U.K.: Relatives encouraged 16-year-old Muslim to rape his 12-year-old "bride"

ONLY 3 years in prison? For God's sake, that man should never be unleashed on the streets again.

Oh well, I hope he enjoys being forced to violate his religion's "no sausage" creed while in prison....

The men will have an easy time in gaol among their mates; and the woman will get out to do "community service" at a mosque of her choice. Some justice.

The young girl will no doubt be scorned by her Muslim neighbors and could be treated harshly until the day she dies....

Tim:
[For God's sake, that man should never be unleashed on the streets again.]

You think the appropriate penalty for this offense should be life in prison. From what I gather from the article, the man got 3 years for inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. The charge is explained here;

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s10_causing_or_inciting_a_child_to_engage_in_sexual_activity/

Significant is the fact that the sexual activity never happened.

Let’s compare this sentence to other sentencing under this law.

David Robinson was found guilty of three offences of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. He was also found guilty of three offenses of actually engaging in sexual activity with a child. Robinson was 59 years old, and the girl was 12. Robinson got 4 years.
Bath Chronicle
February 28, 2008 Thursday
Pervert jailed for four years
SECTION: Pg. 7

Neil Round was convicted of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. He was also guilty of 6 counts of actually having sex with the child. He got 20 months:

http://www.dudleynews.co.uk/news/3659951.Brierley_Hill_man_jailed_for_sex_attacks/

Stephen Evans, a police community support officer, pleaded guilty to inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, and also to engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child. He convinced an 11 year old to masturbate for him on a web cam, while he did the same. He got 2 years:

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/chorley/4746462.Former_Chorley_PCSO_jailed_for_child_sex_offences/

Andrew Rowe, a child abuse detective, admitted two charges of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, causing a child to look at an image of a person engaged in sexual activity, meeting a child following sexual grooming and sexual activity with a child. He was sentenced to 3.5 years:

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2009/12/16/midland-child-abuse-detective-jailed-for-grooming-15-year-old-girl-97319-25403551/

The man in this story, when compared to the stories above, was treated quite harshly.

Dear Indigenous Europeans,

At least from the outside, it appears that your new age liberal immigration, social and judicial policies are ample fertile ground for the migrant Muslim laborers to plant the Islamic (Jihad) seeds in your beautiful homeland. I wonder if you are learning from and started sharing some these new and exciting, theology, customs, behavior, values and benefiting from these "new" Europeans.

How is it working out for you? We'd like to know.

See, even though most Americans don't realize, we have 'elected' a president who greatly admires and follows your standards of socialism and has natural affinity toward Islam as one of the greatest religion that has given so much to civilize the world. And we are excited too!
Please share with us your wonderful experiences.

Sincerely, PFL

Primitives, with their savage mores, are suddenly dropped into advanced societies and many, in those advanced societies -- deploring such terms as "advanced societies" and "primitives" and "savage mores," finding them offensive in every way -- do not know how to respond correctly to this bizarre intrusion from another world into their world, and so they respond wanly, tepidly, and inadequately, as in the exemplary case above. And, to make matters worse, they do nothing to stop the flow of those primitives, with their savage mores, and aggressive and supremacist ideologies, from arriving in still greater numbers, and settling deep within what they, those primitives, self-primitivized, by their Total Belief-System, are taught to believe is land only temporarily in the control of others, of non-Muslims, but that like all the giddy globe, by right belongs to Islam, and to them.

Dave...Those molesters you mentioned were not Mahoundians, which proves that Mahoundians don't have a corner on the child molestation market...There are kufr perverts as well...
But it would seem that Islam encourages this behavior, by it's unequal and unfair attitudes about women and children, especially female children...
These attitudes stem primarily from the Quran and Mr 33:21 as pointed out in article. A few years in prison won't do much for any of these perverts...The kufr molesters will act again,
and so will the Mahoundian molesters...The reason is that all of them think there is nothing wrong with child molestation...
You would think with Islam at least, Allah would clue them in about unacceptable perversions, but I don't see where that is happening...I guess Allah wills perversion...He certainly did for Mr 33:21...

She was also ordered to do 200 hours of community service.

Good, she can serve as a charwoman at the local mosque. Word is that the pubic hairs are balling up into dust mice there.

*** Bukhari Vol 9 Bk 86 Nbr 98 ***

Mohammed said, "A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent." "Oh Apostle! How will the virgin express her consent?" Mohammed said, "By remaining silent."

Congratulations to this English Jurist on his tacit approval of pedophilia, his insight into the sacramental importance of kiddie sex to Islam. Kudos to him for his effective silence.

*** 4:34 ***

Do they still wear powdered wigs over there? Maybe one would look sultry atop a grade school girl's noggin. 'Nuff said.

From Dave...Compared to the cases I posted, did the Muslim man in this story get a light sentence?

Yes...they all got light sentences, I would have put them away for much longer and made them live in a cage with 'Bubba'...If you want to question why the Mahoundian got a little more punishment than the kufrs, you need to ask the court that convicted them. Maybe it's because of extenuating circumstances...At any rate, British law 'is' bending for sharia...that is a fact, and that demonstrates a lack of seriousness in maintaining the established law of the land.

Poor Muslims, being treated harsher than the kufr!

Why, supporters of pedophilic rape should ALL be punished the same! How dare they try to make pedophilic rape even more of a crime today! What evil racists!

Dave...If it is a fact, then prove it.

I don't 'prove' much of anything to Mahoundians or their sympathizers...I know how to read, and I don't read exclusively JW...I also know how to think for myself, thank you...Your lowering yourself to a personal attack proves you have no point, and have become impotent...Maybe some mental Viagra would help...

Meanwhile. The girl gets LIFE...

The fact IS that she was pimped out by her close relatives. An act which is sanctioned by sharia and condoned by the quran. The fact IS that they, the sacrosanct muslims, will have NO remorse in their hearts over the matter and hell will freeze over before they even consider what they did as a crime. There is NO chance of rehabilitation for them since pedophilia is part and parcel of islame.

I completely disagree with the contention that they received tougher sentences since they were muslims. After all, they "encouraged" (more like compelled) the 16 year old boy, also a minor, to do the rape. So two parties were affected psychologically and physically.

Pedophiles, muslim or otherwise, DON'T have a conscience. It's just a terribly haunting fact that islame breeds pedophilia. Nuff said.

What is Dave742 talking about? The BBC article doesn't say that the marriage was not consummated, it clearly implies that it was.

It more tha implies:

"At Wood Green Crown Court the boy got an 18-month supervision order FOR RAPE."

Muslim or not... I'm personally all for execution where pedophiles are concerned. There is no excuse under the sun that can ever justify it. There is nothing that even comes close. These are not people who can be cured of their desires and when they are released from prison, will continue to permanently screw up more kids lives. And the kids they abuse? Often turn into abusers themselves. Its a vicious cycle that should be stopped with the offending adult.

As for Dave742 - I am also wondering where it states that no rape occurred. If no rape occurred, then it makes absolutely no sense that the 16 yr old was charged at all. If your relatives tell you to rape someone, and you don't do it, you can not be held accountable for a crime that never took place. Although, the relatives could still be charged for inciting such activity.

