Hypocrisy: Saudi Arabia, the country that won't allow churches or synagogues, calls for boycott of Switzerland over minaret ban

A number of religious figures in Saudi Arabia called to boycott Switzerland.....[SNIP]

So two hypocrites, Khaled al-Shamrani and Ahmed al-Hassan, are stirring up trouble? Yeah, two is a number....

The Swiss don't need your money but you do need them.

Sowdies

"He also called upon Muslims to avoid traveling to the country."

LOL! THANK YOU!

Being a muhammadan means never having to say you're sorry.

Meanwhile, here's a hardy KOOS UMUK to Khaled al-Shamrani.

Hypocrisy is not, as Robert Spencer notes above, the apt word. It is a word that might be applied to those who recognize that they are protesting, as outrageous, what others do (that minaret ban in Switzerland), all the while doing far far worse, systematically and ferociously. But this escapes the understanding, this does not swim into the ken, of Muslims. They are so very used to the idea that they, and they alone, possess the truth, and that it makes no sense to allow others to propagate, in any way, what to Muslims is untruth.

For a good example, see the famous Indian Muslim, the "moderate" polemicist Dr. Zakir Naik, right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jYUL7eBdHg

"...religious moderator Khaled al-Shamrani called ... upon Muslims to avoid traveling to the country."

Even better, why not call upon all Moslems residing in Switzerland to return to their ancestral home countries?Switzerland would be much better off without them.

all the more toblerones for us

No Arab tourists on my next Swiss trip? Is that a bad thing?

I see potential here, a first step if you like. Let's eventually have the Muslim world boycott the non-Muslim world in its entirety and the non-Muslim world boycott the Muslim world in its entirety. Other than oil, what does the West really need from Mohammedans anyway? And we can dig for oil in all kinds of places we haven't yet, like in the Dakotas, Colorado, ANWR and off America's shores. We can also build nuclear plants, take a second and third look at coal and explore truly viable alternative energy sources. May take a few years but only a few years if we have the will to do so (which we'll never have as long as the rubes now in Washington remain there).

Other non-Muslim nations could do their best as well to free themselves from needing anything from Muslims. In an ideal world the West, in fact the whole non-Muslim world, should want NOTHING from the Islamic sphere of mankind. No Saudi money in Swiss banks? I say that's a hell of a good start. If the Saudis boycott Switzerland, buy Swiss products whenever you can. Even think about opening a bank account with a Swiss bank. What the hell, it would sound impressive that you did, your money would be very safe and it would help out the Swiss. Respond similarly to other countries that show some balls in resisting Muslim expectations and demands. Support them in any way possible.

Isolate the Islamic world. Want nothing from it, least of all Muslims themselves, who make trouble (and whine) wherever they are when they don't get their way. Don't give them their way. Ever. Ideal indeed. This won't happen overnight but it can happen. Time to go for it.

His position is identical with that of Yusuf al Qaradawi, chief headbanger of the cult:

http://sheikyermami.com/2009/12/10/al-qaradawi-katzenjammer/

Interesting that both the interviewer and Qaradawi are in agreement that “the war in Europe has shifted”- what could they possibly mean by that? Any idea?

I'm with Wellington. Lets start insulting the hell out of them. Very easy to do. Maybe an ugly look or a remark about Mo. Were to I sign the petition to outlaw minarets? Or better yet the Islamic religion is illegal and means the over throw of the US Government or (name you country).

I got my pin ready!

Boycott, Boycott, Boycott. . . . . . . . HEY!

Remember they contribute nothing to the wealth of the world, we do!

To be followed by recall of Saudi embassadors from Switzerland.

Next, the OIC will take a position, and call for the UN to sanction Switzerland.

Other Islamic countries will follow the Saudi lead, and violent demonstrations will occur in Pakistan, where KFC's, and motorscooters will be trashed.

Statements about loving death more than life will be made, along with kidnapings, and general mayhem committed by indigent Muslims around the world.

Television broadcasts of effeminate intellectual Muslims on the verge of swooning from indignation will appear together with "understanding" Christians, until . . . . the Swiss cave in.

In other words, JIHAD.

Somewhere, a troll is silent.

"Other than oil, what does the West really need from Mohammedans anyway?"

Nothing comes to mind.

That oil geographical accident - bummer. Enormous, colossal, bummer.

Saudi Arabia declares to the World they want no more nice things from Switzerland!!!!!.

The old "do unto others" has a way of getting ones attention.

Now what can we do to get them to not like nice French things? Or German, British, Chinese....

Screw the slimy Saudi savages. I hope and pray the Swiss elites do not cave to "international" outrage. It's nobody's business how the Swiss run their country. I would love to see the Saudi reaction if the Swiss demanded the right to build a church with steeple and bells anywhere in the savage kingdom. Of course, the timid, polite elites would never exert any pressure; that wouldn't be diplomatic. They will tolerate Islamic condescension and coercion but they would never dish it out.

Since this happened, people from all over Europe are coming out of the woodwork in overwhelming support and are expressing their own rage, frustration, and resentment about the hostile, parasitic, worthless muslim immigrants that have invaded and are debasing Europe. This might be a seminal moment for Europe; I certainly hope so.

It was not until 1990 that a mosque was allowed in Rome. They allowed one to be built on a garbage dump:

"On an old garbage dump 3 1/2 miles from the heart of the Roman Catholic world, a promise made by Benito Mussolini finally is being broken. During his fascist rule, Mussolini forbade the construction of any Islamic mosque in the Italian capital, vowing it could only be allowed when a Catholic church was permitted in Mecca."
The Washington Times
March 9, 1990, Friday, Final Edition
Holy Roman Empire! A mosque is growing in the Eternal City
BYLINE: Lynne Reaves; SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
SECTION: Part A; WORLD; Pg. A11

Muslims to withdraw their deposits from Swiss banks.Muslims to avoid traveling to the country.

Banning minarets can prevent slimy leeches from your country. Well i dint think its so easy to keep the moslums away from your country. Good riddance.

The Saudi hypocrisy knows no bounds. They refuse to allow Churches and Synagogues to be built there but once again seek to fund the development of yet another giant mosque in Sydney.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/fears-grow-over-hardline-mosque-in-western-sydney/story-e6freuy9-1225808804013

Gosh maybe we should have that vote here in the USA. Maybe then the Muslims of the world will avoid traveling here as well. If only!

The hypocrisy is even greater than what is mentioned: not only do the Saudis forbid the construction of facilities for other religions, they also ban minarets. Wahabis consider minarets to be bid'a "innovation".

"It was not until 1990 that a mosque was allowed in Rome. They allowed one to be built on a garbage dump:"

as usual , Dave is wrong.

http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=1074

livingengine:
[Italy doesn't even recognize Islam as a religion.]
Good one! I was wondering what people here would say if the Saudis finally allowed a church to be built there, but then gave them a garbage dump to build it on. At least Muslims have recognized Christianity as a religion for over a thousand years! What do you think about religious cooks in New York who don't like girls riding through their neighborhood in the bike lane wearing skirts, so they complained and got the bike lane removed:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/09/its_hasids_vs_hotties_in_south.html

http://gothamist.com/2009/12/01/city_to_remove_14_blocks_of_bedford.php

The religious crazies are taking over the US!

pulsar182:
[as usual , Dave is wrong]

About what? The Mosque and Islamic Cultural Center is the same thing my reference is referring to. That is the first mosque ever to be built in Rome. What the hell are you talking about? Here are some more refs:

United Press International
June 21, 1995, Wednesday, BC cycle
Rome's first mosque officially opened
BYLINE: BY PETER SHADBOLT

St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
June 22, 1995, Thursday, City Edition
Rome gets its first mosque
SECTION: NATIONAL; THE WORLD; Pg. 2A

And since I know you never go to the library, here's some refs you can click on:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/31/world/rome-journal-a-mosque-is-built-finally-in-the-city-of-st-peter.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/22/world/after-20-years-a-mosque-opens-in-catholicism-s-back-yard.html

Nutbag.

Long past time to get that boycott of Arabia going.

joeblough:
[Long past time to get that boycott of Arabia going.]

Go ahead. Stop buying gas and sell your car.

dave as usual is practicing misleading kitman:

"It was not until 1990 that a mosque was allowed in Rome. They allowed one to be built on a garbage dump:"

Yeah, the setting for the Roman mosque looks terrible!

