M. Cherif Bassiouni, Distinguished Research Professor of Law Emeritus and President Emeritus, International Human Rights Law Institute, DePaul University, has responded to my email posted here with the 1,000-word email that follows. You will note that nowhere in it does he resolve the contradiction in his statements about Islamic apostasy law that I asked him about in my email to him. I'll address that in more detail below.
Dear Mr. Spencer,Thank you for your email of 8/13/09 in response to mine. You had asked for permission to print my letter, but you went ahead and did it without my permission so, obviously, you are no longer seeking my permission.
After looking at your website, I was quite surprised to see how much hate, venom and misunderstanding you are fostering. Through my 45-year career in International Criminal Law and Human Rights I have regrettably, all too often, seen the harmful consequences of what you manage to engender. Goebbels and others in Nazi Germany brought about anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, the war in the former Yugoslavia (1991-95) had many religious undertones between Serb-Orthodox and Catholic-Croats, whose religious animosity producing violence goes back to 1915, and then, we have Christian-Catholic Hutus killing between 500,000 and 800,000 of their co-religionist Tutsis in Rwanda. It all started the same way, and all too few people spoke up against it. Having investigated war crimes in the former Yugoslavia for the United Nations, monitored human rights in Afghanistan also for the U.N., and done work in Iraq, funded by the U.S. government, I can tell you in all three arenas of conflict how pernicious religious hatred and misunderstanding is. That is why I speak up against your hate-mongering.
I don’t know if this communication will have any moderating effects on your anti-Islam and Anti-Muslim stances. Usually persons who have extremist views are beyond the reach of reason, good sense, and good faith. They are too imbued with their own self-righteous views and are all too often blinded by their hatred or animosity towards others to act in ways that most people consider reasonable and decent.
Mr. Spencer, I am not a polemicist. If you find out about me through public sources, you will discover that I have spent my life fighting for what is right, even at the risk of my own life in many situations. Hate-mongering, incitation to hate, various forms of religious, ethnic, national intolerances have, in my experience, only produced violence and harmful results. I don’t know what you are up to, why you are doing it, and for whose benefit, but everything I read tells me there is something wrong in conducting such an extremist campaign against Islam and Muslims. What is that intended to accomplish other than radicalization and polarization? Is that in the best interests of relations between Americans who have different faith-belief systems? Is that intended to arouse anti-Islamicism in America for certain political purposes? If any of these are the case then whatever I or anyone else may have to say to you will not have much effect. By the grace of God, I continue to believe in the best in human beings, and I hope that the best in you, and those who follow you, will prevail over the worst that is reflected in the work that you are doing.
I firmly believe that there is one God who has created one humankind and that we are all members of the same human family. This God, who is the beginning and end of everything, the One described in the First Commandment contained in the Hebrew bible and the Old Testament is, in my opinion, the same God described in the Qur’ān. All three Abrahamic faiths, as well as other belief systems, conceive of a single humankind, making us all brothers and sisters in this humanity. There is no superior or inferior human being and certainly it is against any belief in God and moral/ethical values to dehumanize a person or demonize a person for his/her beliefs or otherwise. History has always demonstrated that when that occurs, it is the beginning of the rationalization for genocide and crimes against humanity.
To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know of any organization having a campaign similar to yours aimed at discrediting a major religion and its followers. Consequently there is something unique in what you are doing and in your mission, which not only sets it apart from established inter-religious practices, but which also calls into question the motives, purposes and goals of such an undertaking. Fortunately there is only you and your group in the world doing such a thing and, hopefully, you will not be able to do much harm to your fellow human beings, whether in this country or elsewhere.
As to your invitation to a debate, I have never engaged in oral debates, particularly when it clearly appears from both your website and your publications that the goal would not be to obtain a better understanding of whatever the issue may be.
Concerning the merits of the issue of apostasy, Islamic law has a long history and it is rather complex. In the course of 14 centuries there have been many differences among scholars as to almost every aspect of law, theology and religious practices. Similar differences exist in Judaism and Christianity as well as other faith-belief systems. Different cultures also see things in different ways. And, in time, many perspectives change.
My views on apostasy have been made public since 1983, in the U.S., and in the Muslim world. They include my understanding that apostasy in the days of the Prophet meant, essentially, high treason in the equivalent modern significance. There were different views on the matter between the late 7th and 12th centuries. Since then, Ijtihad, which means making the effort to think (much as the word jihad means making an effort) has been stopped by theological fiat. As a result, not much progressive thinking or corrective interpretation has been made to show that the interpretations which took place after the Prophet’s death were not the correct ones. The Qur’ān’s overarching principle enunciated in chapter 2 is that there can be “no compulsion in religion.” That doesn’t make me “deceptive” nor does it make me an “apologist.” These are two terms you have used to describe me, which are defamatory. (Whether you see fit to publish a retraction or apology will demonstrate your good faith.)
In any event, this concludes our written exchange, but I will be glad to meet with you personally whenever you are in Chicago or if our paths cross elsewhere. In order to avoid any further polemic, I will stop with this communication, though I still hope that this message may have a positive effect on you.
Sincerely,
M. Cherif Bassiouni
I responded in haste with this:
Dear Professor Bassiouni:Your a priori assumption that I am engaged in a campaign of "hate," when I am careful in every respect to be scrupulously accurate in what I write about Islam, forecloses any possibility of fruitful dialogue. It is not "hate" to report accurately on how Islamic jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence against non-Muslims, and I think you well know that. If you want actual "hate," go to those who kill unbelievers and oppress women in the name of Sharia. Your efforts would be much more fruitfully directed against them than against me, who am simply trying to defend the equality of rights of women with men, freedom of speech, and other rights denied by traditional Sharia.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
But there are a few more observations that must be made about Professor Bassiouni's extraordinarily abusive, defamatory and arrogant email.
