CAIR rep Omer Subhani exposes Robert Spencer! Part VIII

Omer Subhani is the CAIR rep who has undertaken in a multipart series to expose my "errors," but, typically, all he ends up exposing is his utter disregard for truthfulness and honesty. Here you can find Parts I, II, III, IV, V VI, and VII.

And in his Part VIII, "Utter Twaddle Indeed," he actually responds to what I wrote in Part VII (which I had posted earlier, before I was informed that it was part of a series) -- but only with more of the same.

After a few paragraphs of introductory chest-beating and irrelevancy, Subhani says that I am "validating" the Salafist interpretation of Islam:

Yes, Robert, you are "validating their interpretation of Islam." Most Muslims who speak out against violence done in the name of their religion are denounced by you as being apologists or using taqiyya. This is a common phenomena on your web sites.

Since Subhani is not specific, I can't specifically reply, except to note that his own organization, CAIR, has signed on twice to the Fiqh Council of North America's condemnation of terrorism. I explain here why that condemnation of terrorism actually contains nothing that would move a jihad terrorist to lay down his arms: it doesn't challenge any of the theological bases by which they justify violence against unbelievers.

Nor do I know of more than a handful of "Muslims who speak out against violence" who are specific, condemning by name Hamas, Hizballah, and others, and rejecting the Islamic texts and teachings that justify violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers under the hegemony of Islamic law. If Mr. Subhani would like to do this, I welcome him to do so, and will post his statement prominently.

Then, after repeating at length his attempt in Part VII to draw a distinction between "terror" and "terrorism," and his false charge that I didn't quote the full text of the hadith in which Muhammad says "I have been made victorious through terror," he again tries to make something of the distinction:

Never does he attempt to clarify the difference between terrorism and terror - as I had noted. If there is any confusion created it is that Spencer is now backtracking by trying to place blame of this so-called confusion on Al-Arabiyya. If the matter was convoluted then all Spencer had to say at the outset was that "I never said that 'terrorism' made him victorious, but that 'terror' made him victorious." The matter would have been resolved there.

Resolved, maybe, but muddled, certainly. In reality, I did explain that "terror" for Muhammad meant "striking abject fear into the hearts of the enemy" and that "terrorism," taken as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets," is a good way to accomplish that: "Striking abject fear into the hearts of the enemy sounds to me like something one could do rather efficiently by committing 'premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets.'" Then I went on to explain a instance in which Muhammad perpetrated "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets."

But, after more irrelevancy, Subhani doggedly repeats his point:

Again, Spencer is equating terror with terrorism. They are not the same thing. When the Prophet said that he meant that fear was put in the hearts of his opponents and not that they were fearful because of the raids and battles he engaged in with his Companions. Al-Arabiyya didn't say Spencer "fabricated" anything, they said that he was equating what the Prophet had said about terror with terrorism. They are absolutely right about that and Spencer does nothing to refute Al-Arabiyya or myself. His quote from his book offers only proof against him.

When the Prophet said that "terror" made him victorious he was speaking about it being cast into the hearts of his enemies - by God - not by his own actions, which Spencer argues when he says "Striking abject fear into the hearts of the enemy sounds to me like something one could do rather efficiently by committing 'premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets.'." Like I had said before, this fear or terror was placed into the hearts of his opponents not through his own doing (the raids and battles Spencer speaks of), but by God and this is what the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, meant in that hadith. The last sentence Spencer writes demonstrates his inability to distinguish between the two terms: terror and terrorism. He keeps believing that the two are synonymous regarding the Prophet's life, but fails to distinguish between the hadith about "terror" that he quotes in support of his argument that the Prophet resorted to "terrorism." I don't know what Spencer attempts to accomplish here, but he's avoiding the issue that he made a glaring mistake and continues to do so when he makes terror placed into someone's heart and terrorism synonymous. They are not the same thing because what he is doing is attempting to use this hadith as proof that the Prophet was a terrorist of seventh century Arabia.