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=image%2Fjpeg&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1137943251932&ssbinary=true

And this Muslim convert doesn't seem to mind at all; in fact, he rather likes the mosque and its lovely setting:

Amidst the Pines of Rome

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1163656950725&pagename=Zone-English-Euro_Muslims%2FEMELayout

Hesperado:
[Yeah, the setting for the Roman mosque looks terrible!]

My point is that it wasn't too long ago that Rome had the same point of view that the Saudis do now. Yes, I made a tangential point that the mosque is built on top of a dump. If the Saudi's allowed a church to be built on top of a dump, that fact would be mentioned on this site, regardless of how the site actually appeared. Or do you deny that?

Please stay on the lookout for dangerous terrorists sill at large in the USA...The notorious Hous Bin Pharteen (and his brother) Ibin Pharteen.

It should be very easy to spot Hous Bin Pharteen, he is an extremely silent but deadly killer.

Good job on the blog.

"My point is that it wasn't too long ago that Rome had the same point of view that the Saudis do now."

My approach on this differs ostensibly from Spencer's -- whether Spencer might really agree with my approach or not is hard to tell. Spencer seems to frame this whole issue of reciprocity in terms that imply that there really should be bilateral reciprocity, as though the two systems involved were potentially sufficiently equal; whereas everything else Spencer reports from Muslim societies and argues from Islamic texts amounts to a mountain of data that shows that the two systems are staggeringly unequal both in ethical worth and in terms of danger to the other -- Islam of course being the ethically unworthy and dangerous of the two. Furthermore, one major and essential facet of this inequality consists in the terrible treatment of Christians (and all other minority religions as well as agnostics and atheists) by Muslims in Islamic countries (and increasingly in the West). So, Spencer in his latter capacity is logically calling for a different framework than expecting bilateral reciprocity, even if in his former capacity he is precisely calling for bilateral reciprocity.

Thus, my approach is that we need to have a mirror-image of Islamic intolerance: We need to be intolerant of Islam: We need to be prejudiced against Muslims: We need to adopt the former Italian attitude and go even much further, without making it dependent upon a framework of reciprocity at all, but simply on the basis of the evil, injustice and danger of Islam in general, including their terrible treatment of Christians and all other minorities which flows essentially from that evil, injustice and danger. I.e., in a nutshell Islam deserves to be treated that way, but we don't. When they do it, they are wrong, but if and when we do it, we are right.

I believe my approach as I articulated it above answers your question also.

[Islam deserves to be treated that way, but we don't. When they do it, they are wrong, but if and when we do it, we are right.]

This goes into my document of all-time favorite quotes. Congrats.

[argues from Islamic texts amounts to a mountain of data]

Spencers "mountain of data" is made up largely from material from Islamic texts that are a thousand years old. A while back, I was smugly told that my first step in refuting Mr. Spencer's mountain of data was to address the irrefutable axiom in Islamic law that the "gates of ijtihad" were closed a millenia ago, which makes studying thousand year old Islamic texts valid. As you know, I did address this issue, and nobody has yet addressed my paper, other than you saying I introduced new material in the conclusion, or some such nonsense. Why don't you take some time and simply show me I am wrong? This is a basic pillar of Mr. Spencer's method of presenting Islam through ancient texts, and was something that was a well-accepted fact until 35 years ago, when it was shown to be a pile of crap. What if all your data consists of similar piles of crap?
Mr. Spencer's "mountain of data" has been shown to be a mountain of crap by non-ideological scholars. The only thing that prevents me from illustrating this through a series of papers like the one you've seen is time. However, you can find out for yourself. It involves getting off the internet, going to the library, and reading peer reviewed scientific journals and books published by University publishers. You can make comments about academic sources (like Climategate), but on the whole you would see this material is based on fact to a immeasurably greater extent than is the information on the internet, or information published by Bob's Publishing house. That you think Mr. Spencer's data is valid is what makes the above quote(Islam deserves to be treated...)so hilarious.

They are such whimps. I dare say, they should boycott the entire west as we will NEVER be trust islamics. NOT EVER.
End your pain Saudi, get out of the west.

livingengine:
[Engaging in false equivalencies]

The only way you or enyone else here tries to show that Christianity is superior to Islam is to simply say it as fact, without ever giving any support or proof. Just like the Orientalists! Whenever you get stuck in a debate about something, you lose. I bring up a simple point here, and the first thing someone does is tell me I'm wrong, when I clearly am not. I supply 4 more articles, and finally it is accepted. (I only know something is accepted here when it is not addressed. Nobody will ever concede anything here.)Once the fact is accepted, there is no rebuttal, so you have to fall back to your "it's not the same because Islam is evil" BS. It's pathetic.

Likewise, nobody will every address the issue of the gates of ijtihad, because it is clear even to an imbecile that the whole concept was fabricated, like every other issue discussed here. If you disagree, then debate it. Provide facts.

Question everything:
[What are you rambling on about 'The Gates of Ijitihad'? What about it is fabricated? Make a clear point and then prepare to be proved wrong.]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20753339/Gates-of-Ijtihad

I have read your paper. I thought you were being treated unfairly by other JW readers, and that you were an improvement over Abdullah Mikhail.

After reading the paper, I found it to be poorly done, and somewhat disturbing. Your hatered of Orientalists boarders on pathelogical.

Also, I think your conclusion should be concidered incitement. If Yale University will censor itself because of the possiblity of a violent outcry, I think Muslims writing scholarly papers warning of an Orientalist plan to END ISLAM should be viewed as rabble rouseing.

I am not trying to play "gotcha", but when you include this statement from Gerber to reenforce your arguement that sharia was superior American colonial law, I came away confused.

" The court is seen mainly as a tool of the common people to defend a modicum of legal rights…"

It sounds like people had very few legal rights to begin with. I'm sure you have a good explaination, but the fact that you didn't include that in the paper is one reason why I say it is muddled.

As far as ijtihad is concerned in reference to JihadWatch, once again I have agree with Hesperado, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if people are striving mightly to apply proper Islamic legal principles to the consumption of mermaids, or people who are bilaterally possessed by jinn.

Are the Gates of Ijtihad open concerning the devine nature of the Koran, or Muhammad being the perfect man, or the waging of jihad against non-believers? There is no mention of that in your paper which certainly reeks of politics, Dave.

I have said before but, you should be very carefull with this piece, it may come back to bite you later.

You spent alot of vitriol on attacking Jospeh Schacht, and to be honest, as a scholar, thinker and writer, Schacht is so far beyond you that this paper looks like a "pile of crap" in comparison.

I leave the readers with this quote from Joseph Schacht,

"[I]n a paper he delivered at Ravello in 1966, he spoke of the danger that “the results achieved by the Islamic scholars, at great effort, in the present generation, instead of being developed and made the starting point for new scholarly progress might, by a kind of intellectual laziness, be gradually whittled down and deprived of their real significance, or even be turned inside out by those who themselves had taken no part in achieving them.”"
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/ilsp/publications/wakin.pdf

livingengine:
You are the second person to address my paper, and it is very similar to the first. You make general comments about my writing style, and address one quote where you read something into it that is not there. It is not surprising that you cannot address the content of the paper, and I doubt anyone ever will. Meanwhile, I can address your non-content related critique.

[Your hatered of Orientalists boarders on pathelogical.]

There is a current issue that relates to this, which is climategate. To begin with, I have no position whatsoever on whether global warming exists, whether it is man-made, and what the leaked E-mails mean to the whole issue. People here think I act like a know-it-all, but the opposite is the truth. When I don’t know something about a subject, like global warming, I don’t talk about it. This is unlike 99.9% of people who forms opinions based on next to no information. If I wanted to form even a tentative opinion on global warming, it would take me a minimum of a month reading nothing but books and journal articles on the subject, without reading anything else. I don’t have the time, because my interests lay elsewhere. When the subject comes up in conversation, I say I don’t know anything about it, and I listen to other people give their opinions about it, who usually also don’t know anything about it either. In general, when discussion come up on most subjects, I normally say "I don't know" in response. When I give my opinion about something, I like to know something about it.
Now that climategate is an issue, and scientists are accused of fudging data and lying, many people, mostly on the right, have written about this. Most of the writing is very derogatory and certainly not very nice to the scientists involved. Using your terminology, one could say that the hatred of the global warming scientists borders on the pathological. But is this the case? Global warming is a very big issue, and the scientists are accused of something very serious. In my opinion, if the scientists did fudge data, lie, distort the truth, etc., the language used by writers on the right in denouncing the scientists in justified. People do not have to write like lawyers. Global warming is a big issue, and conservatives have every right to use the language that they do regarding the scientists without some nitwit coming along and saying that their hatred of the scientists borders on the pathological.
Yes, I have hatred for what the Orientalists did. What they did could not have been done without knowledge of what they were doing, since some of it involves outright lying and deliberate distortion. My hatred is justified, and is based on facts. If you want to discuss the content of why I hate the Orientalists, I am waiting.