1. "Thank you for your email of 8/13/09 in response to mine. You had asked for permission to print my letter, but you went ahead and did it without my permission so, obviously, you are no longer seeking my permission." Quite so. My emails have been published all over the place -- usually selectively, with key edits -- while I published Professor Bassiouni's in full. When I have protested against this, the email publishers have explained that I am a public figure, and hence my opinions and writings are a matter of public information, and that if I believe what I say in my emails, I should stand by it. Fair enough. No less should be expected of Professor Bassiouni.
2. All the business about my sowing "hate" -- by reporting on how jihadists commit violence and justify violence by pointing to Islamic texts and teachings -- is the same old tired game of defamation that CAIR and others play so often. It is a game of deflection. Imagine someone in 1942 saying that Churchill and Roosevelt were sowing "hate" by pointing out Nazi atrocities. Which side do you think such a person would have been on? It is not fostering "hate" to expose the terrible cost of Islamic law and to call for self-examination and self-criticism among Muslims. But Professor Bassiouni's reaction shows why there is no such self-examination and self-criticism among them.
3. "All three Abrahamic faiths, as well as other belief systems, conceive of a single humankind, making us all brothers and sisters in this humanity. There is no superior or inferior human being and certainly it is against any belief in God and moral/ethical values to dehumanize a person or demonize a person for his/her beliefs or otherwise." Professor Bassiouni is quite right, of course, that there is no superior or inferior human being. Yet Professor Bassioni's own Qur'an teaches that the unbelievers are "the most vile of created beings" (98:6) -- and Muslims around the world act upon that assumption in myriad ways every day. What is he doing to stop them? Anything? Or does he become concerned only when an unbeliever dares to point out that Qur'anic statement, and the manifest fact (just scan Jihad Watch on any given day) that Muslims act upon it?
4. "To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know of any organization having a campaign similar to yours aimed at discrediting a major religion and its followers." Of course, I have no such campaign. If anyone is discrediting Islam, it is the Muslims who -- all in the name of Islam and in accord with Islamic teachings, murder, maim, stone, burn, and threaten others. Once again we see an Islamic spokesman taking umbrage not with those Muslims, but with non-Muslims who dare to point out that it is happening. We have seen this before in the case of Geert Wilders, who was accused of "linking Islam with terrorism" in his film Fitna. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and his other detractors conveniently ignored, of course, that it was the Muslim hate preachers depicted in the film who had made that link, not Wilders.
5. "There were different views on the matter between the late 7th and 12th centuries. Since then, Ijtihad, which means making the effort to think (much as the word jihad means making an effort) has been stopped by theological fiat." How very interesting! In 2007, in discussions with Islamic apologist Ali Eteraz, I was called an ignorant Islamophobe for pointing out that the gate of ijtihad was closed. Will Eteraz now call M. Cherif Bassiouni an ignorant Islamophobe? Time will tell!
6. In the email to Professor Bassiouni that I published here, I pointed out his contradiction in claiming that "a Muslim’s conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law” and then saying: "I and a number of other distinguished Muslim scholars have long criticized the views of the four traditional Sunni schools." Why does he oppose the views of the schools if Islamic law doesn't mandate death for apostasy? In the letter above he clarifies this by saying that "the interpretations which took place after the Prophet’s death were not the correct ones." Very well. That means that the four madhahib -- schools of jurisprudence -- misinterpreted the Qur'an and Muhammad when they codified the death penalty for apostates.
Thus if he had said that "a Muslim's conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law when that law is properly formulated," or that "a Muslim's conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death according to the Qur'an," or even "a Muslim's conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law rightly understood," there would have been no contradiction. But to say that "a Muslim’s conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law” is false and misleading, because Islamic law flows from the schools, and as Bassiouni himself acknowledges, the schools mandate death for apostates.
Thus it was completely reasonable of me to call his statement "deceptive," as Professor Bassiouni has himself indirectly confirmed its deceptiveness in his latest email.
7. "That doesn’t make me 'deceptive' nor does it make me an 'apologist.' These are two terms you have used to describe me, which are defamatory. (Whether you see fit to publish a retraction or apology will demonstrate your good faith.)"
I just explained why his statement was deceptive. As for "apologist," the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word as "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something." It's defamatory to say that he writes in defense of something? Also, for someone to liken me to Josef Goebbels and genocidal African tribesmen, essentially accuse me of inciting to genocide (while ignoring the murderous actions of his coreligionists, performed in the name of his religion), and then claim that it is I who am defaming him is...rich.
My invitation to debate still stands, but as you can see, M. Cherif Bassiouni, despite his immense learning and many honors, is, like his coreligionists at CAIR and elsewhere, unwilling to stand and defend his faith against my alleged attacks upon it. I suspect that that is because he, like Honest Ibe Hooper and Brave Ahmed Rehab at CAIR, knows full well that everything I say about Islam comes not from me but from the mouths of Islamic clerics and the words of Islamic texts, and they can't stand the thought of Infidels discovering that fact.
(Many thanks to Pamela Geller for pointing out some of the elements of my reply here.)
I think his main complaint is your failure to perceive how wonderful, noble and 'good' he is.
He acknowledged he is the Distinguished Research Professor of Law Emeritus.
What an extinguished professor? or is it an extinguished Pro-Facer?
M. Cherif Bassiouni wrote: "I firmly believe that there is one God who has created one humankind and that we are all members of the same human family. This God, who is the beginning and end of everything, the One described in the First Commandment contained in the Hebrew bible and the Old Testament is, in my opinion, the same God described in the Qur’ān."
This is what perplexes me. If the One (YHWH) described in the First Commandment of the Torah or Bible is the same God (Allah) described in the Qur'an, why is {virtually} the entire Muslim world at war with Israel? Clearly the God of the Bible is the God of Israel. The First Commandment says:
"I am the LORD (YHWH) your God, who brought you (Israel) out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
"You shall have no other gods before Me."
YHWH said the following to the patriarch, Abraham (Abram):
"On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates..."
"I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants (Hebrew, zera: literally seed, semen, etc.) after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.
