Ingrid Mattson and the U.S. Muslim Engagement Project

You can see the hate in her eyes...

Maybe one of these days a plain-spoken leader with Churchillian wisdom and directness will effectively educate the public about Islam. Meanwhile, into the knowledge vacuum goes many a fool. This is worse than touting CDOs.
On a side note, has an anyone noticed that Condi has just returned with encouraging words from Syrian negotiations. This gives Syria important cover while they mass troops on Lebanon's borders. They may be exploiting our financial crisis and the election to invade Lebanon. I bet ya...

Look at her self-satisified picture and then scroll down a few inches and look to your left. You'll see the picture of the 2 beautiful, murdered girls who, obviously, were NOT wearing the prescribed garb. I would like to see Ms. Mattson write an intelligent piece about the fate of those two girls and how she would fit THAT into her "engagement" project, but, alas, I guess that would be too taxing. Better to stick to fluffy pieces about how nice it feels to cover yourself up like a phantom.

they won't let some rock star whose well known problems with drugs enter the country. and yet this "woman" who loves terrorists and teaches some watered down version of islam, she gets a free ride...

This smug muslim hag gives me the creeps. Her delusions of superiority are apparent in her smirk.
I'm sure she and her wahabbi cohorts celebrate with whatever exuberance a bunch of hostile, bloodthirsty muslims can elicit every time they score another scam on the stupid infidels who are oh-so-eager-to please and appease.

That face makes me kind of wish her husband practices Koran 4:34 to the letter.

jewdog,

Ever since Condi referred to Hamas as a "resistance movement"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56384

I don't think the Israelis should ever trust her. I would bet dollars to dougnuts she had a hand in softening the Israeli military effort in the 2006 Lebanon conflict.

Raymond

Engagement with the Muslim world is not necessary. Experience proved that those people dont understand coexistence, it is their law and not your law .
So they should all stay in their own countries, we should stop all financial aid, let them lead their own economy and all the Bedouins who were lucky enough to plant their tent in the sand on top of an oil field should now try to relocate with the fortune they made with our technology because the black gold river is going to dry pretty soon.
Let them kill each other. They know very well how to do that.
and we really should concentrate in cleaning this country of all those crazy Muhamad Ali Ben Yussef by sending them back home instead of trying to integrate them, It is not going to happen.

That photo is highly, highly, highly, offensive to me. That smirk is revolting. This photo is even more offensive to me than Rage Boy's.

Because it's someone who actually converted to Islam from Christianity. Who should know better. It's puke-worthy.

Engaging in dialogue with Islamic interests requires compromise on your part EVERY TIME. It means allowing them special privileges in the places of work, schools & public venues to accommodate their belief systems, which will never be compatible with western style democratic republics. Ingrid bint Mattson is only here to take, take, take...and the only thing we get in return? Little chunks of Shariah that pile up awfully fast. First have to "see things" their way, then to surrender parts of our culture one mosque, one law here and there at a time...and finally all out colonization to the tune we see happening in Europe. It occupation, not integration with the Muslim community.

Thankyou so much Raymond for providing those links. When asked about Ingid I can now say:
Did you know Ingrid teaches from Qutb and Syed Abu'l-`Ala Mawdudi on jihad? This will really be a nice piece to club some idiot over the head with someday. "Maududi on jihad (Jihad in Islam, page 9): "Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of Islamic 'Jihad' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

It is occupation, not integration with the Muslim community.

I meant to say.

Yes - it's puke-worthy, and I hope she has a loooong conversation with St. Peter before he turns her away.

You know how sometimes a JW'er will complain to RS about a certain photo or caption to a photo they find just too much to bear, because it's just too horrible in some way, and ask to take it down or change it?

This is the one for me.

Be gentle, folks: you are damaging her 'interfaith dialogues' and her da'awa efforts... All that important work she's done for nothing!

Holy cow! Pat Condell's video to sign a legal petition to end Sharia in the U.K. has been censored from youtube. This is incredible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAPqKFGE-l8

I agree with Darcy. Please take the smug face of this "intellectual" prostitute away.

At least put a mustache on her or something.

At least put a moustache on her or something.

Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read . . .

I disagree with the populus here on this thread.

A photo of Mattson in her hijab, as mandated by Qu'ran 24:31 as I recall, hopefully accurately, is a necessary evil in this very distinct war against the all-encompassing ideology of Islam.

Gender specific regulations based on a "religious" ideology only serve our collective cause. The word religious in quotes is simply due to the overt fact that Islam is a false ideology, borne of a socially, ethically and morally challenged sociopath, named Muhammad.

To reiterate an important point that should be included in this thread...There may very well be the existence of "moderate" Muslims, but there is certainly no "moderate" Islam, and trust in the former is solely at the expense of non-muslims by the hands of the latter.

I think this woman WANTS to be in this garb. That is another reason to take it off. She is proud of it, but then she doesn't really have to deal with real restrictions that go along with it, does she?