[After reading the paper, I found it to be poorly done]

I am a scientist. My published writings are written in a scientific manner, which is very different than what I wrote in my paper on scribd. I admit that I never did well in writing non-scientific papers or poetry, but my ijtihad paper is about content. It consists largely of quotes, which doesn't involve me at all. There is a lot of content in the paper, and it is based on reading a large volume of material. If you someday would like to address the content, I will be waiting.

[your conclusion should be concidered incitement]

Blah, blah. Maybe my paper should be banned by the government.

[It sounds like people had very few legal rights to begin with.]

As I said, you are reading something into this that is not there. What do you mean by “to begin with”? You mean before the legal system was formed to address the lack of legal rights? What the hell does this even mean? Legal rights existed, because the legal system existed. If you want to address this, go to the library, get the book, and read it. Then we can talk about it.

[it doesn't matter]

Yes, it matters a great deal. That is why Mr. Spencer addressed it on his blog and in his book. The fact that the gates of ijtihad never closed makes studying thousand year old books misleading, to say the least, just as studying the bible says little about religion today or how society today is conducted. Before I wrote the paper, the issue mattered to JW readers as well, and the issue was shoved in my face repeatedly. It was for that reason that I researched the subject. Now that I have shown that those people’s statements about the issue were wrong, and based on lies, the new stance is that the issue no longer matters. Well, it does.

[Are the Gates of Ijtihad open concerning the devine nature of the Koran, or Muhammad being the perfect man, or the waging of jihad against non-believers? There is no mention of that in your paper which certainly reeks of politics, Dave.]

Yes, there is mention of it in my paper:

“In regards to what areas are open to ijtihad, the answer is most everything: ‘The rulings of the Qur’an on the essentials of the faith such as salah and fasting, the specified shares in inheritance and the prescribed penalties, are all qat’i their validity may not be disputed by anyone, everyone is bound to follow them, and they are not open to ijtihad.’”

For the reference of the internal quote, see the paper. All books on Islamic law specific what is not open to ijtihad, and they repeat what I quoted above. Yes, jihad is open to ijtihad. What you think jihad is is incorrect. There will be a paper on it someday.

[You spent alot of vitriol on attacking Jospeh Schacht, and to be honest, as a scholar, thinker and writer, Schacht is so far beyond you that this paper looks like a "pile of crap" in comparison.]

You are talking out of ignorance. I doubt you have even read a book by Schacht, and I am certain you have not read recent scholarship that shows it is crap. There is not a single theory by Schacht regarding Islamic law that has not been completely dismantled by recent scholarship by various authors. It is hilarious that your paper on Schacht brings up criticism of him, and in doing so mentions people like Coulson, Watt, and Gibb. If you were ever to read these authors, you would realize how incredibly stupid this is. These authors are Orientalists themselves, and they do not seriously criticize Schacht to begin with. What a freakin’ joke. The serious critiques of Schacht did not emerg until after his death. For the author of the paper you referenced to talk about critiques of Schacht and not even mention Hallaq shows deliberate deception. But the author had to ignore people like Schacht, Gerber, Fadel, Johansen, Vogel, Makdisi, Weiss, etc., because there is no way to address current critiques of Schacht’s views and defend Schacht in any way. The only way to address critiques of Schacht is to bring up 40 year old critiques that are not really critiques.

You have a choice. You can keep practicing taqlid of your ancient Orientalists, or you can practice ijtihad by going to the library and reading some scholarly literature from the past 30 years.

Robert S. posted this on November 11,2007

It helps to explain Ijtihad better than Dave's failed attempt.

"Ijtihad is the process of arriving at a decision on a point of Islamic law through study of the Qur’an and Sunnah. From the beginning of Islam, the authoritative study of such sources was reserved to a select number of scholars who fulfilled certain qualifications, including a comprehensive knowledge of the Qur’an and Sunnah, as well as knowledge of the principle of analogical reasoning (qiyas) by which legal decisions are made; knowledge of the consensus (ijma) on any given question of Muhammad, his closest companions, and the scholars of the past; and more, including living a blameless life. The founders of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence are among the small number of scholars -- mujtahedin -- thus qualified to perform ijithad. But they all lived very long ago; for many centuries, independent study of the Qur’an and Sunnah has been discouraged among Muslims, who are instead expected to adhere to the rulings of one of those established schools. Since the death of Ahmed ibn Hanbal, from whom the Hanbali school takes its name, in 855 A.D., no one has been recognized by the Sunni Muslim community as a mujtahid of the first class -- that is, someone who is qualified to originate legislation of his own, based on the Qur’an and Sunnah but not upon the findings of earlier mujtahedin.

Islamic scholar Cyril Glasse notes that “‘the door of ijtihad is closed’ as of some nine hundred years, and since then the tendency of jurisprudence (fiqh) has been to produce only commentaries upon commentaries and marginalia.”

Shi’ite Muslims have never accepted that ijtihad is a thing of the past. Thus it is with a slight tone of disapproval that the Shi’ite scholar Murtada Mutahhari notes of the Sunnis:

The right of ijtihad did not last for long among the Sunnis. Perhaps the cause of this was the difficulty which occurred in practice: for if such a right were to continue [for any great length of time], especially if ta`awwul and the precedence of something over the texts were to be permitted, and everyone were permitted to change or interpret according to his own opinion, nothing would remain of the way of Islam (din al islam). Perhaps it is for this reason that the right of independent ijtihad was gradually withdrawn, and the view of the Sunni `ulama became that they instructed people to practice taqlid of only the four mujtahids, the four famous Imams - Abu Hanifa [d.150/767], al Shafi`i; [d.204/820], Malik b. Anas [d.179/795] and Ahmad b. Hanbal [d.241/855] - and forbade people to follow anyone apart from these four persons. This measure was first taken in Egypt in the seventh hijri century, and then taken up in the rest of the lands of Islam.
The Imam Hassan Qazwini, director of the Islamic Center of America, considers this closing off of new interpretations of Islamic law to be a serious error. According to David Smock, director of the Religion and Peacemaking Initiative of the United States Institute of Peace:

One of the gravest mistakes Muslims have committed, according to Qazwini, is closing the doors of ijtihad. They have limited legal interpretation to only four prominent scholars: Malik Ibn Anas, Abu Hanifa al-No‘man, Muhammad Ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i, and Ahmad Ibn Hambal—the heads of the Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi‘i, and Hambali [sic] schools of thought. The motivation for this was political. During the Abbasid Dynasty (750–1258 CE), the Abbasids decided to outlaw all other sects in order to strictly control religion and worship, as well as political matters.
Closing the doors of ijtihad has had extremely detrimental ramifications for the Muslim world. According to Qazwini, this decision has resulted in chronic intellectual stagnation, as thousands of potential mujtahids and scholars have been prohibited from offering workable solutions to newly emerging problems. Muslim thinkers have become captive to rules that were made long ago, leaving little scope for liberal or innovative thought.

Other Muslims, however, disagree. Seyyed Hossein Nasr of George Washington University, in his consideration of Islam and modernity, Ideals and Realities of Islam, says: “Certain modernists over the past century have tried to change the Shari‘ah, to reopen the gate of ijtihad, with the aim of incorporating modern practices into the Law and limiting the function of Shari‘ah to personal life. All of these activities emanate from a particular attitude of spiritual weakness vis-à-vis the world and surrender to the world. Those who are conquered by such a mentality want to make the Shari‘ah ‘conform to the times,’ which means to the whims and fancies of men and the ever changing human nature which has made ‘the times.’ They do not realize that it is the Shari‘ah according to which society should be modeled not vice versa.”

In any case, whether it is a manifestation of “chronic intellectual stagnation” or fidelity to the Sharia, along with the stasis in other areas there has been a lack of development in the doctrines of jihad. Even Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong admits that “Muslim jurists...taught that, because there was only one God, the whole world should be united in one polity and it was the duty of all Muslims to engage in a continued struggle to make the world accept the divine principles and create a just society.” Non-Muslims “should be made to surrender to God’s rule. Until this had been achieved, Islam must engage in a perpetual warlike effort.” But, she says, “this martial theology was laid aside in practice and became a dead letter once it was clear that the Islamic empire had reached the limits of its expansion about a hundred years after Muhammad’s death.”

