other respect, it seems sensible to conclude that he is also a pseudo-American.
"But you will not respond to this...."
it is now 24 hours later and the tumbleweeds are quietly rolling through the town....
traeh
I like your thoroughness.
I have been - patiently, steadily, and to the great detriment of many of my household chores - studying the Archives here. I have just finished absorbing four years' worth of news items, many of which I have copied and tucked away in files for use as ammunition, while I have also enjoyed reading the assorted ventings by the commenters, extra information (I have files headed 'nasty Muslim texts' and 'famous quotes', for example) heated discussion, and, most memorably, Mr Spencer's and Mr Fitzgerald's sustained interchanges with those whom I like to call the Disruptors.
With that under my belt, I concur entirely with your assessment of 'An American', for I recall quite distinctly the flavour of all his utterances on this comments floor, from the very beginning.
He's a Disruptor.