The picture describes to a T the look of superiority that Muslim women believe they have over all of us kuffar. I mean think about what Muslim women have over me...let me count the ways. I can drive where I want to and they can't. I can wear what I want to and they can't. I can have my own business, get up and drive to the beach for a week when I feel like it, go to the store and spend the money I earn when I feel like it, go to the church of my choice, talk back to men that don't behave and never be threatened with death or disfigurement for any of it. Love my life, love my job. ; )

The thing that I always wonder about is what is it that Ingrid Mattson thinks she's going to get out of being a Muslim woman? What does she think Sharia will do for her or the b-zillions of women who have to live under that crap? Or is it that she thinks she will be one of the chosen few who rise above the lifestyle everybody else is forced to endure? I'm guessing she thinks there's some contingency clause that will exempt her from the truly heinous parts of Islam. After all, she lives in America as a Muslim woman and she's doing just fine, right? LOL!!

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 2, 2008 12:21 AM

They can't touch you Izzy. They never could.

Regards,

awake

Careful, Islamic supremacist psychopathic eyes. Unfortunately, she's only an Islamic woman, only half a man. Good luck lady.

Ahh, Awake, you sweet talker.

Gosh, I love American men! ; )

Ingrid Mattson is one smart dresser, that's for sure. I mean, forget the scarf for just one minute and focus on the puke green collared shirt, and rusty brown jacket. My gosh, she couldn't look more unattractive if she tried, and I have to wonder if she found this get-up from her husbands side of the closet! She's not wearing a stitch of make up, and yet she plucks her brows. Why bother with shaping those brows when Frump-Queen is the goal. You mean there's a woman behind that Ugh-suit?

I use to live 2 blocks from the Hartford Seminary and it was a nice neo-Gothic place. We use to play sports and launch model rockets there. I always thought it was a Christian place. How did this scum make it there?

You know what she looks like guys a left wing american nuts expression looking down on all us common smucks thats exactly how she looks.

Ahh, Awake, you sweet talker.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader

Now THAT is funny!!! :-D

She looks like she has been hopped up on antidepressants for this photo-op. Notice the glazed look in the eye, combined with the droopy eyelids, and uneven facial symmetry around the orbits. This combined with that lackluster botoxesque attempt at a smile, quite clearly indicate great treachery, and deception. She is a vile temptress of Islamic theology to the core.

Hey there Champ!

You know, back when I was a Catholic School girl, we used to hate those gray and red or gray and blue plaid skirts. But man, we had nothing on this chick for butt ugly. Perhaps Muslim families tell their girls the same thing we heard, that the uniform made us all look like everyone else and there wasn't that competition to have nicer clothes than the next person. Except even with those ugly skirts the girls at my school used to look really cute in side ponytails with curls at the end, or with that Dorothy Hamel Wedge cut, with a cute sweater and socks to match.

Remember that pathetic whiner, Bushra Noah, who sued the funky hairdresser over in London and got her feelings hurt (and something like 4000 pounds) because the salon owner asked her to remove her head scarf while at work? Why was it the salon owner's fault that Bushra felt like a piece of dog doo because of the way she dressed?

These Muslim chicks have it all backwards. Let's see if we can straighten it out for them, shall we?

Muslim girls, listen up:

1) The goal is to look as attractive as possible,
not as ugly as possible.

2) You do not have to look forward to an eternity of sitting next to your husband while he has his way with all those houris. That's just some crap he made up to annoy you while you're still here on earth.

3) Marriage is an option, as is school, working or volunteering overseas. And you are the one who gets to choose.

4) You do not have to have your head beaten in if you look at a guy and somebody tells a male member of your family. They could just grow up, grow a little backbone, overcome their insecurities and get on with their lives rather than kill you. Who gives a flying flip what the neighbors think?

5) Just because hubby is horny does not mean that you have to stop what you're doing and head for the bedroom. You have the right to not have sex whenever you don't want to. Make him wait. Instant gratification is not good for men or other living things.

6) There are not more women in Muslim hell than men. That's something Muhammad made up to take the focus off of him having sex with little kids, and slave girls, and his step son's wife, and that Jewish woman whose husband he killed, etc.

7) Wear what you want, whenever you want. Just make sure you are carrying a can of pepper spray and a snubbed nosed pistol if you want to walk down some street in Bagdad while you're doing it.

That's enough for now. Freedom can be a little overwhelming if you're not used to it, but you're going to love it, trust me on this one.

Hi, Isa!

This one split my side: "Instant gratification is not good for men or other living things"...very funny! They were ALL great!!

Ahhh you guys over complicate it this gal needs a spanking!

A spanking?!! Well, maybe you have something there. Hmmm.

It is interesting to view the Engagement Project's leadership listing:

http://www.usmuslimengagement.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=44

This group will undoubtedly be somewhere on Obama's staff, if they are not already; examples: Albright, Armitage, Ross - all ex-State Department, all dhimmis. These people probably think that American should emulate Great Britain's dhimmi-ization.

Why be a loyal Amercian nobody when you can be a contentious, well paid, defender of Islam? That way you can DEMAND respect.