I don't speak to trolls. Especially when they're obviously candidates for being pedophiles themselves.

On top of that, (why are you back again anyway? I thought you left a year ago in a huff), the reason it's noteworthy is that the impression is left, as you so clumsily interpreted it, that it was just "incitement to engage a minor".

What that means, is that the egregious and disgusting crimes of:
child neglect
child endangerment
illegal marriage without consent (where's the license?)
child abuse
sexual assault
pimping (assuming a dowry or promise of dowry was exchanged)
conspiracy
lying to an officer of the law

were all completely ignored. I'm sure there are more. Just "inciting". As if a guy just took his ugly 16-year old to a hooker so he could get his jollies in some twisted parental version of sexual compassion.

You can't be for real. The point of this post is that the dhimmis put Muslim behavior on a different playing field, excusing the "cultural issues" of arranged marriage, forced marriage, prostitution, conspiracy (why should they have to cooperate with 'the man'?), etc. and give them just an incitement charge.

Yes, you're right, the punishment is commensurate. The charge is not. They held this girl against her will and had her raped. Her own father. Life.in.prison.

Get it now?

Hey Dave, what do you think about the brothers who auctioned off their young sister in Pakistan? Mr. Spencer posted the article on 12/21 but I didn't see any comments from you. I'm sure if you search long and hard enough, you'll find some similar incidents involving evil Western/American perverts. Don't you find it revulsive that such practices are sanctioned by islamic law and are apparently legal in the paradise of Pakistan?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but you seem to be ignoring the essence of this article: child marriage and female subjugation are core tenets of islam and are antithetical to British law and Western cultural mores. Sure, there are pedophiles everywhere but in the evil West, pedophilia is illegal, as are forced marriages and kidnapping. In islam, they are encouraged, practiced, and legal. Is there anything you admire or like about Western Civilization or is it just your own heritage that you despise?

Dave...

I said...At any rate, British law 'is' bending for sharia...that is a fact...You said prove it...I proved it...

You said...OK. The UK has an arbitration procedure for civil matters id both parties agree to it. So what. It does not apply here. This is a criminal matter.

I guess you are admitting that you were wrong and I was right...Now you want to switch the subject to:

'It does not apply here. This is a criminal matter'.

Where is 'here'?...Clear as mud Dave, like the rest of your arguments...

And my usual point in matters like this is:

In the US there are 21,000 rapes per year of children under 13.

(See my post on September 29, 2009 at 9:24 PM here for reference: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/her-duty-is-helping-muslim-women-who-have-been-abused----and-spreading-soothing-myths-about-islam.html )

It is hilarious that a country that rapes 21,000 pre-teens per year has the gaul to judge other cultures.

Dave, the bottom line is, American (and Western) law punishes the rapist. And we use rape kits and DNA tests to support the womam's testimony.

Under Islamic law, if the woman doesn't have four male witnesses to the rape, SHE is punished (usually killed) for being an "adultress".

Enough said.

Dave...The UK is not "bending" the criminal code to conform to Sharia law.

You are lying Dave...I didn't say that the UK was bending 'criminal codes for Sharia', I said "At any rate, British law 'is' bending for sharia" and it is, and I proved it is...You are being intellectually dishonest (what's new about that), and lost your potency numerous posts back...You have destroyed your own credibility which was not much to begin with...

dave742 is a Mohammedan (pretending to be an Infidel who is dazzled by the beauty and purity of wonderful, wonderful Islam) busy defending the indefensible by the tried-and-true tactic of taqiyya and tu quoque.

Perhaps 'dave' would like to write a nice letter to the twelve-year-old girl who was raped by her cousin with the approval of most of her kin, and tell her how she is so lucky, lucky, lucky to have been born within wonderful, beautiful, civilised Islam, and that she should have been happy to be married to her nice Muslim cousin. Perhaps he would like to tell the mother all about how English law is inferior to beautiful, perfect, wonderful sharia, and that she is insane and wicked for having complained to kafir police and a kafir judge and for having appealed to primitive, inferior English law.

Perhaps he would like to write a letter to the wicked kafir judges and tell them that all the Muslims concerned with this case should be let off scot-free, congratulated for maintaining their superior culture and Law, and allowed to practise their beautiful sharia-sanctioned practices in perfect peace, undisturbed; oh, and the twelve-year-old should be given back to her 'husband', no questions asked.

*puke*

Bottom line is we cannot use statistics about crime from Muslim societies; statistics from Muslim societies are worthless, because:

1) they are still decades behind the West in statistics gathering

2) they are still decades behind the West in criminal forensics

3) they are still decades behind the West in terms of counseling and shelter services for victims

4) with regard to crimes against women and children, the perpetrators and various friends and family of the perpetrators are free to continue to abuse, threaten, terrorize, ostracize, torture and murder women and children as well as any family members or friends who might try to press forward in investigating the culprits

5) government authorities, police, news reporters, and even family members of the victims are often as deformed by Islamic values as the perpetrators, and therefore the social networks that should be in place to protect the victims more often than not serve the perpetrators and augment the trauma and fear of the victims -- through a combination of aiding and abetting not only cover-ups of the crimes, but also the ostracization and threats upon the lives of the victims, as well as light sentences or simply ignoring any violence and even murder the perpetrators may inflict on victims who dare to try to seek justice

6) and last but not least, and underpinning #1-5 above, the Islamic tapestry of their societies is thickly woven with the threads of profound and morbid misogyny and centuries-old traditions of pedophilia that have as their sacred font the child marriage of that most perfect model of all time, Mohammed.

With factors 1-6 prevalent in Muslim societies, it is safe to say that upwards of over 90% of all females and children throughout Muslim societies are abused, sexually, physically, and emotionally, and that out of that number only a paltry few ever dare to pursue their own justice (or, rather, have Western human rights organizations take up their cause) all the way to anything faintly resembling success.

And Dave, to add to Hesperado's post above, considering all that, why wouldn't rape or other sexual molestation be under-reported in Islamic counries? If the woman knows she can't get support, will be judged as to her morality, and may wind up dead for saying something, of course they'd keep their mouths shut.

Amd in the West, particularly Canada, I believe, we have a form of "over-reporting" - vengeful bitches who will accuse a man of rape, and even have him arrested, because they're mad at him for OTHER reasons and think that this is a "good way" of "getting back at him". Also, Canada allows "historical" molestation cases to go forward - "Oh, that man diddled me 20 (or 30, or more) years ago, when I was a child." It becomes a mess of a he said-she said, and more often than not, if the man has no real leg to stand on, the man will simply fold, whether he did it or not; much of this kind of stuff goes unreported, and no one usually looks into the possible motive of the "victim" for doing this.

As much as I absolutely hate his guts, my own ex may have been a victim of this sort of thing. I hate him for the things he did to me (psychological and physical abuse)m but I have to say, I never saw any indication of attraction towards underage girls. However, he sits now in prison because the daughter of a girlfriend he had several years before I met him came out of the blue and accused him of molester her 15 years before, when she was 12. Once this came down, his only intention was pleading guilty to get the whole thing over with (as far as I know, he's still in prison. I took the opportunity to ditch him and run away into hiding.) However, I cannot, in all honesty, say I believe he is guilty of what he is in jail for, not only because of observed behaviour, but because this girl, and her mother, are related to, and otherwise connected to, certain members of his step-family, with whom he has been feuding bitterly since childhood. Needless to say, I don't really care, as I have my own serious beef with him. My revenge, however, needed nothing to do with the law to exact .. and I will say that he is, in fact, certifiably psychotic.