The problem is that however much of a dead letter it became in practice during times of weakness in the Islamic world, this doctrine of Islamic supremacism was never reformed or rejected. No one seems to have told the warriors of jihad who besieged Europe through the seventeenth century that the Islamic empire had already reached the limits of its expansion centuries before. No one seems to have told the modern-day warriors of Islam from Bosnia to the Philippines that jihad is a dead letter, and that Islam isn’t doing any more expanding. The Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid (1962-), whose lectures and Islamic rulings (fatawa) circulate widely throughout the Islamic world, demonstrates this in a discussion of whether Muslims should force others to accept Islam. In considering Qur’an 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion,”) the Sheikh quotes Qur’an 9:29, as well as 8:39 (“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]”), and the Verse of the Sword. Of the latter, Sheikh Muhammad says simply: “This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword). These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.”

livingengine:
[I leave the readers with this quote from Joseph Schacht...]

The supposed criticism of Schacht in the paper you linked to concerns Schachts views on the authenticity of Prophetic hadiths. If you are interested, Hallaq wrote a short paper on this issue, which is one of the few that happens to be on the net:

http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/fiqh/hallaq_hadith.html

pulsar182:
[Robert S. posted this on November 11,2007. It helps to explain Ijtihad better than Dave's failed attempt.]

You are a total, complete, certifiable imbecile. The paper I wrote addresses the views that you quoted of Mr. Spencer at great length, and in great detail. Mr. Spencer says something, I address it, and your rebuttal is to quote the same damn thing again. Is there someone here with a high school education?

moslems ( try to avoid using a capital M) are so convinced of their own superiority.
I think one of the ways us Infidels can let them know what we think of them and their so called faith is to buy miniture korans and leave them in public urinals and latrines.

Why should we respect such a hate filled book.
I don't respect mein kampf !!

Buy it and Pi$$ on it.

livingengine:
I recognize that you read my paper. You're also right that I didn't think anyone here would.

dave,

[argues from Islamic texts amounts to a mountain of data]

"Spencers "mountain of data" is made up largely from material from Islamic texts that are a thousand years old."

a) You snipped out the other half of the mountain to which I was referring.

b) Your "largely" is a matter of opinion: Spencer cites enough modern Islamic texts to satisfy me. The Reliance of the Traveler -- approved by a present and most important official institution of Islamic law (Al-Azhar Madrassa) by itself is damning; but there is much more.

(Just to pluck one example out of 1,001 from a turban, consider that a present-day Muslim, Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, also teaches the Koran to all Muslims seeking accreditation as prison and military chaplains in North America: She highly approves of Maududi's tafsir of the Koran, deeming it “probably the best work of [Koranic commentary] in English.” And Maududi doesn't go back 1,000 years: his years are 1903-1979. Here is what Maududi has written:

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the Earth which are opposed to the ideology and program 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 program, 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. . . 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." )

Back to you:

"A while back, I was smugly told that my first step in refuting Mr. Spencer's mountain of data was to address the irrefutable axiom in Islamic law that the "gates of ijtihad" were closed a millenia ago, which makes studying thousand year old Islamic texts valid. As you know, I did address this issue, and nobody has yet addressed my paper, other than you saying I introduced new material in the conclusion, or some such nonsense. Why don't you take some time and simply show me I am wrong?"

I don't care if the gates of ijtihad are open or closed, or even half-open/half-closed to allow for clever fudge factors ("Islamic law is both resilient and flexible!" etc.). None of those three hypothetical interpretations of history saves Islam from the mountain of damning data it constitutes, a mountain that not only continues today, but whose hot evil lava is increasing as Muslims over the last century have been slowly realizing the new opportunity the West offers them for a revival of the attempt at conquest in all its variety of grotesque, ghoulish, ultraviolent, deceitfully non-violent, hateful, intolerant, supremacist, fanatical, lunatic flavors.

If the "gates are open" what are they waiting for?

Now there's a great quote! Or we could say:

If the "gates" have been "open" for the past 1,000 years, what have they been waiting for?

Of course, we know the sophistical answer, from dave742 and 45ch, to what should be a rhetorical question: For most of that 1,000 years, Islam was a model of enlightened society and lawmaking, surpassing the brutish evil West, but this information has been suppressed by evil Western "Orientalists" seeking in their parochial bigotry to demonize "the Other"; and as for recent behaviors of Muslims throughout the Muslim world -- such as the backwardness and corruption of Muslim governments, and the increasing disturbances of terrorism and guerilla wars, etc. -- all that is largely the result of the "meddling" in the Muslim world by the evil Western Colonialists, and then in the latter half of the 20th century the "meddling" in the Muslim world by the evil United States with its CIA and globalist greed, etc.

Hesperado:
[Spencer cites enough modern Islamic texts to satisfy me. The Reliance of the Traveler…]

I guess for you a book written in the 14th century is a “modern Islamic text.” OK.

[Ingrid Mattson…]

There is no credible source for her having said this. If she did, I would also want to know what else she said. Also, she supposedly recommended Mawdudi’s Tafhim al-Qur'an. I guess there is nothing objectionable in this work, since in order to demonize this recommendation, your source had to quote a different work by Mawdudi. Is there anything objectionable to you in the work that Mattson supposedly recommended? Also, books can be recommended without being an endorsement of every word in it. With regard to this, what do you think of Martin Kramer's recommended book that I quoted below?

[I don't care if the gates of ijtihad are open or closed]

Then you are stupid to read my paper, and stupid to discuss the subject. When I don't care about a subject, I don't read about it. I hav better use for my time. Mr. Spencer cares if the gates were closed, because he repeatedly tries to say they were and are. Before I wrote my paper, many JW readers cared about the issue, because they repeatedly told me that the gates were closed, and the issue was central to their arguments. Now that I have showed that Mr. Spencer and the JW readers were wrong, nobody cares anymore. That’s very funny.

Livingengine:

[You have asked for responses to your work]

I have asked for people to respond to the content of my paper, not necessarily my writing style. Nobody will ever be able to respond to the content of my paper. Ever. Maybe you would you like to point out any misspelled words?

“I challenge you to have this published anywhere, by anyone other than a vanity press.”

If I wanted to write a paper for publication, I would not write it in the manner I did with this paper. I know how to write differently than I write on a blog. I am published, you know. Also, nobody would ever publish a review article specifically countering Mr. Spencer’s views on a subject. The topic is unpublishable, regardless of who or how it is written. You statement is nonsensical.

[One of the many problems with this paper is your editorializing throughout.]

An editorial is a valid form of writing. Did you know newspapers print editorials?

[The result is, that I, as a reader, have to constantly try to decouple your opinions from those of the people you cite.]

I could have left out my opinions, but then you would have had nothing to respond to, because we know you cannot respond to the content of my paper. So be glad I wrote the paper the way I did, it gives you a handle to respond to the paper, without really doing so.

[Martin Kramer]

Kramer recommends a book by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb titled "Hizbullah: Politics and Religion". I just learned fom Hesperado that if you recommend a book, you endorse every single thing in it. So here are some quotes from Kramer’s recommended book:

“Both the party’s admires and detractors agree that, of all the political forces in Lebanon, Hizbu’llah is the only political party which has not been tainted by charges of corruption or political opportunism and which has resolutely stuck to its principles.” p. 3

“The pre-eminent factor directly responsible for the movement’s birth, and hence the Islamicisation of the Lebanese Shi’ites, was the Israeli invasion of 1982.” p. 10

Saad-Ghorayeb, addressing the claim that Islamic fundamentalist groups “view secularist Muslims as ‘apostates’ who ought to be punished by death”, states that “Hizbu’llah has no such ‘takfir’ (declaring the infidelity of adversaries) discourse. Above all, it is the oppressors who are anathematized, regardless of their religious identities, political leanings or religiosity. Furthermore, the party does not equate secularism with oppression or sin. As underlined by Hizbu’llah MP Muhammad Fnaysh, only the secularist who ‘disavows Islamic principles and sanctities’ or who enforces secularism as a state religion is considered hostile to Islam and an oppressor.” p. 20

“Hizbu’llah sympathises with secular Christian and even Marxist Third World Leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro because of their countries’ oppressed status. Castro, for example, is ‘respected’ for preserving Cuba’s independence from US influence and for confronting the US’ hegemony over South America.” p. 21

“Occupation of one’s land by Israel or any other foreign power emerges as a principal determinant of oppression and, like all oppressed people, those whose land is occupied will be afforded Hizbu’llah’s ‘automatic’ support.” p. 21

Within Hizbu’llah, “legitimacy has been conferred on secular states…and withheld from Muslim ones…It follows that the overthrow of secular states is not the underlying purpose of jihad (holy war). The cornerstone of Hizbu’lah’s doctrine on political violence is the principle of the non-compulsion of Islam. Thus, there is no religious sanction for rebellion against secular states such as Lebanon just because they are not ‘governed by divine laws’. This belief is grounded on Hizbu’llah’s reading of the Shari’a (Islamic law) which deems rebellion and civil disobedience ‘unacceptable’. In light of this Islamic concept, the party feels duty-bound to ‘preserve public order’ and consequently views civil peace as a ‘red line’ which cannot be crossed.”