"I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."
"Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking.
Therefore she said to Abraham, "Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac."
The matter distressed Abraham greatly because of his son.
But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants (zera: literally seed, semen, etc.) shall be named."
If YHWH is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (or the God of Israel / Jacob) according to the Bible and Allah is the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Noah, Muhammad, etc., according to the Qur'an, how can we worship the same God since Allah is the God of Islam, who is at war with Israel and the God of Israel?
"There is no superior or inferior human being and certainly it is against any belief in God and moral/ethical values to dehumanize a person or demonize a person for his/her beliefs or otherwise. History has always demonstrated that when that occurs, it is the beginning of the rationalization for genocide and crimes against humanity" - Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni
"The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim." — 'Umdat al-Salik, o4.9
For me, Bassiouni is an apologist for evil. His sophistic arguments are merely running interference for wickedness. Compounding this is his attribution of nefarious motives to Robert Spencer, this in itself being loathsome and diversionary.
I will add that Bassiouni also engages in the infuriatingly arrogant three "Abrahamic" religions and the one god nonsense -- as though Christianity, Judaism and mohammedanism described the entire spiritual orbit of humanity.
Like all mohammedan supremacists, he doesn't even bother to do lip service to Hinduism or Buddhism or the other spiritual schools and traditions of Asia and Africa in which there are many gods or none at all.
He reveals as much by what he doesn't say as by what he does.
And it's not good news.
The more the blather, the more they lather you up. It stings when they get soap in your eyes, but they do that so you can't really see the lies they are saying. You're so busy trying to wipe the soap out of your eyes, you lose their 'debate' and are left there, soap in your eyes, and no towel.....at least that's what they hope for. Total defeat and humiliation. Best to stand like a man, with your manhood fully in view and have them fear your great hairy cods and tremble in awe.....
...philosophically speaking, of course.
M. Cherif Bassiouni is quite a dishonest fellow, cut from the same cloth as fellow apologists Ibrahim Hooper, Ahmad Rehab, Reza Aslan, and Karen Armstrong. Not once does he address the inconsistencies in his thought that Mr. Spencer pointed out in his first reply, but instead settles for comparing Mr. Spencer to Josef Goebbels and the Nazis. He accuses Mr. Spencer of hate for merely outlining that capital punishment for apostasy is deeply grounded in traditional Islamic shari'ah law and the sources (Qur'an, hadith, etc.) that the shari'ah is ultimately derived from. All of this is not some quaint academic discussion on some medieval ruling, but something that is still very much practiced in several Muslims countries (including for Somali Christians recently beheaded for their apostasy).
Which naturally raises the question why do folks like Mr. Bassiouni work hard to convince the kuffar that Islam doesn't sanction the execution of apostates, but not their fellow Muslims. When Mr. Spencer mentions the ruling, he is pointing out a fact of historical Islamic law, whereas when the mujahideen in Somalia mention this ruling they are actually carrying it out, yet we here from Mr. Bassiouni on this issue only when the sinister "Islamophobe" Robert Spencer brings up the issue, not when fellow Muslims actually implement it.
Of course, Mr. Spencer has done an exceptional job exposing the deceits and hypocrisies of Mr. Bassiouni, but I would like to say something in defense of the assortment of anti-jihad posters in the Jihadwatch.org comments section. We are accused by Mr. Bassiouni of "hate," "venom," and "misunderstanding" Islam. Sure there is the occasional person that pops in and utters some genocidal remark before disappearing and never being heard from again, but that is not the case with the regulars here. The majority of the posters here are thoughtful, articulate, and have a very good grasp at what traditional Islam is all about. In fact, I suspect that many posters here have studied Islam more thoroughly then most Muslims, so that charge of "misunderstanding" Islam is both unsubstantiated and false.
As for venomous, I think most be here are sober and direct when taking about the threat that the Islamic jihad poses, but I have personally seen little "venom" (sarcasm yes, venom no), though if it is "venom" that is sought this can easily be found among the various Muslim clerics that use their every sermon to viciously attack Jews and Christians in the most vile ways.
On the charge of hate, well that is to be expected. The mujahideen have killed a lot of people, so it is natural for people to hate them and their supporters. But even the charge of "hate" is exaggerated, as many of the Christians here have expressed much love for Muslim people and a desire to see their souls freed from the spiritual bondage of Islam and into the redeeming freedom that the love of Christ provides. But even those who do hate Islam and the various Muslim rascals murdering innocent people and trying to subvert the West into the Islamic sphere do so for very rational and understandable reasons. They aren't just mindless bigots as the good professor would have us believe.
Virgil - well said.
I hope everyone here was paying attention to point # 5.
'5.
[sez Bassiouni] "There were different views on the matter between the late 7th and 12th centuries. Since then, Ijtihad, which means making the effort to think (much as the word jihad means making an effort) has been stopped by theological fiat."
(Spencer responds) 'How very interesting! In 2007, in discussions with Islamic apologist Ali Eteraz, I was called an ignorant Islamophobe for pointing out that the gate of ijtihad was closed. Will Eteraz now call M. Cherif Bassiouni an ignorant Islamophobe? Time will tell!".
So...we have it on M Cherif Bassiouni's authority that the gates of ijtihad *are* closed. I saw that one, too.
Copy and keep, people, copy and keep, for use when some Muslim dementor is trying to tell us that the gates of ijtihad are NOT closed.
"The Qur’ān’s overarching principle enunciated in chapter 2 is that there can be “no compulsion in religion.” That doesn’t make me “deceptive” nor does it make me an “apologist.” These are two terms you have used to describe me, which are defamatory. (Whether you see fit to publish a retraction or apology will demonstrate your good faith.)"
Unfortunately Robert Spencer did not falsify this special type of nonsense from the professor.
This overarching principle "that there can be “no compulsion in religion” is unknown to the four traditional Sunni schools of jurisprudence. Instead the four Sunni schools formulated an all overreaching principle of interpretation called "abrogation".