And BTW, the above mentioned person, while describing himself as a "born-again Christian", would actually be more comfortable as as Muslim - and probably would be, if he didn't hate anyone neither white nor native, anyone with any kind of foreign accent, and "immigrants" in general (no matter their colour.)

I hope the girl and her mother get a clue, and apostasise.

I second the postings by Hesperado and Spirit Wolf.

dave, of course, does not admit the validity of *any* non-Muslim's testimony concerning things they have seen or experienced in Muslim countries.

However, I believe that it does count for something; because in the end, 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. One may encounter one bad apple out of a bunch of good apples; but at what point does a continual parade of bad apples from a particular tree, encountered over and over by oneself and others, create a reasonable suspicion that the whole tree may be rotten to the core?

Here are just two stories featuring the experience of Infidel doctors inside dar al Islam's House of Horrors. There are others. And there are, too, books that have been written, by anthropologists and by apostates, that tell similar tales. I can find those, and give names, given a little time (it's Christmas Eve here and I have to pack up and go do some house cleaning, pretty soon, so I won't go chasing the names and book titles, just yet).

First, a story from the Sudan, some decades ago, as related here in 2006 by an Australian who personally knew the Infidel doctor at the centre of the story:

'In my friendship group at university was a big bear of a man. He was a country lad and he studied medicine. He was an average student but quick of smile, warm of heart, compassionate, caring and although totally non-evangelical, a dedicated christian.

'But unlike many others he put his beliefs into practice and he was an excellent doctor.

'After he graduated he did the formal year in hospital and he then joined a missionary medical group in Africa to bring medical care to the darkest of dark Africa - the Sudan near its border with Eritrea.

'One night he was woken by a nurse: there was a Muslim female with a breech delivery, which had "gone wrong". She was in a village miles away and he could have no escort but the midwife at that time of night and it was dangerous country.

'There was no bin laden then but there was always the simmering resentment from the muslims and especially their imams.

'As luck would have it this was one of the wives of the village witch doctor or imam (yes i do know that they are different but it fits) and it was the long awaited boy, as he already had a number of girls.

'Unfortunately the child was also already dead and his head could NOT be freed without either killing the mother or decapitating the child (I do not know all of the details so no lectures on obstetrics please).

'The father refused to allow the boy-child to have his head removed or crushed and became quite threatening and as it was her fault anyway he was quite happy just to let her die as she had killed his son.

'My friend threw him out and realised that she was only 12 or 13 was sinking fast so he did not hesitate and he freed the child.

'He had 50+ stab wounds in his body when they recovered it. He also had been decapitated and the young mother had her throat slit. {one must presume that other members of the team deduced the sequence of events, by the evidence of the bodies, or by someone else who had witnessed it, perhaps the midwife, whispering in their ears - dda}

'It was called an "incident with a psychotic tribesman at the time" but his parent later found out that the whole medical team had to leave the area under dire threats as someone had dared to examine a woman with a breast abscess without the presence of her husband (100 miles away).
 The murderer was never even charged.

*They {the medics - dda} never had any problems with the animists or the christian tribes-people, only the Muslims* {my emphasis - dda}.
These people do NOT deserve one drop of western blood and we should let them rot.

- Posted by: Zathras at July 2, 2006 7:22 AM

And from Afghanistan, another Islamic country, hundreds and hundreds of miles from Sudan, the testimony of an American army medic:

'While in Afghanistan, we ran a clinic for people in the village.

'You wouldn't believe the number of abused women that were brought there.

'Young girls around six to 14. They were burned with scalding water, beat, had all kinds of damage to their reproductive organs.

'Some women within an inch of their life.

'I am sure a lot are killed and there is no reprocussions [sic: repercussions] for the husbands.

'They were often brought by their husbands, who were about 20 to 30 years their senior.
'They freak out when their young brides don't get pregnent or for any reason under the sun.

'I think most these girls by nature just try to be kids, which they are, and their adult husbands can't take it.

'A women thats older than 14 and not married is an old maid.

'Any westren woman that would convert to Islam, should live in Afghanistan."

Posted by: American_soldier at February 10, 2007 9:56 AM

You will find those who will go through all sorts of contortions to justify such behavior. They will scour the earth for unrelated and rare examples of things that they try to put up as a distraction without really addressing the underlying problem. How does an ancient Aztec's cannibalism justify a similar practice in say Borneo? Stating that there are other child molesters and rapists in the world does not make the crime any less horrid or absolve the guilt of the present party under consideration. Also, this whole endeavor was done under the guise of a marriage practice that was plainly illegal in the United Kingdom. There are always those who will prostitute themselves for an ideology or person, as in the cases of Stalin and Mao. However, it is not an edifying experience. It is like one of Charles Manson's family members signing his praises ad nauseam, which is a spectacle instead of an example.

I call for a revolution. Worry01, Dumbledoresarmy, Hesperado, Questioneverything, and Duh Swami can share power in the New World Order. Let's straighten this world out.

Hesperado:
I forgot to ask. How is it going with Schaht's references? Are you working on your rebuttal?

dave, your link caused problems with my computer and I was never able to look at your article.

This is the kind of grotesquely ultra-violent, fanatically disordered, systemically corrupt, pathologically mendacious society upon which "dave742" would depend for reliable statistics on crimes against women by which to glibly compare them with the statistics of vastly superior (but needless to say imperfect) societies in the West. Indeed, a key part of that superiority is the West's progress in self-critical transparency by which airing our own dirty laundry has become a science involving the news media, all branches of the law, and politics; and in addition self-critical transparency has in the West become a thriving cultural industry, thoroughly explored in all the arts as well as academe. This virtue of self-critical transparency is not imposed from without, but has grown organically with the West's progress, and is thus not only an institutional phenomenon, but partakes of the general sociological and psychological atmospherics.

And last but not least, this virtue of self-critical transparency has progressed so broadly and deeply throughout Western societies, it has been taken to excess -- oftentimes a morbid excess by many Westerners, most often seen in Leftists and in a more diluted form in PC MCs, an excess that resembles autophagy, hypocritically and incoherently parasitical in its relatively milder forms, pathologically self-destructive in its more virulent forms.

And speaking of this morbid excess of the good virtue of self-critical transparency, "dave742" -- that is, if he is as he claims a non-Muslim Westerner -- perversely uses this amazing, historically unprecedented degree of self-critical transparency of the West against the West, by exercising the gall to compare the West not only on an equal footing with Muslim societies, but even unfavorably with them! -- societies whose degree of sociopolitico-cultural self-criticism and transparency is rather on the level of totalitarian societies like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or Red China, if not even far worse because the pathology of fanaticism among the general populace in Muslim societies is more endemic, whereas it is reasonable to assume that probably a majority of ordinary people in the classical totalitarian societies (Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or Red China) were unwilling and coerced participants, and not as brainwashed as are Muslims to voluntarily and fervently impose the totalitarianism of Islam upon themselves as much as to try to impose it upon others -- a totalitarianism that in its pathologically obsessive pursuit of "purity" pursues its own type of autophagy on its own fellow members of its own Body that is a mirror image of the Western autophagy, where the latter is a perverse outgrowth of a good virtue, rather than, as in Islam, a grotesque pneumopathology from the roots to the fruits.