Subhani goes on to quote what I quoted from Islamic tradition about the Khaybar raid, about which one of the Muslims later remembered: “We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets." That sounds like noncombatants to me. "When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, ‘Muhammad with his force,’ and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, ‘Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.’”

Was this Allah striking fear into the hearts of Muhammad's enemies, or were they perhaps terrified by the sight of the Muslim armies, which they were unprepared to meet? You be the judge! But Subhani has something to say about Khaybar also:

Here is yet another mistake made by Spencer. The question arises, did the Muslims attack these "workers of Khaybar?" Absolutely not. Let us turn to Martin Lings' Muhammad. He says about Khaybar "The sun rose, and when the land workers came out with their spades and mattocks and baskets they were astonished to find themselves face to face with a grimly silent army. 'Muhammad and his hosts,' they cried, and fled back into their strongholds"(Lings, 265). This is not much different than what Spencer says...

Whoops!

...but again the question arises, did the Muslims attack these "workers of Khaybar?" No they did not. Those "workers" "fled" back into their "strongholds." There was not any fighting between the Muslim army that was standing before them and the "workers of Khaybar." Those "workers" then proceeded to run back into their fortresses and prepare for battle. The Muslim army led by the Prophet never attacked non-combatants at Khaybar as Spencer alleges here. The "workers" were the same soldiers the Muslims would eventually fight at Khaybar. One thing Spencer fails to mention was that the people in Arabia at the time partook in combat as a side job. All of these people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, had day jobs. As we all know, the Prophet was a merchant and so were Abu Bakr and Uthman. Ali, his cousin, used to to do odd chores around Madinah to make money for his family. None of the armies were professional, and so it was with the Jews of Khaybar. They were obviously farmers and that's why they were out in the morning ready to farm when the Muslim army approached them. Nowhere does it say, and Spencer should know this, that the Muslim army attacked these farmers. He himself quotes a hadith that says these workers "turned tail and fled" so where is the engagement with non-combatants that Spencer says took place? It didn't and that is just another mistake he makes.

All right. So the soldiers had day jobs, and they fled to defenses. This justifies the attack on the Khaybar oasis? Clearly they weren't ready for the Muslim attack -- they were not in combat mode. Also, I suppose Subhani would have us believe that there were no women in the square at Khaybar when the Muslims raided -- nope, the only people there were off-duty soldiers!

Was that "terror" or "terrorism"? I don't care. That's a distinction without a difference.

Actually, as demonstrated above, there is a huge difference between the two terms. Your inability to clarify the matter demonstrates your pride more than anything else.

No, it demonstrates your inability or unwillingness to face the truth: that the core Islamic texts teach violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers. Whether you ignore, deny, and obfuscate this because you believe in it and want to further the cause through deceit, or because you are embarrassed by it and are trying to wish it away, I do not know. But ultimately it doesn't matter. A genuine reformer doesn't deny what needs reforming, he identifies it and goes to work against it. Whatever you are, Subhani, you are no reformer.

After a bit Subhani accuses me of missing subtleties:

Yes, there is a subtlety that you are missing and that subtlety is that Al-Arabiya charged you with saying "the Prophet would tempt his Companions with Paradise in order to fight his enemies." What you are attempting to do is show that all you meant was that the Prophet promised his Companions paradise if they fought in jihad - that's not what you are being accused of. What Al-Arabiya said was that you said the Prophet "tempted" his followers into fighting by promising them paradise. It's another subtlety that you may not have noticed. What they accused you of and what I wrote about was that you are portraying the Prophet's calls to his Companions to fight in jihad as a scheme and a form of manipulation in order for the Prophet to coax his Companions into fighting for him. That's the subtlety. Like I said in my original post, you're free to interpret the hadiths as you want.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Muhammad promised Paradise to his companions who were killed, but he didn't "tempt" them with it (oh, and never mind those bits about the virgins). Logged and noted!