The concept of "abrogation" in the Quran is that Allah chose to reveal ayat (singular ayah – means a sign or miracle, commonly a verse in the Quran) that supercede earlier ayat in the same Quran. The central ayah that deals with abrogation is Surah 2:106:
"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"
So Allah gives Himself permission to edit his own work. This is an interesting one. The Koran was written in sections (Mohammad's revelations) over a period of 23 years. The circumstances of Mohammad's life and his religion changed quite a bit over those 23 years. It says in the Koran that if a passage written later contradicts an earlier passage, then the later one is the better one. This is the principle of abrogation.
One of the memes (verses) in the Koran is "this is the word of Allah." People had already memorized his earlier revelations, so Mohammad couldn't just change his revelations. It would look a little strange to go change anything that Allah already said.
But with this new meme — that later revelations abrogated or nullified any earlier revelations it contradicted — Allah's methods could change as Mohammad found more effective ideas.
In his first ten years of peacefully preaching, Mohammad only managed to win 150 followers. But as a military leader and violent conqueror, he was able to convert all of Arabia. The peaceful ways were too slow. Conversion by conquering and establishing Shari'a was much faster and more efficient. So later violent, intolerant verses abrogated (nullified) the earlier peaceful, tolerant passages.
It seems to me that the professor has constructed an imaginary Islam where the principle of abrogation does not exist or is used in a way unknown to the four traditional Sunni schools of jurisprudence covering the belief of about 85% of all Muslims.
That this is the case is confirmed by the professor himself: "I and a number of other distinguished Muslim scholars have long criticized the views of the four traditional Sunni schools."
Interesting. And how many million Muslim followers do those distinguished Muslim scholars have, how many schools or mosques have they founded and in which magazines do they publish their "moderate" version of Islam?
Those questions are inspired by Bat Ye´or who gave the following answer to the question whether "moderate Islam" is the answer:
"I know moderate and brilliant Muslims, but I do not know of a school of thought, represented by teaching and publications, followed by millions of Muslims, called "moderate Islam."
Everyone hopes for a change, including Muslims. I never say "never."
It is not the first time a fantasy version of Islam has been constructed to promote an ideological objective.
"So...we have it on M Cherif Bassiouni's authority that the gates of ijtihad *are* closed. I saw that one, too."
Thanks to dumbledoresarmy for pointing out a position which makes the claims ignoring abrogation even more inconsistent and undefendable.
Dumble.....
Yes, copy and keep.
But how to find a system where I can keep all my copies ..... and find that specific copy, when I need it ?
Dear Robert,
our great poet Heinrich Heine once wrote about a mystery that is only understood by somebody who escaped the dungeon and the bondage of reason. Heine died in 1856, but he obviously knew about professor Cherif Bassiouni and his nonsensical email to you.
Your riposte is great, as usual. Unlike that professor you remain in the bounds of reason, although CAIR attested otherwise. And the comparison to Nazi Goebbels is so preposterous, the professor obviously never studied Goebbel's polemics. He's got a lot of homework to do.
Yes, he couldn't possibly debate orally because it would be difficult to rebut such a hater as Robert Spencer. He couldn't possibly enlighten Americans and others by stripping bare the agenda of those "behind" Robert's work.
"...stopped by theological fiat. As a result, not much progressive thinking or corrective interpretation has been made to show that the interpretations which took place after the Prophet’s death were not the correct ones."
Boo hoo! According to you they're not the correct ones. Is this your own special Islam? The one you have constructed in your safe American environment, insulated in the university, safe from the Muslim street and the local Islamic center and the disapproving look of the imams?
As I've said before, just one question: "What does your imam say to you when you tell him that the old interpretation of apostasy is not the correct one?"
Fine post, epistemology.
As they say, bullshit baffles brains -- but not the brain of Robert SPencer and not the brains of those who value freedom and critical thinking. This Bassiouni guy is blow hard spruiker who can neither think nor analyse. His brain has been stunted by his perfidious ideology.
While Spencer's exchange with Bassiouni revealed that Bassiouni exposed himself to blatant inconsistency, I think Spencer could have skewered him with his own petard even more effectively had Spencer limited his first reply to the one point of the inconsistency itself and say nothing else, and in a final sentence say "Please answer this one point". With no other points from Spencer in view, Bassiouni would have no choice but to answer it or not answer it -- with the latter option more starkly exposed for being unresponsive.
"After looking at your website, I was quite surprised to see how much hate, venom and misunderstanding you are fostering."
For the most part, the articles on this on this site come from mainstream news outlets, such as AP, Reuters, BBC, etc. Does M. Cherif Bassiouni dispute what is being aaid and done by Muslims around the world, as recorded by those and other news organizations? As for bringing in Rwanda, that is rather strange. It was the Nationalist Socialist views of the Hutus and especially their, rather than Christianity, that was the key factor that was the key factor there. Hutus hated Tutsis.
"After looking at your website, I was quite surprised to see how much hate, venom and misunderstanding you are fostering."
For the most part, the articles on this on this site come from mainstream news outlets, such as AP, Reuters, BBC, etc. Does M. Cherif Bassiouni dispute what is being aaid and done by Muslims around the world, as recorded by those and other news organizations? As for bringing in Rwanda, that is rather strange. It was the Nationalist Socialist views of the Hutus and especially their, rather than Christianity, that was the key factor that was the key factor there. Hutus hated Tutsis.
I for one quit reading his letter when he listed the instances of modern ethnic cleansing yet failed to mention Darfur or the Armenians. I've never read more blather.
When I read M. Bassiouni reply, I have to ask, is he, and other Muslims like him, ignorant of their own Islamic theology (which I doubt), or are they flat-out liars? If they are willful liars, what is their motive for clingling to a theology that is so obviously morally indefensible? It seems to me that anyone that feels they have to lie about what their religion teaches must know there's someting to hide.
Again, what are their motives? Any theories?