Islam IS good for something... It's good for drawing in people who have issues, hate others or who would be nobodies without some kind of "cause".

As far as am concerned, people like Mattson should be deported to the nearest Islamic regime where Muslims will put in their "rightful place" - behind the stove.

Just another enabler of the world's oldest totalitarian ideology. Have to wonder if this true believer has ever realized that had there only ever been Islam she would not live in the great country she does today. Nah, I'm sure she's never thought of this.

From Wiki (I know, I know.....)

"Dr. Ingrid Mattson, Ph.D. is a Canadian Muslim convert professor and activist and the current president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
She was born and raised in Ontario, and studied philosophy and fine arts at the University of Waterloo, Ontario. Raised as a Catholic, she ultimately abandoned religion "for good" during her teenage years,[1] but embraced Islam at the end of her undergraduate studies. She then travelled to Pakistan where she worked with Afghan refugees for a year. She earned her Ph.D. in Islamic studies from the University of Chicago in 1999. She went on to be very active in educating Canadian Muslims to become active participants in Canadian society at large. She is now Director of Islamic Chaplaincy and Professor at the Macdonald Center for Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary in Hartford, Connecticut, the first Islamic chaplaincy program in the United States. In 2001 she was elected Vice-President of ISNA and in 2006 she was elected President of the organization. She has guest lectured at such institutions as the US Naval Academy.[2] Dr. Mattson is the first female to lead the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)."

In every picture I have ever seen of her, she is wearing that same maddening, self-satisfied smirk. I wish she wasn't a Canadian. I wish she would go to live in Pakistan for ever. How could she, born a Catholic, and having worked with Afghan refugees, no doubt many of them women, how could she "embrace islam"? It boggles the mind.

If she is a Muslim then she is stupid by definition. Islam and women do not get along. Ask Wafa Sultan and the millions of smart women who abandoned Islam after recognizing how Islam diminishes Muslim women. A dog in the US is a lot happier and has more freedom than a Muslim woman in an Islamic nation.

Notice how she has elevated herself in the US and the West. She knows she would be worthless had she grown up and lived in an Islamic nation. All Muslim women are worthless according to the Koran and the Muslims. Case and point, she may visit an Islamic nation but she would never never live or retire in an Islamic nation.

Here in the West, she is using the classic marketing concept - if you cannot fix it feature it. She cannot shed off her Islamic religion so she found a way to feature it - it is the only way she can find some worthiness in her life.

I don't see hate in her eyes, Ken - but I do see "dead eyes". (Especially her left one. Look at each half of her face independently, and you'll see two very different looks.) What I do see is no joy in Islam. She is apparently trying to smile, but it just ain't there.

PLEASE, JW ladies and gents--Stop posting photos of this sickening woman! My eyes are bleeding!

I see the face of a woman who can only half enjoy the fraud of her ascendancy, reveling one moment in the attention brought by her peculiarity, but always reminded of her true status under Islam, to which she will ultimately be cast after the need to flatter Western vanity has passed.

Oh no, you misunderstand.

I wasn't asking for that evil portrait above to be taken down.

I was just saying that if there's one that offended me enough so that it would come to that, IM's would be the one. Even more so than, say, Rage Boy's, who's just an ignorant savage.

Mattson, on the other hand, is supposed to have a brain.

"Because it's someone who actually converted to Islam from Christianity. Who should know better. It's puke-worthy."

Posted by: darcy

I know you folks are all going to think I'm crazy, but--Maybe Christianity just wasn't rough enough for her. I think it's possible that she wants to be dominated. ethoman has a point about her need for a spanking.

Islamic attire is an advertisment to Muslim men, in particular, and all Islam savvy men, in general, that a woman is willing to be dominated by them. The costumes say, "I'm weak. I need someone to take over my life, tell me what to do, and discipline me, when I'm disobedient".

It's probably not something these Muslimahs think of, in their conscious minds, but an expression of an unconscious desire.

"Maybe Christianity just wasn't rough enough for her...It's probably not something these Muslimahs think of, in their conscious minds, but an expression of an unconscious desire."

I think that is completely true. Christianity is difficult to feign, because there are so few rules, and one is largely to be guided by an internal compass (i.e. led by the Spirit). If that compass is not there, you need legalism to satisfy the need to appear pious, and Islam provides that in abundance.

The MACDONALD Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations? What an odd name! Shouldn't that be the Al-Qaradawi Centre, or the Abd-al-Qadir Centre, or the "Islam Will Conquer All Other Religions And American Power Will Diminish" Centre, or the "Smite-the-Unbelievers-Wherever-You-Find-Them-Smite-Them-At-Their-Necks Centre? That should bespeak attention and put things into perspective. After all, Ingrid Mattson's qualifications for pronouncing on Christian-Muslim relations are obviously belief, not knowledge, and since that is the qualification we respect now, it might as well be in the name of the institution.

Marwan'sDaughter,

and, "The lone and level sands stretch far away"

I did a reading of this at Universitas Lampung, Lampung Indonesia in 1994.