Note: the first sentence of my first paragraph referred to other specific stories about specific instances of Islamic pathology -- one from Pakistan another from Egypt -- reported in other JW articles above, to which I posted roughly the same comment -- stories, incidentally, that over the years have amounted to a veritable mountain of damning evidence about Muslim societies from the Philippines to Morocco, let alone among Muslims in their self-imposed ghetto-millets in the West.

I just took a look at dave742's paper on Ijtihad. He has made the claim that he has refuted all of Schacht's references with regard to Ijtihad; and yet dave742's paper, scrupulously footnoted on every page with regard to a multitude of other authors, is strangely absent any footnotes to Schacht other than a couple near the beginning that are purely neutral. I haven't yet read the body of the paper, but I notice here and there claims about Schacht, but no references to page numbers or names of works by Schacht. Furthermore, dave742's bibliography lists only one work by Schacht. Very odd behavior for one who touts himself as comporting to scholarly methodology.

Ladies and gentlemen

I observe, in the Mohammedtroll 'dave742's reply to Hesperado, above, that he dismisses the formidably multilingual Joseph Schacht as "a hack, and not a scholar".

I think I would like to hear Mr Fitzgerald's judgment on that.

Oh and I wonder what 'dave' thinks of Antoine Fattal, 'Le Statut Legal du non-Musulmanes dans pays d'Islam'? Fattal, after all, was born and brought up in the midst of dar al Islam. Though of course Fattal was a non-Muslim from the dhimmi Christian community.

Anyway.

On topic.

In another thread, one of our number, who has been working his way through Wafa Sultan's 'A God Who Hates', cited this passage from that book, which rather makes nonsense, I think, of dave's claims about the Muslim world's putative moral superiority to 'the west'.

Here's the posting:

Cornelius | December 23, 2009 7:16 PM

'OT, but I thought I'd convey this horrific passage from Wafa Sultan's 'A God Who Hates', as she recounted her experiences as a doctor in [overwhelmingly-Muslim] Syria:

"Although sexual assault was widespread in the area, it was well protected from the view of others.

"By showing my sympathy for the women, I was able to win their confidence, and they told me secrets of a kind they usually took to the grave.

"Many had been raped *and most of these rape victims had fallen prey to male members of their own family, usually their own fathers* {my emphasis - dda}.

"Unmarried women who became pregnant as a result of these rapes were murdered as soon as their condition was discovered to wash away the disgrace and keep the scandal hidden.
{and here's the kicker - dda}

"Often, the murderer was the rapist himself."

I will add that right here, a poster from Canada told us of a Canadian girl from a Pakistani Muslim family who was locked up in a garage by her father and repeatedly sodomised; and something similar was done to 'Hannah Shah', in the UK, by *her* father, who happened to be imam of the local mosque; the reason? - to 'punish her', for insubordination, after she had tried to stop him beating her mother. Hannah's age, when the rapes began? - *six*. They continued (combined with vicious beatings) till she finally managed to flee the family when a teenager.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/20277

For further information 'from the horse's mouth' on the sadomasochistic polymorphous perversity that seems to saturate the Islamic world, see another witness from within it:

Abdelwahab Bouhdiba, Sexuality in Islam, Saqi Books, 1998. If you read French, it’s been available since 1975 in the original.

Then there is the testimony of 'Miriam Ali', an Englishwoman who foolishly married a Yemeni Arab Muslim in the UK and bore him two daughters - who were whizzed off by him to Yemen when they were in their early teens, and sold as brides to adult Muslim men.

This is the world that Miriam encountered when she went to Yemen to try to rescue her daughters (she did succeed in rescuing one):

page 300:
" I discovered that I wasn't the only one to have suffered at the hands of a Shamiri.

"I now knew at least 5 other mothers who have had their children taken to Yemen.

"This had accounted for at least 10 other children, the majority of them female.

"I knew that there were many more like them.

"Zana [her daughter] had met so many girls taken from the Midlands (England), taken by force who were now in Yemen.

"One was a petite blonde from Derby.

"*She was 9 years old when she was taken and had already three miscarriages when she became pregnant a fourth time. This time the child had been stillborn. The death of this little baby had taken the child-mother's sanity. She was 12 years old* {my emphasis - dda}.

"Another, also 12 years old, often chatted to Zana, telling her she could still count to 10 in English. She told Zana how desperate she was to go home to England. As they talked together, she suckled a child at her breast."

(from 'Without Mercy', 1995, p. 300).

Perhaps 'dave' can tell us how pleasing it is to contemplate a barely-pubescent little girl who has already been wedded (to someone not of her own choosing, even), screwed, impregnated, and has given birth - by age twelve.

Even in Yemen, many of these little girls, wedded and bedded at 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12, die either during pregnancy or during or just after childbirth, simply because, biologically speaking, their bodies are too immature to cope. And they are called "the brides of death".

Hesperado:
[yet dave742's paper…is strangely absent any footnotes to Schacht other than a couple near the beginning that are purely neutral.]

The quote the you mention that is in the introduction is everything that Schacht wrote about the “gates of ijtihad.” The reason I did not quote anything more is that there is nothing more to quote. Once again, if you were to ever read anything on this subject written by Orientalists, you would discover that they all say the same thing. They make a sweeping, general statement about the gate being closed, and that’s about it. There are no descriptions about why this event happened, who was responsible, and there are no references whatsoever to primary Islamic materials (and that is because they do not exist). If you think I left out something of Schacht’s work regarding this subject, tell me what it is.

[I haven't yet read the body of the paper]

I absolutely love it when people criticize people’s work without having read it. The mark of a true scholar.

[I notice here and there claims about Schacht, but no references to page numbers or names of works by Schacht]

As I said, I did reference what Schacht wrote about the subject. The page numbers are included. Tell me what I left out.

[Furthermore, dave742's bibliography lists only one work by Schacht]

And this is the work that Schacht talks about the subject, other than his entry for “Ijtihad” in the Encyclopedia of Islam, and the Shorer Encyclopedia of Islam, which I did discuss as well.

[Very odd behavior for one who touts himself as comporting to scholarly methodology.]

There is absolutely nothing unscholarly about my treatment of Schacht. I addressed what he said about the subject, and I addressed his references. You consider Mr. Spencer a scholar, and he has not addressed a single word about my paper. I challenge him to a debate on the subject. Will he address it? If he does, will he call it a “tu quoque” argument or an “ad hominem” attack and ignore the content? (this seems to be a trend). Once again, tell me what I left out. SHOW ME.

I address Schacht’s references starting on page 99. His references can be found here:

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

The gates of ijtihad refs are from Chapter 10, Section 2. As I said in the paper, Schacht does not use footnotes like normal scholars do. Real scholars make a statement, and then put a footnote at the end of the sentence that supports that sentence. Schacht writes an entire section of a chapter, and then puts a few footnotes for that entire section at the end of the book, so it is difficult to find what specifically he thinks is supporting what statement. Orientalist schaloarship. I have read his refs, and addressed them. Why don’t you go read them, and then rip apart my paper with all that you learn from them.