And then, regarding the Treaty of Hudaibiyya. I dismissed as apologetic hair-splitting the claim that Muhammad didn't break the treaty by refusing to send back women who had fled to him from the Quraysh, because the treaty only stipulated that men should be sent back. Subhani responds:

No, it's a loophole like I had said. The treaty didn't say "women cannot return." It was a general statement about men generally (Ling quotes the treaty: "on condition that whoso cometh unto Muhammad of Quraysh without the leave of HIS guardian, Muhammad shall return HIM unto them"(Lings, 253)) and the Quraysh acknowledged as much by not fighting over the issue. Spencer is correct that the Quraysh were not as strong as they once were, but that did not mean that the Muslims had become more powerful or that Qurayshs weakness was a concern for the Muslims because as was shown at the Battle of Badr they had defeated an army three times as large as theirs. But the issue over women in the Treaty of Hudaibiya is just "legalistic hair-splitting," according to Spencer and not an error on his part.

I already explained in Part VII that there were many reasons why the Quraysh didn't protest. In this Subhani merely repeats his original point, as if reassertion makes it so. But even he acknowledges that Muhammad exploited a "loophole" in the treaty. I think that in itself establishes my point.

Then he upbraids me for not providing the context of Muhammad's statement, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power," even though it was he (and Al-Arabiya) who ripped this statement out of my book, ignoring the surrounding context, which as I showed in Part VII, I fully supplied. And so a question for Mr. Subhani: Why not deal honestly with what I have written, instead of playing straw man games?

And finally he ends up by playing the victim card:

In his book, Spencer becomes the ultimate apologist for Jewish and Qurayshi threats of violence against the Muslims, but that's another story for another time.

Yes, all this is a Zionist plot!

Then Subhani returns to "Kill every Jew," brushing aside my explanation that it was not a universal command, since the Jews were later offered the option of becoming dhimmis, and then claiming I offer no explanation:

As far as this quote goes, it cannot be in reference to anything in Surah al-Tawba because those verses were revealed almost at the end of the Prophet's life. The Qurayzah were already executed by that time. There was no "dhimmitude" as Spencer suggests because those verses were not revealed yet. The Jews of Qurayzah were not subjugated in any sense at this time - they lived in another area of Madinah all to their own where they were free to practice their religion and were not paying any poll tax or the like. But in any case, the www.answering-chirstianity.com web site said, in regards to this alleged statement of the Prophet about killing all Jews, that this hadith is weak and unreliable. Also, that Ibn Hisham, the Prophetic biographer, said that this incident about killing all Jews occurred during the executions of the treacherous Bani Qurayzah.

Then he helpfully provides a hadith in which Muhammad makes a very similar order:

In any case, I don't know the context of this particular hadith nor have I seen any scholars I trust say it is weak, but here is the narration from Abu Dawud's hadith collection: Book 19, Number 2996:

Narrated Muhayyisah:

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property.

This narration is different than what Spencer reports in his book so there seems to be some ambiguity about this report. It would be nice if Spencer shared with us why this narration occurred - you know context helps solve a lot of disputes.

Sure, Subhani! This is simply a variant of the story in which Ibn Ishaq has Muhammad saying, "Kill any Jew who falls into your power." This was right before the Battle of Uhud. Subhani is right that this was before the verse regarding dhimmitude was revealed, but misses the point I was making, which is that the very fact that the dhimma was revealed indicates in itself that the order to kill any Jew was not understood as applying for all time.

One would think, meanwhile, that the violence and brutality of this narrative (and speaking of noncombatants, what's this about beating and killing a Jewish merchant?) would give Subhani pause in his attempts to whitewash Muhammad's bloody history, but no such luck.

Anyway, I am aware that this Daily Subhani is growing tiresome, and apologize for that. It seemed wise, a week ago anyway, to craft a series of replies for the record, but it has been abundantly established already that his essays are simply yet another example of CAIR's scurrilous campaign to throw anything they can at me and hope something will stick. (Yes yes, Subhani assures us he is doing this attack on his own time, but he works for CAIR, and CAIR will certainly use it if they can, as they have used outlandish libels crafted by a pathetic thrice-convicted felon in the past.) It is a campaign unworthy of an organization that claims to be all about "building bridges," and it belies that claim.