But in this context, whose visage do you see?

Peace,
Abdullah Mikail

"Ahh, Awake, you sweet talker. Gosh, I love American men! ; )

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader"

Ahem, Isabella, Awake is a woman.

Thought you'd like to know.

: )

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

How amny of you see a suicide bomber?

Abdullah Mikail - awake a woman? Now that's pretty funny. What am I? A woman, or a man? Just curious.

champ,

You are woman, champ.

It might be that I mistook awake, whose gender I now do not know, for you.

You did chastise me in the past for not responding to your posts because of some perceived "Islamic Chauvinism" and pointed out you were a woman...prior to that I knew not...by the way, my wife would laugh at that inference.

I was a huge supporter and volunteer at the 3rd International Woman's Peace Conference in Dallas, TX last year.

That being said, may I safely assume awake is male?

If so, in that case, I apologize.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Hey, AM, you remember, yes I am a woman; and awake is a he, so that settles that. I stated that you were an "Islamic Chauvinist"? Well, I vaguely recall making a statment like that, but I suppose it is possible. R U an IC? Irrespective of your wifes opinion.

champ,

Am I an "IC"?

No.

I am more of a "femenist" than my wife if you ask some of our politically active "femenist" friends.

Thanks for asking.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Could you shut up with the "peace" crap,
"slave of allah?"

Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with peace. Islam is all about War and Mass-Murder. But, you know that.

And awake is a male, you idiot. But, what do you know? You're just a slave to a non-existent pagan moon god. Can't get any stupider than that.

Remember September 11, 2001 - over 3,000 Americans incinerated by 19 Barbarian Male Mohammedans, roasting in hell with their false prophet Warlord Con Man Mo.

Follow-up from a prior thread:

Abdullah,

The Pagan Quraysh tortured a Muslim by holding him down on a bed of hot coals...blah, blah...Bilail down in the hot sand of the desert torturing him by stacking sun heated heavy stones...blah, blah...held down and tortured to death two Muslim parents in an effort to get them to convert back to polytheism...blah,blah...tortured and abused so many Muslims...

[Mohammad] then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Sahih Bukhari, Ablutions (Wudu'), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234

Do I need to link the Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl videos for emphasis? You don't admit ANYTHING bad that is done can be linked to Islam. This is not a debate about worldly expediency or human failings. This is a dialogue about whether or not Islam is culpable as a source of the evil perpetrated in its name.

We know almost nothing about the Quraysh except as recorded by Islamists. As a kafir, I am unimpressed the entire category of these types of references (see below). I am impressed with Mohammad. I am impressed that he was not a holy man.

I also take this time to remind you after the virtually bloodless victory in the liberation of Mecca...

LIBERATION! Oh, well, that was what it was! Why didn't I see that before!

, the Khuza'a, by mere virtue of the shahada, were entitled to the privileges of the treaty” And this comment of yours is non-sequitor. The signatory parties of the treaty both knew full well these alliances and their mutual inclusion in the treaty.

It is unbecoming of a holy man to construct a "peace" covenant if a) he intends it will not produce peace at the outset and b) it contains parameters he apprehends can be used to his advantage in semantically unilaterally applying it.

Provide your reference for “Quraysh even stated, "I do not want to fight you"

Ishaq:455 ‘I summon you to Allah, to His Messenger, and to Islam.’ Amr replied, ‘I have no use for these.’ So Ali said, ‘Then I summon you to fight.’ Amr replied, ‘Why, son of my brother? By Allah, I do not want to kill you.’ Ali shouted, ‘But I, by Allah, want to kill you.’ Amr jumped from his horse and advanced toward Ali. The two fought until Ali killed Amr. He shouted, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ Ishaq:456 As he returned to the Apostle smiling with joy [for having killed his uncle] Jumar asked him if he had stripped Amr of his armor. ‘No,’ Ali answered. ‘I saw his private parts and was ashamed.’

Are we going to quibble about the difference between fight and kill? No compulsion in religion? Modesty appears after the murder; despite the simultaneous joy of killing? My God.

And this I have already refuted with research references

I thank you for your time developing the references, but that is why you're here. To teach us what YOU believe. But given these are matters of faith, refutation is in the eye of the beholder. You've only proven that you can find references that support YOUR views amongst a myriad that support contradictory views. Did you expect us to provide them for you? I found your industry impressive, just not your personal conclusions.

"butchery of the treatment of the Qurayzah". You yourself admitted they were probably treated fairly, and yet now you spin it an entirely different way. The Banu Qurayza were given justice under Jewish law and the more merciful sentence was levied. This I proved.

How dare you attribute that to me. I believe nothing of the sort. You proved nothing except WHY you believe what YOU believe, and frankly, sir, I don't find it compelling. Mohammeds actions were beneath that expected of a holy man.

But your being incorrect about historical facts despite my providing of verified references

You don't get this at all. Let me provide a formula:

1) Muslim records a narrative. This potentially contains a combination of fact, bias and fiction.
2) Non-muslim reads narrative and must differentiate the above components.
3) The least flattering component is usually true.
4) The non-muslim now compares this component to the expectations of how the whole of Islam is being presented.