People be aware Of Dave742's doublespeak, false claims and fictitious facts.

Middle East has a deep ingrain culture of abusing, punishing and even murdering women from numerous poor nations who visit these countries to earn a living by working as domestic workers, nurses aids, general laborers. These women and men work hard for long hours and virtually have no rights or status to complain. Most are beaten up, underpaid and raped at one time or another. These "statistics" are never recorded or reported nor does the officials care about this issue. Though, things have gotten a slight bit better, it is a leap from being close to a civilized society. The numbers Dave742 is stating are "official" massaged figures vastly under reported arab on arab crime, not arab on kafir crime. Big difference.
Do your own research, look up UN and US State Dept. human rights and CIA reports.
Nice try "Dave"!

PorkFriedLies,

"The numbers Dave742 is stating are "official" massaged figures vastly under reported arab on arab crime, not arab on kafir crime. Big difference."

I agree.

"Do your own research, look up UN and US State Dept. human rights and CIA reports."

Unfortunately, oftentimes these Western statistic-gathering institutions cannot sufficiently penetrate the welter of corruption that forms a miasma in Muslim societies. On occasion, they can to some extent, as when an official agency of the Afghanistan government (headed by an Afghani woman, by the way), assisted by the West not only in fighting the evil monsters attacking it (Taliban) but also in restructuring and refurbishing its sociopolitical system, reported that upwards of 90% of Afghanistan women are abused by men in one way or another (and all too often in grotesquely ultra-violent ways). Of course, when dave742 got wind of this, he had to summarily dismiss this evidence and accuse its source of "corruption" because the West has been helping the Afghanis who helped investigate and prepare that report on abuse of women.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/un-nearly-90-percent-of-afghan-women-suffer-from-domestic-abuse.html

Hesperado:
[summarily dismiss this evidence]

Of course. How can you believe a stat that has no source whatsoever? You really can't be that gullible, can you? I made a link for this one:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24524447/UNIFEM-Afghanistan-Stat

So how is your reading coming on Schacht's reference's?

While I still haven't read dave742's paper on Ijtihad in full, two randomly noted passages demonstrate a remarkably perverse interpretation of data on the part of dave742; and if I stumbled across these randomly, and in addition, they were stumbled across as the first two passages I read (and not as two out of several others that demonstrated sound interpretation of data), then this bodes ill for the overall argument -- or, rather, pseudo-argument -- of the paper.

Even if dave742's paper is not, as he himself admits in his Introduction, itself a scholarly article based on his own reading of the primary sources, nevertheless, as a secondary exposition of other scholarly articles, he is responsible not only for collecting data and then piling that data on top of a table for his readers to see: he is also responsible for how he arranges that data within the context of an argument by which he interpets that data to support the premises and conclusions of his attempted argument.

It is therefore -- and it must be added as a caveat lector, provisionally -- discouraging (but not at all surprising) that two important pieces of data are interpreted by dave742 in such an ostensibly and blatantly ass-backward manner. Those two are a passage from al-Ghazali and a passage from Bajuri (the former a secondary source, quoting a modern Muslim historian, Hallaq, on Ghazali; the latter a primary source, quoting Bajuri himself).

In the case of the first, Hallaq on al-Ghazali, dave742 gleans from it the precise opposite of what it says, and the reader is not sure if he is trying to cover this up through a sleight-of-hand of sophistry or whether he is just that dense. In the second case, of Bajuri, dave742 opts (perhaps because the text itself is so clear even dave742 cannot sink to such a nadir of density as to miss its point, or perhaps because again the text itself is so clear that dave742 chose not to sink to such a level of contempt for his reader's intelligence as to try to spin that text into its opposite through transparent sophistry) to accept the datum and its unambiguous purport prima facie, and then to attempt an end-run around that purport with a fanciful interpretation for which he offers not a shred of evidence.

The al-Ghazali passage by Hallaq comes in on pages 102-103 in dave742's paper:

There was no doubt in Ghazali's mind that ijtihad is attainable through diligent study, intellectual exercise, and immersion in scholarly disputations (munazarat). He admitted the extinction of independent mujtahids who were able to establish their own school of law, but he certainly did not imply the same for those jurists who could lead the community and revive the Shari'a when this need arose. Therefore, it is entirely inaccurate to say, as some later jurists did, that Ghazali thought all mujtahids to be extinct; such a claim not only has no basis in Ghazali's writings but also sharply contradicts the several statements he made throughout his books. To Ghazali, only two kinds of mujtahids were known, the independent (mutlaq) and the limited (muqayyad). The latter's activity remains within the limits of his school. Because Ghazali admitted the fact that the eponyms of the schools are defunct and irreplaceable, and because the task of tajdid (renovation) requires a jurist of high caliber who does not practice taqlid, it can be safely said that Ghazali recognized the existence of mujtahids fi al-madhhab, especially that he himself was a mujtahid in the Shafi‘i school.

Now, to get a handle on how dave742 is misapprehending this datum (which itself is really an interpretation by Hallaq of the datum of the primary source, al-Ghazali), it is important to note that for dave742, the term mujtahid indicates ostensibly and simplistically a practitioner of ijtihad. It doesn't seem to occur to dave742 that just because someone is denoted a mujtahid, then that means they comport sufficiently to a certain definition of what a mujtahid is supposed to be -- just as, for example, just because someone is called a "scholar", it doesn't mean they necessarily comport to the standards of a "scholar" set by anyone and everyone, let alone by the community of scholars in accredited institutions of Academe who have determined one specific set of criteria by which to define a "scholar" as such.

Secondly, and closely related to the above, it doesn't seem to have occurred to dave742 that a given community which determines such definitions of terms may not have a simplistic definition but may have developed a more complex one, by which ostensibly one can be called X but in fact there are different types of X, and some of those types do not comport with the simplistic definition. Some communities develop these types of nuances and flexibility of definition in good faith, sincerely articulating distinctions that are useful and not meant to deceive. Other communities may not be so sincere and seem to develop such nuances and flexibility in a spirit of sophistry by which, to put it colloquially, what "one hand giveth, the other hand can taketh away". (In a broader context, this seems to characterize the fount of Islamic law in the sense of a curious leitmotif one finds prevalent in both the Koran and the Hadiths -- the leitmotif of a command begun with an apodictically absolute prohibition, and then finished with one or more "exceptions" slipped in at the end.)

So, dave742 has a simplistic definition of a mujtahid as a practitioner of ijtihad, and this of course depends on dave742's simplistic definition of ijtihad as always denoting the free and breezy and open-minded and enlightened and progressive legal interpretations by Islamic jurists of the divine commands in the Koran in conjunction with the commands of Mohammed as transmitted principally through the Hadiths.