“According to Judith Harik’s 1992 study, only 13 percent of Shi’ites lent their support to the creation of an Islamic republic in Lebanon.” p. 35

“…a keen observance of Islamic faith…posits that Islam cannot be enforced upon followers of other faiths. Hizbu’llah’s reference to the Qur’anic injunction ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion (2:256) both in its Open Letter of 1985 and 14 years later as articulated by Shaykh Na’im Qasim, is indicative of the tenacity with which this conviction is held. Moreover, the party’s constant reassurance that it has no intention of forcibly ‘imposing’ an Islamic state on the Lebanese people, from as far back as 1985 to the present, is further testimony to this point.” p. 36

“According to former Hizbu’llah secretary-general Shaykh al-Tufayli, it is not Hizbu’llah whom God will call to account for the non-fulfillment of an Islamic state, but those who obstructed its creation. The only religious obligation upon the party is that it actively pursues justice, regardless of whether or not this culminates in the creation of an Islamic state.” p. 37

“the ultimate end of [Hizbu’llah’s] Islamicisation efforts is not the highly improbable creation of an Islamist society, which would construct the ideal Islamic state, but rather, the fulfillment of the Islamic imperative to spread the word of Islam, without any ulterior political motives. Since the political is the master of all concerns for Hizbu’llah, Islamicisation is nott accorded the same weight as the political and military resistance to oppression.” p. 38

“liberation from Israeli occupation is considered a far greater attainment of justice, and hence a greater imperative, than the Islamicisation of society.” p. 38

Political pluralism:
“According to Principle 26 of the Iranian constitution, parties as well as religious societies, ‘whether Islamic or pertaining to one of the recognized religious minorities’, are permitted so long as they do not ‘violate…the criteria of Islam or the basis of the Islamic Republic.” p. 41

“By analogy, Muhammad Fnaysh suggests that, just as the American constitution would not sanction the presence of groups that sought to overthrow the capitalist system, as demonstrated by the McCarthy era, the Islamic state cannot countenance the existence of ideological groups seeking to overturn it. Accordingly, the Islamic state is perceived to be no less politically pluralistic than the US democratic system, which also restricts political participation to groups that respect its foundations.” p. 44

“According to Fnaysh, Hizbu’llah believes that ‘there must be a Christian role [in the Islamic state] so long as there are Christians in society’. The example of Iran is invoked to delineate the extent of religious pluralism envisaged by the party. As stipulated by Article 64 of the Iranian constitution, Zoroastrians, Jews and a number of Christian minority groups are all entitled to parliamentary representation commensurate with their numbers in the population.” p. 44

Differs from Israel:
“Article 144 of the constitution specifies that the army as a whole must be ‘committed to Islamic ideology’, but it does not require that army recruits have faith in Islam, but merely in ‘the objectives of the Islamic revolution’.” p. 44

Fnaysh quote:
“Since [Lebanese] society is not an Islamic one and Hizbu’llah is part of this society, it has to demand of itself what it demands of others. No one can impose a state on others and expect to succeed. If an Islamic state were established by force, then it would no longer be Islamic and would lose all legitimacy.” p. 49

“Hizgu’llah’s embrace of democracy as a system through which the greatest possible extent of justice can be fulfilled means that, although it is not viewed as the ideal system capable of fulfilling absolute justice, as Islam is, it is accepted, and even championed, as the next best system to Islam. Thus, although Hizbu’llah does not endorse democracy as the best system of government on the intellectual level, it endorses it as a system of government on the political level.” p. 55

“…when Hizbu’llah depicts the Islamic Republic as ‘our religion, our Ka’ba [the Muslim Holy of Holies], our blood and our veins, it relates to the Wilayat al-Faqih, and not to the Iranian government. By the same token, the reference to ‘Islamic thought’ or ‘Islamic decision-making’ should be construed as a euphemism for the Wali al-Faqih, and not for Iran as Martin Kramer alleges.” p. 66

(Funny how Kramer recommends a book that refutes his own statements!)

“Hizbu’llah maintains that ‘while religion is one aspect of civilization, it need not be the only aspect. Ethnicity can also provide the basis for civilization.’ Thus, even though Islam is the predominant aspect of Islamic civilization, Arab non-Muslims can be considered part of this civilization insofar as their Arabism renders them members of the Arab Islamic subcivilization. By extension, the Lebanese Christian is part of the Arab Islamic subcivilization, and therefore ‘part of the Islamic umma’.” p. 82

“As argued by Nasru’llah, just as the affiliation to Christianity, Communism or any other belief system does not conflict with one’s Lebanese identity, Hizbu’llah’s affiliation to Islam, and by implication its allegiance to the Wilayat al-Faqih, does not undermine its ‘Lebanese identity or patriotism’.” p. 82

“…Nasru’llah implies that, in the event of a conflict of interest between the Lebanese and Iranian states, Hizbu’llah would pursue Lebanon’s interests at Iran’s expense.” p. 83

“From Hizbu’llah’s perspective, the greatest indication of nationalism is the readiness to sacrifice oneself for one’s nation, as epitomized by the Islamic Resistance martyrs and fighters who both lose and risk their lives in order to liberate national territory.” p.83

“The resistance to the Israeli occupation therefore emerges as a ‘national cause’, ‘goal’ or ‘duty’, as well as a religious one, which is waged on behalf of ‘all Lebanese and Arabs’, as well as all Muslims. By extension, Hizbu’llah’s Resistance is not only an Islamic one, as its name suggests, but also a ‘Lebanese’ and ‘nationalist’ resistance, ‘whose jihad is Lebanese’. To substantiate such a claim, in late 1997 the party established the “Lebanese Brigades of Resistance to the Israeli Occupation’, a multi-sectarian military adjunct to its Islamic Resistance forces.” p. 84

“Hizbullah draws the line at the killing of Western civilians, which it strongly condemns…”. In response to the 1997 bombing in Luxor by the Islamic Group, Hizbu’llah described it as “bloody and terrible”, and even accused the Islamic Group as being “an instrument which is utilized by the umma’s real enemies [i.e. Israel]”. p.100

“The cornerstone of Hizbu’llah’s repudiation of Western culture is its abomination of the materialist doctrine, which underlies the West’s ‘brutal capitalism’. As an ‘intellectual and philosophical distortion’, Western capitalism cannot ensure the right balance between ‘human nature and the public interest’, and by extension, cannot achieve social justice. Moreover, its inherent defectiveness as a socio-political system is evinced by its responsibility for all the world’s ‘crises, hunger, poverty, pollution, corruption and wars’. Modern materialism is therefore perceived as the ‘new Pharaoh’, which seeks to ‘enslave man and especially the poor and oppressed’. As such, it is the root cause of the Western drive to subjugate the oppressed world, which in turn, has fallen prey to its corrupting influence, thereby rendering it a slave to consumerism.” p.103

“The party…confines its hostility to the US government’s perceived bias towards Israel, and does not extend it to the American people, who are presumably neither held responsible for their government’s ‘oppressive’ policies, nor for the ‘cultural invasion’ launched by their media and educational institutions.” p.106

“As a non-existential struggle, dialogue and reconciliation with the West are very real possibilities for Hizbu’llah…In Qassim’s opinion, dialogue should occur among all the world’s nations, since ‘interaction with different cultures is good”. The high value placed on dialogue is more clearly expressed by another Hizbu’llah official who discloses the party’s desire to hold a direct dialogue with the American people. Another indication of the party’s desire to reconcile with the American people, and Western society generally, lies in its repeated intention to project a better image of itself to the American people and to the West by ‘waging a campaign to show them that the Resistance is not terrorist’.” p.107