“It may be that the Hanifi's in the 9th century invented the terms "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb".

How dare you selectively quote me and then refer to my "candor". I demonstrated how these concepts were "concretely Mohammadan". You don't accept it, because you prefer to quibble about the exact terms.

[Abu Basir] abandoned all affiliations

Horsesh_t. Did he apostasize? Curious, you are saying he was still attacking the Quraysh because they were "pagan", weren't you? Why would that be? By the way, not responding on a topic often means it has become insolubly tedious or trite (see above things on this topic to which I have not reponded; p.s. you do the same). You can't see the double duplicity in Mohammad crafting a deliberately doomed treaty while pretending to be a holy man, and I can't make you.

Empire expansion is not defense of "borders and boundaries".’ Is a hypocritical comment coming from someone, whom I assume, correct me if I am wrong, fully supports the war against Iraq. Am I wrong in this?...You sir, are a hypocrite if you support the war on Iraq while maintaining your position above of "Empire expansion is not defense of "borders and boundaries".

You are becoming incoherent. It is best to calm oneself before typing. America has not "expanded its empire" by "invading" Iraq. You shame yourself by calling yourself an American patriot in the same breath; and you call me "hypocrite"? Shall I call you "Troofer" while we're at it?

Apologist? ...I do not apologize for justice. I insist on it...

That's the point of these exercises. To categorize you. Thank you. Welcome to JihadWatch. You are here for pedagogical reasons.

Now, that probably infuriated you. You thought we were debating. But as I said. We are adjudicating. This is not math or physics. Mohammad did some morally bad things. So far, you have only admitted that he "had faults...and these were forgiven". I've invited you to expound on your justifications for some of these "bad things". You gave the typical Muslim answers, swirling narratives of Muslim produced histories and jurisprudence. You did it well. But the fact remains, you, like all Muslims we've encountered before, cannot introspect and admit that it would have been better if Mohammad had not done (_______). You can't make yourself do it. Since you can't admit Mohammad had specific faults, you clearly believe a) he did not really have them b) you are unqualified to judge which one's they were, c) or they were prior to his "prophethood" and inconsequential. None of these choices are flattering to you. Now on the topic of Islam, we've reviewed numerous topics, yet you've NEVER said it had ANY inherent problem (let's not go back to human frailties, please). Not even that it seems to be prone to "misunderstanding". I say Islam DOES have inherent problems; neither of us will change, so we've met the end of the exercise. You've shown the same affection for obfuscating minutia, the same minimalization of gory details, proposed the same unctuous, morally pretentious hagiographical details, refried the same apologetic arguments (better than others, kudos), etc. You're self-admittedly NOT a reformer. You are totally opaque to the idea of or need for reformation, and I'm frankly disappointed. There is a LOT to be reformed in Islam, time is lapsing, and you want to focus on minutia and deny the elephants in the room.

[Mohammad] then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Sahih Bukhari, Ablutions (Wudu'), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234

Does that move you at all? No, no, no, no. NOT what the ex-Muslims did. What MOHAMMAD did. If you approve of that, YOU are Mohammad, YOU cut off their arms and YOU burned their eyes and enjoyed their screams. YOU cut off the heads of the Quraysh while lusting after their women. Is there anything human left in you? You knew the sira about Amr above. Why did you pretend? Are you lacking a conscience? Had a side point to make? And you call me a hypocrite. This isn't a game, Abdullah. Real lives are at stake. Non-Muslim lives, people that unashamedly don't give a rats _ss about Islam, except what they've had to learn to guarantee their own survival. All the hagiographical historical revisions, appeals to ancient unipolar partison narratives, selective obfuscations and tactical ommissions, and even social re-engineering is not going to put that jinn back in the bottle.

Here's another for you:

Similarly, Mohammad defined himself at Khaybar, by ordering Kinana bin al-Rabi tortured by kindling a fire on his chest. For money! He then had him beheaded and celebrated by immediately raping his wife (adding insult to injury by calling it a "marriage").
Ibn Ishaq, p. 515. Muhammed Ibn Ismaiel Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings, translated by Muhammad M. Khan, Darussalam, 1997, vol. 1, book 8, no. 371.

This is the point: You wish not to deal with Mohammad's actions as they reflect upon him as a "prophet", as opposed to how they related to the circumstances, the era in which he lived, etc. And this is how we must put on trial his "justice system and [Islamic] law". In modern Western society, our justice system is designed to be humane. This says something about us as a society. Mohammad was neither just, nor humane, and this says much about him.

More pointedly:

Do you justify Mohammed's actions above (i.e. dismembering, gouging, leaving two humans to die of heat and thirst in the desert; torturing then decapitating Kinaha of Khaybar); that is, the actual acts independent of circumstances, as actions befitting a prophet of God? I'm referring specifically to the manner of capital punishment, not the fact of it. Should he have done it the way he did it? What does that say about him, to you?