You have to be terrifically anti-logical and anti-historical and anti-scientific and anti-intellectual to swallow the myth of the "perfect" Koran.
The palimpsest of Korans extant disproves this fantasy "bedrock" upon which all of Islam bases itself, and without which the entire edifice of the Mohammedan "faith" crumbles into a shabby and dangerous delusion, and a world-historically deadly fiction.
Once you have swallowed this fallacious religious fraud, your further opinions are naturally suspect, epistemologically undermined, exigetically specious, philosophically irrationalistic ...and downright deceptive (either to yourself, or to others, or both).
Arguing with irrationalists is like trying to dance in zero gravity.
Amusing, but not for long.
Bassiouni is adrift is his own Islamic illusions.
As long as he isn't violent, he is merely the academic equivalent of the unkempt guy on a streetcorner wearing a sweaty cardboard costume covered with "inspired" rambling messages about aliens or the CIA or some cosmically evil combination of the two.
Throw him a smile and keep moving.
Mr. Spencer, Your posts in reply to this Islamist dolt are truly "riposts." Webster's Dictionary defines "ripost": 1. In fencing, a sharp, swift thrust made after parrying an opponent's lunge.
2. A sharp, swift return or retort.
Your replies are surely "sharp, swift thrusts made after parrying an opponent's" pathetic, pitiful, and mentally spastic "lunges."
"Lunge": 1. a sudden thrust with a sword or other weapon. 2. a sudden plunge forward.
In either case, Mr. Spencer, you have easily parried the blows and struck the heart of his arguments. Touche'.
"In order to avoid any further polemic, I will stop with this communication, though I still hope that this message may have a positive effect on you."
This is pretty much rank cowardice. Bassiouni cannot really defend his positions rationally, so he will simply refuse to deal with non-friendly or objective examiners. Also, an academic, by the nature of their profession, must engage in polemics. If one does not wish to backup one's own position against opposition, what does that say about he advocate of the position under considertion, or the position itself?
"After looking at your website, I was quite surprised to see how much hate, venom and misunderstanding you are fostering."
Best he could do to sum the work and effort of Robert and company's urgent warning to the free world.
Give me a break.
As a Chicagoan,I've been watching Bassiouni's ACT for a very long time.
And,That is Exactly what it is.
Any time over the Last 2 or 3 decades that a Local TV station,usually PBS-Chicago, would have Bassiouni appear opposite an Israeli Diplomat or Scholar,The Israeli Chewed him up and Spit Him Out.
Bassiouni is NOTHING MORE than a Professional Arab Whiner who is a perfect fit for the TWISTED World of American Acedemia.
Bassiouni Can't Deny the Obvious Truths Robert writes about , so he tries Obfuscation and Language to Veil the Truth.
Robert,like the Israeli Experts, EASILY tears Bassiouni's Faux "Intellectually" Worded Veil of Illusion.
Bassiouni "cuts" further Correspondence with Robert,because there is Nothing He can do to Fight Robert's TRUTH with What he surely knows is Taqiyya BS.
As a Chicagoan,I've been watching Bassiouni's ACT for a very long time.
And,That is Exactly what it is.
Any time over the Last 2 or 3 decades that a Local TV station,usually PBS-Chicago, would have Bassiouni appear opposite an Israeli Diplomat or Scholar,The Israeli Chewed him up and Spit Him Out.
Bassiouni is NOTHING MORE than a Professional Arab Whiner who is a perfect fit for the TWISTED World of American Acedemia.
Bassiouni Can't Deny the Obvious Truths Robert writes about , so he tries Obfuscation and Language to Veil the Truth.
Robert,like the Israeli Experts, EASILY tears Bassiouni's Faux "Intellectually" Worded Veil of Illusion.
Bassiouni "cuts" further Correspondence with Robert,because there is Nothing He can do to Fight Robert's TRUTH with What he surely knows is Taqiyya BS.
I had earlier said Bassiouni won't be coming back. I stand corrected. He did come back !
However, in an indirect way, I was right too. He came back only to say he would never ever come back !
A good phrase used by Hugh Fitzgerald in the earlier article on Bassiouni (boy, I remember the spelling now !!!) - Argument from Authority. Too many in India who demand their word be taken as authentic and unquestionable because they are from "Authority". They are far too exalted to have to establish their point of view through logic and reasoning.
Over long term, it won't work. They will lose and world will change. However, we have to keep pushing and I have not seen any other institution than this site doing it better.
What a bag of self-important hot air is MCB.
Amusing, but one can only hope that we will not eventually hear "Darth" Bassiouni say, "Robert, I am your father."
"After looking at your website, I was quite surprised to see how much hate, venom and misunderstanding you are fostering."
I'm offended! I don't hate anyone. Did he even read by posts to Islamophobe? Muslims are the first victims of Islam. I pity them.
"That is why I speak up against your hate-mongering."
What hate mongering? Telling the WHOLE truth about Islam and its dogma is not hateful nor is criticism of Islam hateful.
"I don’t know if this communication will have any moderating effects on your anti-Islam and Anti-Muslim stances. Usually persons who have extremist views are beyond the reach of reason, good sense, and good faith. They are too imbued with their own self-righteous views and are all too often blinded by their hatred or animosity towards others to act in ways that most people consider reasonable and decent."
Again what hatred? Islam is not nor should it ever be above criticism. Islam is what is examined here at this site,along with the behavior of those who call themselves Muslims. All of the books that together create Islam, its dogma and implementation of its codified laws, and how they are understood and implemented TODAY are talked about and criticized openly here.
"Hate-mongering, incitation to hate, various forms of religious, ethnic, national intolerances have, in my experience, only produced violence and harmful results. I don’t know what you are up to, why you are doing it, and for whose benefit, but everything I read tells me there is something wrong in conducting such an extremist campaign against Islam and Muslims."
Again if this man actually read articles and responses here he would know that is simply NOT TRUE. Exposure of Islamic dogma is not inciting to hate. His statements that follow in that paragraph don't deserve a reply.