“From these observations, it emerges that the struggle between Hizbu’llah (or Islam) and the West is not an existential one. It should also be stressed that the struggle between the two should not be characterized as a civilizational ‘conflict’ or ‘khilaf’, as Samuel Huntington has chosen to do, but as a civilizational ‘dispute’ or ‘ikhtilaf’. For Fayyad, the distinction between the two terms is a crucial one insofar as the former term denotes civilizational irreconcilability whereas the latter term implies the possibility of civilizational co-existence and harmony. The fact that this struggle is a dispute rather than a conflict is evident in the party’s improved relations with the West, with particular reference to Europe. Hizbu’llah’s rapprochement with Europe is epitomized by the radical change in its stand towards France. In contrast to Hizbu’llah’s animosity towards the Francois Mitterand government, which ordered French troops into Lebanon in support of the detested Gemayel regime, the government presided by Jacques Chirac is viewed favorably by the party. This perspective is due to the new administration’s ‘understanding of the Lebanese people’s suffering in the face of the Israeli occupation’, and its generally ‘balanced’ role which serves to countervail the US’ hegemony over the region. As conceived by Meri’, the party’s rapprochement with France is demonstrative of its willingness to reconcile with any Western state that changes its regional policy.” p. 108

“Qasim drives this point home when he asserts that no culture or civilization can be completely accepted or rejected, not even American culture which has ‘positive, as well as negative, elements’. One such element is the high value Americans place on the freedom of expression, notwithstanding the fact that they do not apply this value to other nations. Another value worthy of emulation is the social equality that characterizes Western society…As well as accepting certain Western values, the party admires Western science and knowledge and appreciates Western educational institutions…the party views the Western educational system as superior to all other educational systems in the contemporary Arab or Muslim world…Out of the nine party officials interviewed by this author, all nine had received a secular university education, including the two clerics. Although both Shaykhs Na’im Qasim and Husayn al-Mussawi had attended religious seminaries, they had degrees in chemistry and mathematics, respectively. ” p. 109

“From its very inception, Hizbu’llah has continuously striven to show that the attainment of political power is secondary to its goal of liberating the occupied zone…This prioritization stands in sharp contrast to the Sunni Islamist perspective, which considers the struggle against Israel to be secondary to the deposition of indigenous secular governments and the institution of Islamic governments in their place…its principal dispute with Amal revolves around the primacy the latter places on the attainment of political power. As elaborated by Nasru’llah, ‘Amal is more concerned with affairs related to power and the domestic agenda than it is with the resistance priority’, which Hizbu’llah regards as a clear instance of misplaced priorities… In effect, Hizbu’llah sacrificed its political independence and integrity, and perhaps even its political size, for the sake of preserving its resistance to the Israeli occupation.” p. 112 and 114 and 115 and 116

“…the notion of instituting Islamic rule in Lebanon has become too much of a Utopia to merit serious political deliberation or to be considered a realizable political goal by the party.” p.115

“Jihad is therefore an essentially defensive, as opposed to an offensive, activity in Hizbu’llah’s conception…only the Twelfth Imam is entitled to wage [an offensive jihad]….” p. 122 and 124

Defensive jihad is a “religious legal obligation (wajib shari’)…even if Israel does not fire a single bullet, because its very occupation is an act of aggression and a form of subjugation, which necessitates a defensive jihad.” P.125

“…Hizbu’llah ‘does not pursue martyrdom as an end in itself’, but as a means of achieving victory…The following contention by Nasru’llah confirms this theory: ‘Maybe some people think we crave martyrdom because we like to die in any way. No, we like to die if our blood is valued and has a great impact [on Israel].” p. 133

“…’in spite of all their faults’, Hizbu’llah is willing to condone Jews in its midst and does not believe that any harm should come to them. It is also manifest in the concept of ‘al-tasakun al-barid’ (‘cold cohabitation’) between Muslims and Jews, envisaged by Fayyid. Under such an arrangement, the Jews would be left to live in peace because the conflict between Islam and the Jews is essentionally ideological as opposed to existential, as in the case of Zionism. However, there would be no normalization of relations with them, hence the coldness of this cohabitation.” p. 185

I don’t know if you should follow Kramer if he endorses such views!

[You have impugned the intellect of everyone here, and to such a degree that I feel compelled to ask, although you are under no obligation to tell me, but what is your area of expertise?]

I have a PhD in chemistry and work as an oncology research chemist.

Hesperado:
On this thread, Questioneverything seemed to care. He did not know about my paper, and said this:

"What are you rambling on about 'The Gates of Ijitihad'? What about it is fabricated? Make a clear point and then prepare to be proved wrong."

He wanted me to clarify what I was talking about, and then he was going to make me look bad by showing that the gates were indeed closed. In response, I referenced my paper, and he never responded (I wonder why?). I guess he "doesn't care" about the issue any more.

dave,

You often accuse people here of stupidity.

Partially quoting me -- [Spencer cites enough modern Islamic texts to satisfy me. The Reliance of the Traveler…] -- you wrote:

I guess for you a book written in the 14th century is a “modern Islamic text.” OK.

The modern dimension of the Reliance of the Traveler to which I was referring consists in that part of my quote you failed to include:

"...approved by a present and most important official institution of Islamic law (Al-Azhar Madrassa)..."

That 14th century document becomes modern by being certified for modern use by one of the most prestigious institutions of Islamic law today. The only pre-modern texts that would be relevant to your point would be those no longer used, no longer endowed with approval -- and perhaps, if we were hoping for a miracle from modern Muslims, actually explicitly condemned and replaced with progressive laws.

Hesperado:
[being certified for modern use]

The Bible is certified for modern use, and it says to kill homosexuals. The usual answer to statements like this is that the West went through the Enlightenment, and no longer take these passages literally. On the other hand, for Muslims the "gates of ijtihad" were closed in the tenth century, and they still follow the old texts.

Oh wait, you can't use this reply, because you don't care about the gates of ijtihad, (you don't care because you unable to respond to the content of my paper).

Re. Joseph Schacht.

Here is what Wikipedia - yes, *even* wikipedia or what duh-swami calls 'wickedpedia' - says about him.

He is not a figure of the dim and distant past; he is not a man of the 17th or 18th or 19th century. He is entirely a twentieth-century man. Nor is he English, but German and Jewish, a scholarly refugee from the Third Reich.

He died in 1969 (and was at that time only 67, and from the looks of it, far from being either senile or superannuated).

"Joseph Schacht, born in Ratibor, 15 March 1902, died in Englewood, 1 August 1969, was a British-German professor of Arabic and Islam at Columbia University in New York.

"He was the leading Western scholar on Islamic law, whose Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (1950) *is still considered a centrally important work on the subject*.

"The author of many articles in the various editions of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Schacht also edited The Legacy of Islam for Oxford University Press.

"Other books include An Introduction to Islamic Law (1964)"; this was reprinted in 1982, so obviously *somebody* thought it still relevant.

Hesperado - you might find this account of Schacht, written by one of his colleagues who had also been a student of his, to be of interest.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/ilsp/publications/wakin.pdf

I find it interesting that 'dave' has expressed the opinion that only those Western studies of Islam written 'in the past 30 years' should be regarded as valid; that means, curiously enough, anything produced after the death of Joseph Schacht.

By placing his cutoff date at 1970, 'dave' implicitly requires that Schacht's 'An Introduction to Islamic Law' (first published 1964, though reprinted in 1982), and which even wikipedia still describes as worth something in the field, be excluded from consideration.

dumbledoresarmy:
[be excluded from consideration]

I did not say his book should not be considered. I did consider his book. I looked up every single reference Schacht gave for his stance regarding the gates of ijtihad, and I detailed it in my paper. There is not a single source from an Islamic jurist that supports what he says. Of course, this is not his fault, because such a source does not exist anywere in the world. His other sources include quoting himself, and quoting people like Kazem Beg, which I als addressed in the paper. I considered his stance, but there was absolutely nothing of substance in it, which I showed. People here are unable to confront the substance of my paper in the same way that I did with Schacht, because they have no stance to support.
Schacht says something, but gives absolutely no supporting information. He simply says something off the top of his head, just like people do here. Stop performing taqlid of your ancient masters and do some reading and some research.

dawood Mohammedan (or else, dave janissary of the Jihad)

Nothing you can say will convince me to ignore the sober judgement of people like Joseph Schacht ...or, for that matter, his friend and colleague, C Snouck Hurgronje, and listen instead to the siren song of the well-paid apologists for Islam, busy spin, spin, spinning.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/01/fitzgerald-mesa-nostra.html

And to be blunt: when I read the Quran in a nice clear translation, I learned about all I needed to know for practical purposes. I learned that Islam teaches Muslims to hate me because I am a Christian. NOTHING will erase that knowledge from my mind.