Answer carefully, you may be judged by your answer.

Awake,

You are one of my favorites here and I've always known you are a man.

Peaceman,

'Probably advisable to check your facts before making snide remarks. It cuts down on incidents of looking stupid.

Concerned Citizen,“Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234”

And again I ask, what crime were they convicted of? What of their victims? What did they do to deserve this punishment? You brought this reference, you should support it and not take it out of context.

“It is unbecoming of a holy man to construct a "peace" covenant if a) he intends it will not produce peace at the outset and b) it contains parameters he apprehends can be used to his advantage in semantically unilaterally applying it.”

I believe we beat that proverbial horse to death in proving the treaty was upheld by both parties, amended by both parties mutual agreement, and then violated by the Pagan Idolaters.

Your failing in this is you do not believe in the Prophet and I do. We will not be able to agree on this so it doesn’t matter what proof I bring to you.

“Mohammeds actions were beneath that expected of a holy man.”

Then what is expected by you?

Remember Noah, who said, “God, destroy them all.” And it was done?

And what of Joshua and the walls of Jericho? What did he do after they fell? Did he throw roses to the Cannanites as their walls crumbled and then let them walk away?

Or David, who flung a stone at Goliath knocked him unconscious, then beheaded him?

Or Solomon who was a conqueror and ruler of many?

I know!

You are focusing on the second to the last Prophet, Jesus.

He was here hardly a moment in time in his first ministry and he has not yet completed it.

The same Jesus who said, “Think not that I bring peace on the world, I bring a sword.” You pretend it is metaphorical, I say it is literal. I hope I live to see his second coming and you as well.

Consider, “Amr jumped from his horse and advanced toward Ali.”

Since you champion it and I support it, according to our law, secular American law, it’s pretty clear who started the fight. Amr did. And he got killed.

It is in your characterizations that you fail.

You do not understand in context the body of the Hadiths in light of the Quran and you never will because it is your desire not to understand them.

You are like a first year Physics student that picks up a level 6000 text and picks an argument with a Physicist about a concept you don’t understand….the Physicist can refer to many previous scholars of Physics for reference yet you will reject them all because you yourself don’t understand. You wail away, "Physics is Evil! Why look at the atomic bomb! Etc. blah blah blah." All the while missing the big picture.

And this is a characterization: “1997, vol. 1, book 8, no. 371.” Go research the entire event.

Marriages were tribal political alliances and some of these were arranged as such.

By the way, how long did they stay married? And what did she say of him and his treatment of her after he passed away? Spin something up with your opinion, I am sure in the end she preferred him over any human being period.

“Now, that probably infuriated you.”

Nothing you write infuriates me. It is simply your lack of understanding context...why would I get angry at you?

We could pull out of context and dredge up the hundreds of millions of people murdered because of secular wars and greed then you can justify them all just as you did the invasion of Iraq. It was based on lies, deceit, and falsified intelligence…it doesn’t change the facts.

Because I object to the Iraqi invasion I am suddenly not patriotic?

Patriotic does not mean “stupid ignoramus.”

If one loves his country for its ideals, and when those ideals are violated a patriot stands up to the belligerent. Go research the Civil war, I am sure you can have a filed day labeling “patriots” and “traitors” in that one.

“Answer carefully, you may be judged by your answer.”

It doesn’t matter how I answer anything you ask...you have prjudged Muslims and lead all of your thoughts and conclusions into that box.

You have preconceived notions and snippets that support them from historical documents presented out of context forwhy you feel the way you do.

If the crimes of the guilty were published how would your opinion fare then?

A few hundred years ago London hung children for stealing bread. London? Mighty modern bastion of Christianity? Go look it up…I think some were as young as eight.

Oh, but you say now the Europeans have changed, right? They are “all grown up” ….right? It’s all better now, right?

I know a beach in Algeria that says they haven’t…they only put on a very nice mask.

15,000 unarmed defenseless Algerian civilians bayoneted, shot, murdered, by the French because they wanted their freedom from colonialism.

Tell the full story of Kinaha of Khaybar in context and then tell the full story of the guilty and their crimes, then answer your own question.

Peace,
Abdullah Mikail

I'd prefer you actually answer the question, Abdullah:

Do you justify Mohammed's actions above (i.e. dismembering, gouging, leaving two humans to die of heat and thirst in the desert; torturing then decapitating Kinaha of Khaybar); that is, the actual acts independent of circumstances, as actions befitting a prophet of God? I'm referring specifically to the manner of capital punishment, not the fact of it. Should he have done it the way he did it?

A simple yes or no, please.

While reading the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, I became aware of how much this image has haunted me.

I wondered just how a Muslim might react to such an icy glare from me.

After a second look, I found that the picture had morphed in my imagination considerably. She did not look as imperious as I remembered.

Just how unflattering a photograph was this?

So, I went to the trouble of Goggling her name, and watched her in an interview conducted at Penn State.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Ingrid+Mattson&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

Rather than being supercilious, she was very relaxed, confident, and calm, almost phlegmatic, with a minimal use of facial expression that was both effective and ingratiating.