"I firmly believe that there is one God who has created one humankind and that we are all members of the same human family. This God, who is the beginning and end of everything, the One described in the First Commandment contained in the Hebrew bible and the Old Testament is, in my opinion, the same God described in the Qur’ān. All three Abrahamic faiths, as well as other belief systems, conceive of a single humankind, making us all brothers and sisters in this humanity."
Nice statement of belief. If he were a smart man he would do a side by side comparison of the deities Yahweh and Allah. He would then learn they are not the same deities, nor have they ever been. Allah is the Pagan Arabian Moon God. He was worshiped long before Mohamed invented Islam. I hope he does a comparative study instead of regurgitating apologist talking points.
"To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know of any organization having a campaign similar to yours aimed at discrediting a major religion and its followers. Consequently there is something unique in what you are doing and in your mission, which not only sets it apart from established inter-religious practices, but which also calls into question the motives, purposes and goals of such an undertaking. Fortunately there is only you and your group in the world doing such a thing and, hopefully, you will not be able to do much harm to your fellow human beings, whether in this country or elsewhere."
For the record I am not Christian, I am a neo Pagan, and never once have I been made to feel unwelcome here. I am certainly part of this inter-religious debate and I believe I have something worth offering here. One more point. Under Sharia I would be offered one of two choices, convert of die. I would never be allowed to practice my faith or rituals of witchcraft. Though if the professor wants me to do a tarot reading I would be happy to do so. :)
As far as the apostasy laws, it seems to me there was a man in Afghanistan who converted to Christianity. He was going to be executed until international pressure influenced the Afghan court to declare him insane and he moved to Italy.This is what I mean by Islam as it is lived and applied today.
"To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know of any organization having a campaign similar to yours aimed at discrediting a major religion and its followers."
Islam,as an organized religious group has done this for fourteen centuries. How could this professor deny that Islam aims to invalidate its predecessors, Judaism and Christianity?
"To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know of any organization having a campaign similar to yours aimed at discrediting a major religion and its followers."
This guy doesn't get out (on the Internet) much. Doesn't he know about the Anti-Jihad Industrial Complex?
His bio is so thick with "awards" there is no room for accomplishments.
He demands we accept his personal view of apostasy as the final word and that we simply ignore the entire authoritive judgments of the ulema. Weird.
In number 6 you see...."In the letter above he clarifies this by saying that "the interpretations which took place after the Prophet’s death were not the correct ones."
How often have we seen Muslim posters say this?...many times...and a common and fair response is "Are there any Muslims reaching out to correct and re-educate those misunderstanders of Islam who harm the Image of Islam by their actions...such as killing those who leave Islam"
As far as I am aware JW shadows MSM and allows comments on news stories from around the world and is not alone in doing so. For Bassiouni to accuse JW of 'hate, venom and fostering misunderstanding is nonsense, and a manipulation of the truth about how Muslims are daily carringout acts of violence against fellow Muslims, Christians and a whole host of others who have to confront these bloodthirsty, aggressive, bigoted individuals.
As no one person represents Islam, anything Bassiouni says is his own personal opinion, not representative of any particular faction and biased to underline his own view of Islam and its global agenda. Having been lavished with accolades, awards and memberships of prestigious organisations, Bassiouni revels in the importance the West has given him and believes his own propaganda hence his arrogance in attacking anyone who dares to speak out about Islam.
One thing I did learn from Bassiouni was that Hutu's and Tutsi's are predominantly Christian, but he failed to mention that both tribes have a smattering of Muslim followers.
It's quite pitiful, when you think this is an "academic". But his mind can do no more than spout irrelevant drivel, while refusing to openly debate. Then like a cosseted spoiled brat, he refuses to debate any more, because he can't answer back.
It's people like these who become prey to collectivist ideologies, be it Islam, Communism or whatever, it's precisely because they can't think for themselves, that they are drawn to the teachings of some charlatan or other.
I found it amusing that he accuses Mr Spencer of being beyond reason, and closed minded, but then refuses the opportunity to debate him in public, or even over email, almost as if he's scared of what he might hear.
Formation Reaction as the Freudian's would say, hmmmm siz iz veeey interezzzting.
Who are we to believe when it comes to the question of death to apostates under Shariah law? A taqiyya-spouting professor stuck in his ivory tower away from reality, with his full view obscured by all his honorary awards or the millions of real-life Islamic clerics and their fanatical followers who are not only preaching this intolerance, but are actually carrying it out in daily practice. Actions speak louder than mealy-mouthed words.
Sorry professor - this real-life ex-Muslim thinks you are full of bull.
Here is the conclusion of an 2006 op-ed regarding the case of Abdul Rahman:
"Admittedly, such situations as in Afghanistan, the horrendous crimes committed by the jihadists in Iraq, indiscriminate bombings, aerial attacks in the U.S., suicide bombings in Europe and Israel, lend credence to anti-Islam negativism.
Muslim scholars must assume their responsibilities in responding to such negativism, and also by condemning the wrongs committed in the name of Islam."(my emphasis)
M. Cherif Bassiouni
Chicago Tribune
April 2, 2006
Obviously, what Bassiouni fails to acknowledge is that what Jihad Watch does is necessary. What Robert, Hugh, Debbie, et al. do, in pointing out Islamic attrocities, is prescribed by Bassiouni. It can be said that they are just providing that which "Muslim scholars" refuse to do. And that this refusal, logically and without bias, can be seen by both Muslims and non-Muslims alike as tacit approval. Also, one does not give legitimacy to the titles "Distinguished Research Professor of Law Emeritus" and "President Emeritus" of DePaul University College of Law, when: a) he so erroneously and disingenuously lays out the charge of defamation and demands a retraction as if he has a cause of action, b) uses so many terms from CAIR's "boilerplate" response letter its as if they wrote it, and c) where does one find a good professor of law (as his titles claim he was) who refuses oral debate; when, due to the ambiguity of the law and the nature of its successful practice, the ability to debate is an essential skill. And if not encouraged in the classroom and he is unwilling to lead by example or defend his program, what level of attorney is DePaul producing and how could the students there ever respect him?