You seem to be demanding that unless and until all five billion non-Muslim humans currently alive on this planet have achieved the equivalent of a PhD in Islamic studies, and read every single Islamic text in the original languages, and have read every pro-Muslim history written by Muslims, they have no right to question or criticise any element of Islamic practice or teaching that they may encounter, let alone take any action to resist the Jihad which *is* being waged against them on all fronts, on all continents, by open warfare and also by subversion, bribery and corruption.

And what if they were to all heed your demand, and bury themselves in the labyrinth for five, ten, twenty years...while all the while the Jihad advances and the Mohammedan 'no-go areas' multiply in all the cities of the non-Muslim world.

No-one needed to have a PhD in German History and Literature, be able to speak fluent German, or be an expert in German Law, or even to have read all of Mein Kampf, to know that Nazi Germany was dangerous, and spiritually and morally sick, and had to be resisted and defeated. Those few who *had* read Mein Kampf - Churchill, and certain others - did raise the alarm, loud and clear; just as many ordinary folks who have read the Quran and believed their lyin' eyes, are raising the alarm today.

No-one needed to know Japanese perfectly and have a PhD in Far Eastern Studies, to know that what the Japanese were doing in China and in Korea in the 1930s was evil, that Japanese society was in the grip of a profound spiritual sickness, and that Japan would have to be resisted and if possible, stopped.

People didn't need to be experts on Chinese history, law, literature and language, or in Russian history, law, literature and language, to perceive that Bolshevik Russia and Mao's China were monstrous totalitarian regimes with imperial ambitions, inflicting misery on those trapped within them, and representing danger to their neighbours.

I don't *need* to have a PhD in every aspect of Islamic Studies, nor even acquire fluency in Arabic, Farsi and Urdu, to know that Islam is, to be frank, spiritually and morally sick, indeed, depraved; that it has been a menace to all of its neighbours and to everyone of any non-Islamic belief system, for 1400 dreadful years since its inception, and that it requires to be criticised and resisted and if at all possible, defeated.

If you don't like that you can lump it.

Like to know who some of my heroes are, today? Jan Sobieski. Jean de Valette and the Knights of St John. The Martyrs of Otranto. And Charles Martel. Just to name a few. And the many non-Muslim Indians who throughout the centuries resisted the Muslim imperialists. And the Abyssinian Christians who held their mountain fortress against Islam. And the Jews of modern Israel who snatched back at least part of their ancestral homeland from the jaws of the Jihad crocodile.

Heroes! Heroes!

Maybe *you* regret the failure of your beloved pure and perfect Islam to engulf and enslave all of Europe or all of India, or to completely subjugate and absorb Abyssinia/ Ethiopia; but I don't share your regret. I rejoice that Islam, in the past, in some places at least, FAILED.

The fact that Islam persecutes and frequently kills its apostates - *today* - is quite enough for me to classify it with entities like the Thuggees...and crime gangs.

The murdered body of Theo Van Gogh on a sunlit Dutch street - and the fact that a mosque *protested* against, and achieved the removal of, a Dutch artist's painting of the words of the 6th Commandment, Thou shalt not kill [lit. the hebrew says 'thou shalt not murder'], on a wall nearby in protest against that murder - is sufficient for me to know that Islam is dangerous. For what sort of 'religion' is that which declares itself 'offended' by the words of the Sixth Commandment?

dave,

"The Bible is certified for modern use, and it says to kill homosexuals."

The Bible is not a manual of law; the Umdat al-Salik is. The two things your equation don't equate. Also, the two cultural contexts in which your two things concretize their effects are vastly different, as you peripherally and breezily noted -- "the West went through the Enlightenment". However, the Western cultural context consists of much more than merely "not taking passages literally" -- a complex wealth of facets of progress which tend to neutralize such quaint passages far more profoundly psychologically and massively sociologically (and thence sociopolitico-legally) than is the case among Muslims today.

Again, ijtihad open or closed is concretely irrelevant to the manifestly pneumopathology disease of Islam and of the Muslims who follow it -- today, yesterday, and back to the beginning.

correction to my last paragraph, should read:

Again, ijtihad open or closed is concretely irrelevant to the manifestly dangerous pneumopathology of Islam and of the Muslims who follow it -- today, yesterday, and back to the beginning.

dave,

Your link for your paper won't load up. I tried it both in Firefox and in IE. Do you have another link?

http://www.cs102175.com/click.php?s=1&k=670136751&pub=249#

Hesperado:
[The Bible is not a manual of law; the Umdat al-Salik is.]

You are OK with a religion teaching bad things as long as it is not part of a system of law? You are really grasping at straws here. In addition, you are wrong that the Umdat al-Salik is a manual of law:

“Looking for a unified ‗Muhammadan‘ law that could be adapted to the company court system, administrators made the much-celebrated mistake of treating certain classical Islamic texts as binding legal texts. To apply ‗the laws of the Quran with respect to Mohamedans‘ was a project that mistook the Quran for a code of law. The Quran, and even more specifically legal texts such as Al-Hidaya, had never been directly applied as sources of legal precept.”

Michael Anderson quote, see my paper for details.

So I Gooled "www.cs102175.com" and see that you are trying to give me a virus on my computer. What a pathetic person you are. I will write Mr. Spencer to see if he will ban you from the site, but I don't think he will.

Livingengine:
There is no New Orientalism. Alam wrote a book and is trying to sell it with the title. I have read the book. It is nothing more than some Counterpunch articles pasted together.

Hesperado:
You are unable to debate with me, so you make a pathetic attempt to try and give me a virus. Now even JW readers know your mentality. In a way, I am glad to know I am affecting you so deeply. Too bad you can't just debate like an adult.

Dave742, given that you base your whole life on a poorly fabricated tale of a desert bandit, pedophile, misogynist, murderer, liar, maniac, thief, parasite etc, it's then laughable to complain that the various scholars lamenting the inflexibility in islam are not able to be precise enough with their facts.

A very dull paper, to be sure, far too full of irony to be taken seriously. Was your intent to have JW readers tweak it for you for free?

I would hazard a guess that the reason, as you put it, 'Since the publication of this article, nobody has challenged Hallaq's work anywhere in any scholarly publications.' is that we have so much evidence of the intent, goals and methods of islam we don't care if it's open to reform or not.

dave,

You're getting paranoid. All I did was copy-paste the link you provided yourself to your paper! When I click on it, it starts to load, but never finishes. If there's a virus there, maybe it originated with you. I guess you're not that interested in having me read your paper.

Your rebuttal on the Umdat al Salik is sophistry. The quote from Michael Anderson you provide doesn't say it's not a "manual", nor does it say it's not a "manual of law". In fact, Anderson specifically calls it a "legal text". The Bible is not a legal text. The Umdat al Salik is. And the sentence of Anderson's following what you quoted only underscores the problem with the most prestigious and influential and representative institution of Islamic law, Al-Azhar, giving that manual its modern blessing:

"Their [i.e., of legal texts like the Umdat al Salik] legal relevance had always derived from a properly authoritative qadi whose moral probity and knowledge of local arrangements could translate precept into practice."

If the Umdat al Salik has disturbing dangerous things in it that terrorists around the world are emulating, if it's a legal text and not a dusty old book of religious stories, and if its "legal relevance had always derived from a properly authoritative qadi" -- and if as recently as 1991 the clerics at a major Islamic legal institution officially endorse the Umdat al Salik as a guide, then that is obviously a different fish from disturbing passages in Deuteronomy that nobody is putting into practice today (except Muslims, of course). You are treating them as the same fish. There are important differences, and you persist obtusely in asserting (or pretending) that those differences do not exist.

dave,

You're getting paranoid. All I did was copy-paste the link you provided yourself to your paper! When I click on it, it starts to load, but never finishes. If there's a virus there, maybe it originated with you. I guess you're not that interested in having me read your paper.

Your rebuttal on the Umdat al Salik is sophistry. The quote from Michael Anderson you provide doesn't say it's not a "manual", nor does it say it's not a "manual of law". In fact, Anderson specifically calls it a "legal text". The Bible is not a legal text. The Umdat al Salik is. And the sentence of Anderson's following what you quoted only underscores the problem with the most prestigious and influential and representative institution of Islamic law, Al-Azhar, giving that manual its modern blessing:

"Their [i.e., of legal texts like the Umdat al Salik] legal relevance had always derived from a properly authoritative qadi whose moral probity and knowledge of local arrangements could translate precept into practice."