The quote above about al-Ghazali from the modern Muslim scholar Hallaq, whom dave742 admires as a real "scholar", however, would complicate dave742's simplistic definition, such that a rose is not always a rose, depending on who is defining the "rose" in question, and how they are defining it. Just because a "rose" is called a "rose", does not guarantee that it is, in fact, a rose -- nor that it, in fact, comports with any given particular definition of a "rose". And here we have a Muslim-on-Muslim (Hallaq-on-al-Ghazali) exposition on at least two types of ijtihad -- one of which would serve to undermine dave742's whole thesis -- and dave742 remains apparently oblivious, and instead persists with his little paradigm in his head about only one simplistic ijtihad, and furthermore insists that the exposition serves to substantiate his thesis!

dave742 had cited that exposition on al-Ghazali by Hallaq in order to counter an "Orientalist" named Eduard Sachau, who according to dave742 made the claims that:

. . . [al-Ghazali] implies that there is no longer a mujtahid after the four Imams (Abu Hanifa, Mälik, Schafi'i, 'Ahmad Ibn-Hanbal). According to this theory the individual jurist has nothing other to do than ‗follow the master‘ (of Abu Hanifa, or Malik, etc.), meaning he must know the principles of his master, just as his master needed to know the origins of the Law.

The judge therefore has the choice, he may act as mujtahid if he complies with all conditions set out in this chapter, or he may limit himself to representing the principles of one of the four masters mentioned. In the latter case he cannot decide according to a different doctrine other than that of his master.

Now, we notice an apparent contradiction in Sachau's quote, which can be illuminated with two snippets from it:

1) . . . [al-Ghazali] implies that there is no longer a mujtahid after the four Imams. . .

2) The judge . . . may act as mujtahid if he complies with all conditions set out in this chapter, or he may limit himself to representing the principles of one of the four masters mentioned.

There are different ways to resolve this apparent contradiction:

a) Sachau was an imbecile;

b) in this particular instance Sachau was an imbecile;

c) ignore either #1 or #2, and voila -- no contradiction!

d) assume that Sachau was an intelligent scholar and that he measured his words carefully, and supply the elementary knowledge about terms and their definitions which I articulated above -- to reach the conclusion that what Sachau is talking about here is not a simplex unitary mujtahid but a concept about which there developed nuances. In this case, there were the classical mujtahideen who developed Islamic legal methodology up to the point of the Four Schools; and then there were Islamic jurists after that point whom one may call "mujtahideen" because they resembled them, but whose methodology was so constricted by their self-imposed and Islam-imposed limitations on going too far astray from the Four Schools, they were, practically speaking, not really mujtahideen in the classical sense. Thus, Sachau does not assert that al-Ghazali proclaimed that no mujtahideen existed after the Four Schools; Sachau says that al-Ghazali implies that there is no longer a mujtahid after the four Imams. . .. And the mujtahid that no longer exists is the classical mujtahid, not the later version of it.

Now, does Hallaq's exposition on al-Ghazali contradict my argument, or does it rather substantiate it? Let us see, by taking Hallaq's exposition point by point:

1) There was no doubt in Ghazali's mind that ijtihad is attainable through diligent study, intellectual exercise, and immersion in scholarly disputations (munazarat).

Yes, and these intellectual habits and practices of "diligent study, intellectual exercise, and immersion in scholarly disputations" would not necessarily undermine, nor be unencouraged in a climate characterized by the "Gates of Ijtihad" being closed. One may continue to "diligently study", perform various "intellectual exercises" by rote, and "immerse" oneself in "scholarly disputations" that don't go too far afield of the party line -- and still be a good jurist who stays within the boundaries of any one or more of the Four Schools.

[Ghazali] admitted the extinction of independent mujtahids who were able to establish their own school of law. . .

Wow. dave742's favorite Muslim scholar, Hallaq, just stated that Ghazali "admitted the extinction of independent mujtahids who were able to establish their own school of law. . ."! This by itself demands that Sachau's locutions be accorded the generousity of flexibility and nuance; for Hallaq is -- through Ghazali -- dividing the concept of mujtahid into types: "independent" and... as Hallaq goes on to say, "limited (muqayyad)".

So there we have it: there are in fact at least two types of mujtahid -- the "independent" and the "limited". The limited mujtahids come after the establishment of the Four Schools. And what exactly limited the "limited" mujtahids? Why, the methodology of the Four Schools! Mujtahids after the establishment of the Four Schools, then, according to Ghazali, were, as Hallaq wrote, mujtahids fi al-madhhab -- that is to say, mujtahids in the path of the Madhab -- the Four Founders of the Four Schools.

And so, what the "closing of the gates of Ijtihad" means in this context is that prior to that "closing" there was sufficient exploration and tajdid (renovation) to lead to the culmination of Four Schools, but after that point, there was only ijtihad in the sense of mujtahids fi al-madhhab -- an ijtihad fi al-madhhab.

For dave742's simplistic mind, if he sees the word ijtihad or mujtahid and reads that the things those words denote existed after the time of the Four Schools, he concludes that his simplistic ijtihad or mujtahid must have existed too. It never seems to occur to him that more or less subtly different things can be meant by the same term, and that these differences can be significant enough to undermine the assumption of an uneventful continuity from one meaning to the next, from one era to the next, based on a neglect of those differences. And dave742 persists in this obtusely even when his own sources explicitly indicate otherwise.

We resolve Sachau's apparent contradiction, then, not as dave742 does, by opting for (c) (i.e., ignore either #1 or #2, and voila -- no contradiction!), but rather by opting for (d):

Namely, that what Sachau is talking about is not a simplex unitary mujtahid but a concept about which there developed nuances. In this case, there were the classical mujtahideen who developed Islamic legal methodology up to the point of the Four Schools; and then there were Islamic jurists after that point whom one may call "mujtahideen" because they resembled them, but whose methodology was so constricted by their self-imposed and Islam-imposed limitations on going too far astray from the Four Schools, they were, practically speaking, not really mujtahideen in the classical sense.

And Hallaq's al-Ghazali supports this argument.

When Hallaq goes on to insist that al-Ghazali ". . . certainly did not imply the same for those jurists who could lead the community and revive the Shari'a when this need arose", this may or may not actually mean that those "jurists" were really practicing a sufficiently free and breezy and open-minded and enlightened and progressive methodology of legal interpretation that would persuade us that they were not constricted by the general penchant in Islam for Doubly Totalitarian mindset of imposing totalitarian regulations on society and imposing totalitarian habits of mind on oneself. Hallaq's blandly generic virtues he would accord those post-Four-School "jurists" -- "leading the community" and "reviving the Shari'a when this need arose" -- can easily be done by mujtahids fi al-madhhab who, as legal jurists in Islamic society who set the template for regulating society according to the dictates of Allah and Mohammed, continue to operate within the Four Walls of the Four Schools within the Doubly Totalitarian context of Islamic society -- since those virtues are so blandly generic they could mean just about anything to anyone who wanted them to mean just about anything. Indeed, any virtue can be twisted to mean its opposite -- as when, for example, the constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed "freedom" to the people, but did not specify or spell out the freedoms that would be guaranteed, and also slipped in the subtext of limitations on freedom by way of the need to insure that anything that would undermine the State could not be guaranteed as a "freedom"; etc. The proof is in the pudding, not in what Muslim historians and Muslim clerics claim was the case. And the pudding of Islam, from what we see in history and in the news today, is a disastrously toxic conglomeration.