There is no superior or inferior human being (except for Muslims who are "the best of people")
and certainly it is against any belief in God and moral/ethical values to dehumanize a person (except for Jews, who are apes and pigs) or demonize a person for his/her beliefs or otherwise.
History has always demonstrated that when that occurs, it is the beginning of the rationalization for genocide and crimes against humanity. (Yes, the Islamic imperative that the whole world is for Allah and kuffaar must convert, pay jizyah or pay with your life. All 270,000,000 and counting).
You are right, M Cherif Bassiouni, about genocide and crimes against humanity. That is exactly what we are worried about. The very reason JihadWatch exists.
But, with the paragraph written by you above, you are standing on the wrong side of the fence, unless you are lying, of course.
"After looking at your website, I was quite surprised to see how much hate, venom and misunderstanding you are fostering."
After looking at this letter, I was quite surprised about how Mr Bassiouni manages to skip over the honour killings, forced conversions, kidnappings, calling Jews and Christians the "descendants of pigs and apes" and all other ways in which the followers of the Religion of Peace foster so much hate, venom and misunderstanding to concentrate on one guy whose only crime is to document all these events, taken from credible sources, in one convenient place.
Or maybe that is the crime. Maybe we're not meant to know about everything taking place in the name of the Religion of Peace, and just sit back and forget about it, while it gradually takes over? How very convenient.
M. Cherif Bassiouni
says....there is only one God..
...wrong...
.there are two Gods...
..1.Political God.
..2.Non-Political God.
M. Cherif Bassiouni obviously refers to 1st. one.
so simple
no need to be a prof.or whatever for this.
Mick_n_NYC,
"Obviously, what Bassiouni fails to acknowledge is that what Jihad Watch does is necessary. What Robert, Hugh, Debbie, et al. do, in pointing out Islamic attrocities, is prescribed by Bassiouni. It can be said that they are just providing that which "Muslim scholars" refuse to do."
What bothers Bassiouni is not that Jihad Watch is doing what he himself prescribes in that op-ed; but rather that Jihad Watch goes too far and criticises Islam and Muslims too much, thus dangerously tending to cross the line that maintains the paradigmatic distinction between
a good and just normative mainstream Islam
and
extremist fringes peripheral to that good mainstream Islam.
Ironically, Bassiouni doesn't know, apparently, that Spencer himself has more or less maintained that same line, though on the other hand Bassiouni would rightfully counter -- were he to be apprised of this -- that the "proof is in the pudding": i.e., that a person may claim to refrain from condemning Islam itself and all Muslims who support Islam, but if their actions, including the overall effect of their writings, indicate otherwise, then that is what is pertinent.
At any rate, at the very least, Bassiouni has not addressed squarely and fairly the problem revealed by his own contradiction to which Spencer adverted -- the contradiction being that
a) Bassiouni claimed that Islamic law does not mandate death for the Muslim who converts to Christianity
b) Bassiouni then admitted that he opposes all four schools of Islamic law on this very issue.
The problem being: to what extent does the extremism of all four schools of Islam affect his paradigmatic belief that normative mainstream Islam is just and good? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that, at the very least, it is the just and good Islam that is the minority fringe, while the unjust extremist Islam is normative and mainstream -- given that all four schools of Islamic law are unjust and extremist according to Bassiouni? Thus, his queasiness about the Jihad Watch mission would seem to fail on that account, as well: i.e., he too seems to cross that line that maintains the paradigmatic distinction between a good and just normative mainstream Islam and extremist fringes peripheral to that good mainstream Islam.
Or does he? A more reasonable explanation for Bassiouni's behavior here is that he is practicing taqiyya, and rather ineptly -- but, given the extraordinary degree of Islamo-illiteracy among Infidels throughout the West, even his inept taqiyya is more than sufficient to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone at DePaul University.
Robert
M. Cherif Bassiouni is quite right in pointing out that hate mongering is an effective way of radicalising people of naive intelligence, and i will ask your readers to check their early European history, as far back as Bismarck,such was the clamour from nationalists at that time in Germany, with the writings of Nietchze (Underman and Superman)and the emergence of Communism, that Pius IX published "The Syllabus of Errors" which is so relevant to the arguments published here, on this site, for example this condemnation on the limitations of human and secular authority.
Statements the encyclical condemned as false include the following:
"human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil" (No. 3)
"All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind."
(No. 4)
"in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship."
(No. 77)
"Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church"
(No. 18).
"the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (No. 55)
"every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true."
(No. 15) and that "it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship."
(No. 78)
"the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with, progress, liberalism and modern civilization."
The condemned propositions had been previously discussed and condemned in papal documents, and the interpretation of the condemned statements was intended to take place in light of the contents of those previous statements, hence the reference to other documents after each proposition. Thus the often-cited eightieth thesis is to be explained with the help of the Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus" of 18 March, 1861. In this allocution the Pope expressly distinguishes between true and false civilization, and declares that history witnesses to the fact that the Holy See has always been the protector and patron of all genuine civilization; and he affirms that, if a system designed to de-Christianize the world be called a system of progress and civilization, he can never hold out the hand of peace to such a system.
The progressive rise of liberal ideologies and scientific discoveries was used by nationist parties in Turkey Germany and Russia around 1900, and the most successful use of propaganda was made by Germany against Russia in 1915 - 1917 when they played off the the different political Groups in Russia, most notably the Russian's almost imminent defeat of German forces which was thwarted by the sense of defeatism cultivated by German propaganda, and in which clamoured conversation in communities was the first sign of political instability, this is happening now in Muslim countries and by Muslims all over the world, this is their missionary position.