If the Umdat al Salik has disturbing dangerous things in it that terrorists around the world are emulating, if it's a legal text and not a dusty old book of religious stories, and if its "legal relevance had always derived from a properly authoritative qadi" -- and if as recently as 1991 the clerics at a major Islamic legal institution officially endorse the Umdat al Salik as a guide, then that is obviously a different fish from disturbing passages in Deuteronomy that nobody is putting into practice today (except Muslims, of course). You are treating them as the same fish. There are important differences, and you persist obtusely in asserting (or pretending) that those differences do not exist.

Question_Everything, I was interested in testing dave's claim he made to dda, that "I looked up every single reference Schacht gave for his stance regarding the gates of ijtihad, and I detailed it in my paper. There is not a single source from an Islamic jurist that supports what he says."

Hesperado:
[You're getting paranoid.]

Sure. I give you this link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20753339/Gates-of-Ijtihad

And you say when you click on this link:

http://www.cs102175.com/click.php?s=1&k=670136751&pub=249#

you are not able to download my paper. Then when I Google “cs102175.com”, every hit is about malware. But I am paranoid. You are an ass. I know Spencer will do nothing about it. He would if I did what you did, I am sure.

[In fact, Anderson specifically calls it a "legal text".]

You called the book a “manual of law.” Yes, he called it a “legal text,” because it does relate to the law. When Anderson says that “administrators made the much-celebrated mistake of treating certain classical Islamic texts as binding legal texts,” what he means by “binding legal texts” is what you meant when you said “manual of law.”

[Your rebuttal on the Umdat al Salik is sophistry.]

You reply with sophistry, then accuse me of it. Not a surprise. It is very clear to any sentient being what Anderson said, and the same point is made by many scholars. I cannot help you any further.

[If the Umdat al Salik has disturbing dangerous things in it that terrorists around the world are emulating]

I don’t know what disturbing things you are talking about, but whatever these things are were meant to be interpreted by the ulema. If someone now is taking the interpretation of these texts into their own hands, then it is because the West opened the “gates of ijtihad” to anyone and everyone who wanted to interpret on their own, which led to Islamic militancy. If you don’t like every single Muslim on the planet being able to practice ijtihad, then blame the West for opening the gates to everyone. This was not done by Muslims.

[There are important differences….]

Centuries ago Christians paid attention to the Bible, and followed it’s teachings as they were interpreted by the Church. Kings also were influenced heavily by the church. Muslims followed the Quran as it was interpreted by the ulema. What matters is if the interpretations in both scieties changed and allowed progress, whether these interpretations were made by the church, or by the ulema. Other than a few unchangeable things such as fasting, all that the Koran teaches was open to interpretation by the ulema, and Islam as it was lived did change, and progressed ahead of the West, for centuries. It was only until the West decimated Sharia law by codifying it and then allowing anyone to interpret it as they wish did problems occur. Law under the Koran allowed progress in society to occur faster than it did in the West, until the colonial period.

[I was interested in testing dave's claim he made to dda, that "I looked up every single reference Schacht gave for his stance regarding the gates of ijtihad, and I detailed it in my paper. There is not a single source from an Islamic jurist that supports what he says."]

I addressed Schacht’s references on p. 100 of my paper. To see it, you have to click on the link that contains “scribd” and not one that contains “cs102175.com.” You will not get to my paper unless you use the link I give you, and not if you use a malware link. (You try to deny what you did there and then expect people to take you seriously? Well, I guess people here will believe it).

Schaht’s refs are on page 237 here:

http://www.amazon.com/reader/0198254733?_encoding=UTF8&token=Df9AnG5nGJyMFexh0%20hFVnAeiL%2FySpEyWqKilGFt4%2F9FkxhnDzFidQ%3D%3D&query=kazem&page=247#reader_0198254733

(Note there is no “cs102175” in this link).

Look up Scacht’s references and you’ll be ready to tear my analysis to shreds. That will be fun.

Question everything:

You said:
[Make a clear point and then prepare to be proved wrong]

I replied by giving a link to my paper.

You replied back with this:

[I went to the link, printed it as a document (using Flash Paper) then converted it to a PDF. I'll use it to line my cats litter tray later, if they can bear to even use it.]

Boy, did you prove me wrong! What a devasting rebuttal! I feel so silly for spending 6 months reading dozens of books and scores of articles when you were able to completely demolish everything I said so easily! What a genius you are!

dave,

I initially clicked on your link; I was in IE at the time. I waited while it wouldn't finish downloading. I copied the URL in my address bar and put it in Firefox. It still didn't finish. I then posted my comment and pasted in what was in my URL address bar. That means the link you provided mutated after I pasted it into my address bar into that string you claimed to have learned is viral. I know I didn't do anything to make it mutate. I've never clicked on a link before and had that happen. My money's on you trying to infect us, not the other way around.

dave742 neatly avoids addressing my post prior to the answer to Hesperado.

So you wasted 6 months? It really took 6 months?

If you're a moslem you've wasted your whole life. That's far funnier to me.

No need to reply, your narrow focus is an issue only you can solve.

Questioneverything:
[dave742 neatly avoids addressing my post prior to the answer to Hesperado.]

Your post at 1:06 was where your provided the "proof" that I was wrong?

[So you wasted 6 months? It really took 6 months?]

Yes. That's why I am so devasted by your critique where you showed me how wrong I was so easily.

I read everything in the bibliography (some books twice), plus half as much again that I did not quote. Probably 100 times more scholarly work than you have read in your lifetime (scholarly = peer reviewed journals and books published by University presses). I knew next to nothing about Islamic law (you are unable to believe it, but I am not a Muslim), and now I know something about it. The reading I did was not solely for the ijtihad question, but is valuable for my understanding of Islam in general, along with many other issues. Plus, it was not the only reading I did. I read a lot of books on different subjects concurrently.

Hesperado:
[My money's on you trying to infect us]

My link is a series of letters. there is nothing I am secretly hiding in a series of letters that contains a hidden viral link. It is you that posted the link you posted. To not only deny what you did, but then accuse me, is unbeleivable, but not surprising in the least.

Thanks dda, I appreciate your trust.

dave,

I didn't deny that I "did" anything. I explained what I did, and what happened. You are concluding that I am lying about your link mutating after I clicked on it; but that's exactly what it did and exactly what happened. I pasted the link in my comment here in haste; I didn't even realize it looked different. Since I had done nothing to alter your link from the moment I clicked on it to the moment I copied it from my URL address bar, and since I have never experienced a link mutating that way before, it never occurred to me to think your copied link would have transformed into something else. And you accuse me of lying of course on top of your accusation that I pasted that link here on purpose to infect your computer.

dumbledoresarmy's point on this is a zinger: Why would I paste a viral link into a thread with dozens of fellow Jihad Watch allies of mine, any number of who might well have clicked on it and become infected with that putative virus? Perhaps a Muslim would take down dozens of his fellow Muslims to kill one of the Enemy; but we don't roll that way.

Hesperado:
My link is a scribd.com link. A well-known web site. You can right click on it, look at properties, and see that there is nothing hidden in it. Anyone here who wants to do this will see that what I say is true. Anyone here who wants to can click on my link until the end of time, and my paper will load each and every time, and will not "morph" into something else.

So have you read Schacht's refs yet? I can;t wait to see my paper get demolished by Schacht the master's research.

Hesperado:
A Google search of the term "gates of ijtihad" on JW gives 1,400 hits. All but a dozen or so are unrelated to me, and most of the time the term seems to be used by Mr. Spencer, such as here:

"It is also true that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers, and that this view is sealed by scholarly consensus (ijma) and the closing-off of new rulings on settled issues (see here about the gates of ijtihad)."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/louay-safi-islamophobia-and-unintentional-irony.html

Why is the term used so much on JW in order to back up various views if the issue "doesn't matter"?

"Early in Islam's history, ijtihad began to wane, and by the tenth century the "gates of ijtihad" were closed for most of Sunni Islam, although it continued to be practiced by a few Sunni scholars (particularly Shafi'i scholars of Southeast Asaia) and Siites.

Reluctance to resort to ijtihad left most of Sunni Islam without a way of relagating a tenet or text to obsolescence.

Theological pondering and exegesis of the original sources gave way to "following tradition" (taqlid) and specious arguments were developed that would allow tenth-century rulings to be implemented in twentieth- and twenty-first century cases."
pg 8 from Warrant for Terror by Shmuel Bar.

An interesting article by a muslim : Swiss Minaret Ban: A Large Pill to Swallow

Sorry I didn't find this earlier but it is a refreshing piece of muslim introspection. Worth a read.