In a nutshell, if we insist that all instances in Islamic history of the denotation of mujtahideen must comport with the simplistic unitary definition of mujtahid (the classical sense), then voila! -- the Gates of Ijtihad never closed, because, why, by gum, we can see mujtahideen all over the place after the date of the Four Schools!

If, however, we recognize that there were at least two types of mujtahideen -- the "independent" type and the "limited" type -- then we can say the Gates of Ijtihad with respect to the former did close, while with respect to the latter, those Gates did not close. It is obviously with respect to the former that Spencer is referring to.

The only quibble I have with Spencer on this is that I don't like the implication that before the Gates closed, Islamic jurisprudence was any less fanatically totalitarian, unjust, evil, and dangerous, than it became after that point in time.

[To be continued with the Bajuri quote]

Hesperado:
The object of being a scholar is to present or debate something in as clear a manner as possible. Being a scholar does not mean to write as obtusely as you possibly can to give the illusion that you are being “scholarly” in order to hide the lack of substance that your thoughts contain. If I was reviewing your paper, it would be rejected in 2 seconds for being too verbose without saying anything. (I cannot tell you how funny it is thinking about how much time you probably took writing your nonsense in such a careful way, using fancy words, etc., only to say a bunch of nonsense which has already been addressed in my paper, WHICH YOU STILL HAVE NOT READ. Whatever time you spent writing your post could have been better served by picking your nose or bouncing a ball against the wall).

I think the essence of what you are saying can be distilled from a few quotes:

[it is important to note that for dave742, the term mujtahid indicates ostensibly and simplistically a practitioner of ijtihad]

I define ijtihad in the manner that the Islamic jurists did, which is a “personal exertion on the part of a legal expert to give a legal opinion on a course of action or a question,” as I quoted in my paper. For me, it seems appropriate to use the definition of those who were in charge of their system of law (see ‘Ali reference in my paper for previous and following quotes). For specific examples, Al-Razi says that “Ijtihad means to exert utmost capacity in considering a case in which one should not be blamed due to this exhaustive exertion therein,” and Ghazali says that “Ijtihad in the opinion of the [ulama] is to make ever effort by a mujtahid…in seeking knowledge regarding rules of the Shari’a”. This is the definition. There is no more to it than that.

[If, however, we recognize that there were at least two types of mujtahideen -- the "independent" type and the "limited" type -- then we can say the Gates of Ijtihad with respect to the former did close, while with respect to the latter, those Gates did not close. It is obviously with respect to the former that Spencer is referring to.]

You are close to being correct. There were different levels of mujtahids, and I addressed this in a very detailed manner when I talked about mujtahid typologies. The “independent” mujtahids were usually considered as those capable of starting their own schools of law, although most typologies included levels that were virtually identical in terms of freedom of interpretation. As I explained in a very detailed manner in the paper, it was absolutely necessary to limit the number of schools if a practical system of law was desired that was capable of being used in the real world. Limiting the number of schools of law had nothing to do with limiting the freedom of interpretation or the ability of the system of law to allow change. The US has only one school of law, and allows no others. That does not mean that the law is “static” or incapable of change. If Mr. Spencer really means what you say, and that the closing of the “gates of ijtihad” means that no new schools of law were allowed after the formative period, then he is a complete and total imbecile like yourself. I hope that this is not all there is to this issue. No system of law ever used on the planet at any time allowed anyone to start their own “school” at will. This would make any system of law unworkable. This is explained very clearly in the paper.
Mr. Spencer acknowledges that Shiites never closed the “gates of ijtihad.” If you ever take the time to read my paper in its entirety, you will learn that the Shiite definition of ijtihad meant something less than starting your own school of law. Shiites never, ever, ever, allowed what Sunnis referred to as "independent" ijtihad. Sunnis did for a short time, but then “closed the gates’ on this type of ijtihad, because allowing anyone to interpret the law on their own terms makes a system of law unworkable on the scale of a society. Mutaharri’s quote from Mr. Spencer show’s very clearly what I am talking about. To claim that Shiites never closed the “gates of ijtihad” and that the Sunnis did completely misunderstands what each meant by the term, and to claim both is to reveal yourself as an imbecile. If Sunnis closed the “gates of ijtihad,” then Shites did as well, because SHIITES NEVER ALLOWED THE TYPE OF IJTIHAD THAT THE SUNNIS “CLOSED THE GATES” ON. All of this is explained much more clearly in the paper.
I also explain very clearly in the paper that ijtihad below the level of being able to start your own school allows for all the freedom of law that is needed. The US system of law has had only one school since it was formed. Can you agree that the law changed without incorporating new schools of law? Well, the same happened with Islamic law, along with every other system of law that ever existed.

[While I still haven't read dave742's paper on Ijtihad in full]

Maybe if you could actually read the paper before commenting on it, I would not have to explain things that are already explained very clearly in my paper. By I expect no less.

[And here we have a Muslim-on-Muslim (Hallaq-on-al-Ghazali)]

Hallaq is a Christian.

Hesperado:
[The only quibble I have with Spencer on this is that I don't like the implication that before the Gates closed, Islamic jurisprudence was any less fanatically totalitarian, unjust, evil, and dangerous, than it became after that point in time.]

Even though a point was reached where no more schools were allowed (an event I cover fully in my paper), the practice of ijtihad remained just as creative as before this event. As Hallaw says:

"Whatever the theory might say on ijtihad and taqlid, the activity of the later scholars, after the 'closing of the door of ijtihad', was no less creative, within the limits set to it by the nature of the shari'a, than that of their predecessors. New sets of facts constantly arose in life, and they had to b mastered andmoulded with the traditional tools provided by legal science."

"The object of being a scholar is to present or debate something in as clear a manner as possible. Being a scholar does not mean to write as obtusely as you possibly can to give the illusion that you are being “scholarly” in order to hide the lack of substance that your thoughts contain. If I was reviewing your paper, it would be rejected in 2 seconds for being too verbose without saying anything."

My post wasn't a scholarly article; it was an argument. Every sentence of my post represents a necessary part of articulations which need to be addressed for a counter-argument (though it would not be unreasonable to suppose that many of those sentences could be further streamlined for maximum rhetorical effect). It is clear, for example, from your last post above that you failed to take note of one of the articuli in my post, which I will here slightly tighten up and simplify:

When Hallaq goes on to insist that al-Ghazali ". . . certainly did not imply the same for those jurists who could lead the community and revive the Shari'a when this need arose", this may or may not actually mean that those "jurists" were really practicing a sufficiently free and breezy and open-minded and enlightened and progressive methodology of legal interpretation that would persuade us that they were not constricted by their self-imposed adherence (or to put it less generously, slavish adherence) to the limitations set by the Four Schools. . . Hallaq's blandly generic virtues he would accord those post-Four-School "jurists" -- "leading the community" and "reviving the Shari'a when this need arose" -- can easily be done by mujtahids fi al-madhhab who would nevertheless continue to operate within the Four Walls of the Four Schools in an inflexible way.

I.e., one man's "flexibility" may not be another man's "flexibility": hence my peroration on the "rose is a rose" -- another articulus you evidently ignored.