The learned Gentleman also (as far as religion) states that "we are all the children of the one God" that means that we are all Semitic, being derived from Adam and Seth through Seth (who was the principal son of Noah, Ham & Japheth being kin) from these all the earth was populated, where then do we establish who is righteous before God, If Muslims claim lineage back to Adam through HAM (the father of Caanan) they are rebuked by Noah.
Cursed be Caanan;
a Slave shall he be to his brothers,"
he also said
"Blessed by the Lord my God is Shem;
and let Caanan be his slave.
God enlarge Japheth,
and let him dwell in the tents of Shem;
and let Caanan be his slave.
Argument 1
We are all Semites.
Where do we place Christians and Jews,
Christians take the Jewish BIBLE in its entirety 72 Books (Catholics) and they take Baptism as a conduit into the life death and resurrection of Christ, and the sacrifice of Christ which is renewed each day in the Mass, and Eucharist, the Prophets and tenets of the Bible are upheld and venerated Abraham is blessed by us.
We realize the truth of the Bible even that Hagar a slave of Sarah would bear Ishmael and he would be the father of a multitude too numerous to number, and that he would be the father of 12 princes, we have no neeed to belittle Ishmael whom God honoured by keeping his promises.
These people are all described in the Bible and in many cases we can take note of their personal attributes and we can even find ourselves in the Bible when we share the angst of people like David Ruth and others in both OT and NT, we can also identify with the suffering of Christ.
Where would we find a person like Muhammad in the Bible?
We would have to go to the passage in which God spurn's Cain's sacrifice, in favour of Abel's.
Cain slew his brother Abel and God seperated him from Adam, Adam did not count Cain in the lineage of his family, he was a murderer.
Cain's children were also murderers and one is called Lamech, whose boast was;
Gn 4 23
Lamech said to his wives ;
"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
hearken to what I say :
I have slain a man for wounding me a young man for striking me.
If Cain is avenged seven fold, truly Lamech seventy seven fold".
And so it is that the children of Cain also shared the land with all the sons Adam until Noah and their traits became common to many, permeating societies until the Law of Moses, when Muhammad came along he codified the law of Cain, and everywhere you see the honour code of Lamech, how can any society ever be peaceable when the very core of its being is triumphalist, introverted , a sham civilization.
The clamour we see and hear is just a precursor to the same situation we found in Russia, 1915 Germany 1914 to 1939, and in all conflicts we must admit that they did not just happen there were many discussions beforehand in which people tooka position, i.e German Jewish intolerance 1945, and Persian and Arab intolerance of Jews and Christians ongoing.
Breadwinner
I'm not sure what breadwinner's point is in raising the Papal encyclical Jamdudum cernimus, but James Schall puts it in the proper historical context:
"This latter document was concerned with specific Italian problems of the time. The Piedmont Government, that was in this period busy taking over various Papal States in its drive to unify Italy, had just, within its own territories in Northern Italy, suppressed convents, rejected any sacramental basis of marriage and any religious foundation for education.
"As everyone understood this action in the context of Italian politics of the day, it was clear that these anti-clerical laws were naturally justified by the Piedmontese Government in the name -- what else? -- of "progress, liberalism, and modern civilization." It was thus maintained that anyone who was not in favor of suppressing convents, not enthusiastic for secular education or for state marriage, was, ipso facto, an opponent of "progress, liberalism, and modern civilization." Granted these terms so understood, no one could expect Pius IX, or any other right thinking person for that matter, to come out in favor of suppressing convents, exclusively state sanctioned marriages, and secularized education. Pius IX did not think that modern government had to embrace such principles to be progressive, democratic, liberal, or civilized.
"A militarily helpless Pius IX was, consequently, merely arguing in protest against a concept of "progress, liberalism, and modern civilization" that would include, as part of its policy agenda, such intolerable and anti-religious laws. "
I.e., the Pope came out with that encyclical in a context of a violently secular and anti-Catholic movement actually militarily taking over regions of Italy -- and doing so in the name of "modernism, liberalism and progress"...!
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:d-hgSnlptboJ:www.morec.com/schall/docs/formsdem.doc+Jamdudum+cernimus&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"In any event, this concludes our written exchange, but I will be glad to meet with you personally whenever you are in Chicago or if our paths cross elsewhere. In order to avoid any further polemic, I will stop with this communication, though I still hope that this message may have a positive effect on you."
Great. Cover your ears and hum. Maybe this will make Robert go away.
I suppose from a Muslim's perspective, JihadWatch is a "hate" site because it exposes the vile, evil doctrine of islam and the muslim ethos. Once this information becomes common knowledge to non-muslims, islam will indeed be despised and rightly so. Who would want people who practice and espouse a malevolent, supremacist, predatory death cult living nearby, even if they exhibit no signs of supremacy and imperialism?
Our distinguished professor is wise to be distressed, not only because islam is exposed on this site, but because the truth about islam will eventually become common knowledge and that will be the beginning of the end of islam's final hurrah. However, thanks to the efforts of myriad islamic apologists and useful idiots, we still have a long way to go before the average citizen understands the insidious threat of islam and muslims. I am sure it rankles him to the core to read the comments here and to see the visceral contempt most posters have for islam. Most of the articles posted here are news items obtained from outside sources, not essays written by Mr. Spencer. The doctrine of islam and the resulting actions of muslims embody the "hate" he accuses Mr. Spencer of engendering. It amazes me that such a prominent, vaunted academic would advocate dissimulation instead of truth when every non-muslim in America is vulnerable to the threat of islam.
The subtle nuances of islamic law and their interpretations by a few scholars are irrelevant to the vast majority of muslims. Islam is not what a few Westernized muslims want it to be, it is what it is, and it is EVIL.
Wow. He really went to Godwin's Law fast. I suppose that's their M.O., no? Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people are ignoring the facts that Islam itself provides on a day-to-day basis. Death. Murder. Mayhem. Oppression. All of it is systemic and lawful under Shariah. They cannot hide it any longer, and their lies have become laughable.