She seems to have an authority that large, athletically built people naturally possess.

But as we all know it is not what she looks like that matters - it is what she says and does.

In addition to the long list in statements made by her that were posted at JihadWatch on 8/24/08, she also was not forthright during the Penn State interview.

When asked an open ended question about "those images" of a crowd chanting "death to America", she acknowledged them as fearful, and then immediately lapsed into tu touque.

Then in some kind of double think said that those images reminded her of Nazi Germany and that America should be careful not to let emotions be manipulated and run the risk of turning into Nazi Germany.

What a waste of an opportunity to recite the pledge of allegiance, but instead we get a Muslim lecturing about how misunderstood and vulnerable they are.

Who would not want the opportunity to definitively renounce the kind of people who chant "death to America"?

I am sure Ingrid Mattson will make many friends with her disarming personality and positive message.

However, I have a new found appreciation for Robert Spencer. If I ever become overwrought by this topic of jihad, I can always throttle back. Robert Spencer does not have that luxury.

Still, he stays professional, civil, and maintains his sense of humor while delivering some very sobering news.

I want to thank him for doing a difficult job well.

Concerned Citizen,

We'll take your two points of misinformatoin one at a time.

You have learned what you know of this event from unreliable sources, in fact, from no traceable source at all as traditionalists, in books on Rijal, have explicitly stated that Ibn Ishaq used to borrow from the Jews stories concerning the battle of the Prophet.

As Ibn Ishaq does not mention the name of any narrator whatsoever in this case, there is every likelihood of the story of having been passed on by those who had been dispossessed due to their loss in the battle at Khaybar…an unreliable source.

What is from a more reliable verifiable source?

From Tabari:

After the fall of Khaybar, Kinana Ibn Rabi Ibn al-Huquaiq had been granted his life on the condition that he would never break faith or make false statements. He had also given his word, according to one of the reports, that if he did anything to the contrary, he could be put to death.

Therefore, your report is unreliable, and I say it is a propaganda from very early on in the attack on Islam, and Muslims.

There is no evidence that supports your theory because there is no narration or source given.

Tabari noted that another Khaybar Jew informed on Kinana Ibn Rabi Ibn al-Huquaiq that he was noted frequenting certain ruins, and implied this was the location of the hidden treasures, and thus exposed Kinana Ibn Rabi Ibn al-Huquaiq for his violation of the terms of his surrender.

Kinana had lied and withheld information and thus the immunity granted to him via the terms of his surrender was withdrawn, and thus Kinana, who had killed Mahmud Ibn Maslama (Muslima), was then put to death for it on the authority of Tabari." (Allama Shibli Nu'Mani, Sirat-Un-Nabi, volume II, p 173-174).

I believe this to be plain demonization of a dispossesed people spreading propoganda...nothing more. I reject that Kinana was tortured as your source is unreliable.

I accept that he violated the terms of his surrender and that it was another member of the Khaybar clan that gave evidence against him that exposed him to suffer the fate he did.

As far as your lies about Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab being “raped” or having her husband executed in front of her. These as well are lies.

She was manumitted from the condition of captive and three days later after a banquet she was married to Mohammad.

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 437:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet came to Khaibar and when Allah made him victorious and he conquered the town by breaking the enemy's defense, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was mentioned to him and her husband had been killed while she was a bride. Allah's Apostle selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha' where her menses were over and he married her. Then Hais (a kind of meal) was prepared and served on a small leather sheet (used for serving meals). Allah's Apostle then said to me, "Inform those who are around you (about the wedding banquet)." So that was the marriage banquet given by Allah's Apostle for (his marriage with) Safiya. After that we proceeded to Medina and I saw that Allah's Apostle was covering her with a cloak while she was behind him. Then he would sit beside his camel and let Safiya put her feet on his knees to ride (the camel).

I will get back with you on your other question.

Truth

Abdullah,

Initial thoughts (as this thread is waning soon):

your source is unreliable.

"My" source? You throw the Sirat Rasul Allah of Ibn Ishaq through Ibn Hisham under the bus, and it is my source. I will remember your preference for Tabari when we examine the Satanic Verses incident.

As far as your lies about Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab being “raped” or having her husband executed in front of her. These as well are lies.

Based on what, your assertion? How do you know she was not a witness? What is your reference?

As to her time of mourning, from what I've found, he married her within a few days. If correct, lucky Mohammad that she was menstruating while he was killing her husband and bartering for her.

Tabaqat 8:129-130

Safiyya Bint Huyay Ibn al-Akhtab: "When the Messenger of God raided Khaibar, and God gave him their possessions as booty, he took away Safiyya Bint Huyay and one of her cousins from al-Qumus, and ordered Bilal to carry them to his own camel.[The Messenger of God had a choice of every booty and Safiyya was one of those who were chosen in the battle with Khaibar.] The Prophet offered her freedom if she chose God and His Messenger, so she surrendered [adopted Islam], was freed by him, was married to him, and her dowry was her freedom. He saw in her face, near her eyes, a green scar, and asked,'What is this?' She answered,'O Messenger of God, I saw in a dream a moon from Yathrib that fell in my lap, and I related this to Kinana, my husband. He said, "You like to be under that king who hails from Yathrib, don't you?" He hit me on the face, and I started to count my legal period.' The Messenger of God had not left Khaibar till she was cleansed of her menses. The Messenger of God went out of Khaibar before he consummated the marriage with her. When the camel was brought near the Messenger of God to go out, he put out his leg for Safiyya so that she could put her feet on his thigh, but she refused and rather put her knee on his thigh. The Messenger of God covered her, carried her behind him, put his raiment upon her back and face and then pulled it tightly under her legs and took her as one of his wives. When he reached a house called Tabar, six miles away from Khaibar, he turned to it wanting to consummate the marriage with her. Nevertheless, she refused, even though he was eager.

Also,

Abu Huraira narrated: While the Messenger of God was consummating the marriage with Safiyya, Abu Ayyub spent the night at the door of the Prophet. When the Messenger of God woke up and he said, "Allahu akbar," there was a sword with Abu Ayyub. Abu Ayyub said, "O Messenger of God, she was a newly married woman, and you killed her father, brother, and husband, so I did not feel secure about you with her." The Messenger of God laughed and said, "It all went well."

Doesn't sound like everyone thought it was going to be consensual.

Concerned Citizen,

I researched the incident you brought up...yes, you brought it up...and I researched what you brought up.

Was I incorrect in citing the source you referenced?

You will find similar fault in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir if you look deep enough, as he, Ibn Kathir, was also wont to cite Christian and Jewish traditions in his discussions without calling attention to the reference, so care has to be taken in understanding both authors.

I am a Muslim and I respect those traditions, although I do not accept them as supporting evedince in my determinations, they are merely narrations from the people of the previous revelation, period.

I do quote some of the Christian's narrations when discussing things with them as that is a mutual grounds for understanding, and often to show that things can be taken out of context mutually, and that I don't approach others claiming to be an expert in their religion, as often happens here and under this JW blogg. Just that it is a mutual point of discussion.

Back to the topic at hand:

Yes, I have commented before that I do not find Tabari reliable in the context to what we were discussing then...in this context, I find him more reliable than an unnamed Jewish source, most likely from those who were deposed, Khaybar clans.

And you should follow the life of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab and you will learn more about the nature of their marriage.

Mohammad did not kill her husband, Kinana sealed his fate when he lied, withheld information, and lost the protected status he held and was thus held accountable for his killing Mahmud Ibn Maslama (Muslima).

By the way, thank you for bringing up Tabaqat of Muhammad b. Sa'd I have not studied it. Thank you, I will study him now.

As I said before there are hidden fruits in our discussion which I much appreciate, and though we most likley will never agree, as our hearts are not aligned, we may well learn something useful from the other.

I will research the other incident you noted and comment on some post in the future...or you could break down and send that super secret Agent 99 self destructing e-mail and I can respond to it?

I have emailed the owner of this blogg for more than two years and he has suffered nothing more than a passing annoyance at my e-mails...surely you couldn't be afraid of communicating?

All the same, I thank you.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Abdullah,

I find quite interesting the identification of problematic texts as of Jewish or Christian origin, and that that, de facto, negates their value when other Muslims, ulema of antiquity, were apparently quite comfortable with them. It seems your formula is that any Muslim source tainted by Jewish or Christian tradition is invalid. Do you feel that way about all Jewish and Christian documents, even ones constructed today? Do you have a bias against ALL information regarding Mohammad from Christian and Jewish sources, unless positive? If they (Jews and Christians) have been treated so fairly and justly over the centuries, why is their input automatically rejected? Have you read the Bible. The Jewish people are known for transmitting information unfavorable about themselves.

Clearly both Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham thought the transmission was sufficient. So, despite your wriggling to dispute the occurence, and without concession, I will reconstruct your dilemma in another form. What do you think of Muslims who DO accept that the given incident occurred as presented by Ishaq/Hisham as valid, and find no difficulty in it? Should they approve of those actions as befitting a prophet of God? If they believe that Mohammad actually did sadistic things, even given any context, should they be following Mohammad as a prophet of God, or if it was true, would it negate his prophethood and thus his legacy? (I'm writing in present tense here, but please feel free to discount authors from antiquity).

P.S. To clarify, "even given any context" means "irrespective of context".
P.P.S. Also to clarify, a biography, as a historical document, may include numerous types of sources. Sirat Rasul Allah is a biography.
P.P.P.S. I believe I recall reading a post of yours at another site relating you knew someone in military intelligence who could find things out. I also know someone who has a family member who can find things out, with an efficiency that startles, like e-mail addresses, user names, etc. There is no one on my "side" that would ever harm you. You, on the other "side", assuming no disavowals above, have about 100+ billion coreligionists that would think they were doing a divine service expediting me. So, yeah, I'm still a little leary of direct e-mail exchanges. No offense intended.