Similarly, your last post essentially presented a claim by this same scholarly admirer of Islam (who, like another propagandist for Islam, John Esposito, is, as you corrected me, a Christian) -- a claim to the effect that post-Four-School ijtihad (Ghazali's "limited ijtihad") was just as free and breezy and flexible and dynamic and enlightened and progressive as pre-Four-School ijtihad (Ghazali's "independent ijtihad"). That's just a claim. It has to be backed up by an argument -- and, given the prodigious dimensions of such a claim, an argument would require an entire book's worth of data + interpretetations of that data. For, the defense of such a claim depends on the following:

1) a working definition of flexible jurisprudence vs. rigid jurisprudence

2) a defense, using a large sampling of data, of the proposition that pre-Four School (and culminating in Four School) ijtihad was flexible according to #1

3) a defense, using a large sampling of data, of the proposition that post-Four School ijtihad was as flexible as pre-Four School (and culminating in Four School) ijtihad.

A journal article, by its shorter length than a book, could certainly present a provisional thesis of 1-2-3, but to be persuasive, it would probably require a whole book.

At any rate, absent sufficient data structured by interpretations of that data comporting approximately with 1-2-3 above, mere asseverations to the effect that post-Four School ijtihad was just as wonderful and dandy as pre-Four school ijtihad don't pass muster.

[When Hallaq goes on to insist that al-Ghazali ". . . certainly did not imply the same for those jurists who could lead the community and revive the Shari'a when this need arose", this may or may not actually mean that those "jurists" were really practicing a sufficiently free and breezy and open-minded and enlightened and progressive methodology of legal interpretation that would persuade us that they were not constricted by their self-imposed adherence (or to put it less generously, slavish adherence) to the limitations set by the Four Schools. . . Hallaq's blandly generic virtues he would accord those post-Four-School "jurists" -- "leading the community" and "reviving the Shari'a when this need arose" -- can easily be done by mujtahids fi al-madhhab who would nevertheless continue to operate within the Four Walls of the Four Schools in an inflexible way.]

First of all, every system of law that ever existed is conservative, and not a single one could ever be described as “free and breezy and open-minded and enlightened and progressive.” As Gerber says, “every system of law is inherently conservative, and the brilliance of legal systems lies in their ability to adapt themselves to changing circumstances.” (Rigidity versus Openness in Late Classical Islamic Law: The Case of the Seventeenth-Century Palestinian Muftī Khayr al-Dīn al-Ramlī, Author(s): Haim Gerber, Source: Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1998), pp. 165-195)

Islamic law did adapt to changing circumstances, as has been shown by scholarship over the past 30 years. The levels of ijtihad that were open to mujtahids below the level of independent ijtihad allowed jurists to disagree with the founders of the schools. If you can change the ruling of the founder of the school, I cannot see how there can be any more freedom. They could do whatever they wanted. As Mutahhari says (who Mr. Spencer actually brought up):

“The later Sunni mujtahids were either al-mujtahid al-mutlaq al-muntasib or mujtahid al-fatwa (also occasionally known as mujtahid al-madhhab). 'Al-mujtahid al-mutlaq al-muntasib' means a mujtahid who is attached to one of the well-known schools and follows the juristic approach of its founder but in deducing legal rules, on the basis of the school's juristic principles, he may formulate his own independent legal opinions which may be different from the legal opinions of the founder. For instance, while being a Shafi'i or a Hanafi in jurisprudence, he may differ with al-Shafi'is or Abu Hanifah's express fatwas in legal matters. A number of eminent Sunni jurists are considered to belong to this class, such as: Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwaym, Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali, Ibn al-Sabbagh, and others.” (see paper for reference)

At this point, I will simply copy and paste from my paper, since you seem unable to read it, and keep bringing up things that are addressed in it:

The ijtihad whose doors are still open (which, again, is the same ijtihad practiced by Shiites) allows the mujtahid to deduce his own legal rules and formulate his own legal opinions. He only follows the approach of the founding imam. This is very similar to what is said by Salah, Suyuti, and Nawawi above; and what is explained by Murad, Omar, and Kamali. Ibn Salah’s (d. 1245) typology gave the highest level to the four original eponyms, but the next level was still attainable, and was equal to the top level in every way. Suyuti said that a mujtahid of this level “follows the method of one of the four imams in his ijtihad, and deduces his own legal decisions without necessarily accepting the proofs or conclusions of that imam.” Nawawi says a mujtahid of this level “does not submit (taqlid) to his imam either in madhhab or in proofs, because he has the quality of independence. He is linked to him only because he follows the imam’s method of ijtihad.” Murad says that a mujtahid of this level is “a scholar who remains broadly convinced of the doctrines of his school, but is qualified to differ from received opinion within it.” Omar says that a mujtahid of this level “is bound by the methods and foundations but not by the ramifications of a certain school of jurisprudence…The fact that a mudjtahid by a school of jurisprudence is bound only by the foundations and basic principles of the school to which he is affiliated, gives him a great amount of freedom in forming his opinions and makes his rank almost equal to the rank of an absolute mudjtahid.” Kamali says that a mujtahid of this level “did not consider themselves bound to follow their masters in the implementation of the general principles or in arguments concerning particular issues. This is borne out by the fact that they have held opinions that were opposed to those of their leading Imams.”

Do you see the pattern? Here’s yet another example from the web explaining the meaning of mujtahid al-muntasib:

“The Mujtahid al-Muntasib is in fact similar to the Mujtahid al-Mutlaq, in that he takes from the sources such as the Qur'an and the Sunnah, except he does not reach the step of complete independance in having own usul. He rather makes ahkam upon the usul of an Imam of the A'immah mentioned above, i.e. the independent Mujtahidin such as Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad to name the famous four examples. Ibn al-Salah says that he is not a muqallid of his Imam, not in madhhab (i.e. doctrine or jurisprudential opinion) nor in his dalil, because of his feature of being independant in a major way. He is simply affiliated to him because of his reliance on the imam's way of ijtihad; he may agree with him, or disagree, with respect to his ijtihad; agreement with him results because of his agreeing with his ideas, not because of taqlid; disagreement likewise, a result of making tarjih and weighing evidences and performing istinbat.” (reference in paper)

Once again, the only door that is closed is to not forming new schools of law. This same door is closed in every society and country in the world. The level of ijtihad that is still attainable allows for as much change as any other system of law. A mujtahid can say whatever he wants, can disagree with his imam, and can derive his own laws from the Qur’an and Sunnah. Mutahhari confirms this.

As a result of later jurists being allowed to disagree with anyone, including the school founder, and individual question could have up to a dozen different opinions on it. The founder of the school is not necessarily the “correct: solution:

“In principle, the ‘correct’ answer was what was technically called the authoritative version (zahir al-riwaya) of the madhhab, the view considered the true one. In one fatwa in al-Ramli’s collection relates explicitly to this legal methodology, making it clear that the true solution to a legal problem, the authoritative version, here called al-qawl al-sahih or the correct version, is usually the opinion of Abu Hanifa, the founder of the school, but sometimes that of others. And indeed, not infrequently Abu Hanifa is cited as holding the rejected solution...the simple fact is that in scores of fatwas in the collections under study Abu Hanifa is mentioned as holding opinions that were rejected by the consensus of the jurists.” (Gerber: reference in paper)

[Similarly, your last post essentially presented a claim by this same scholarly admirer of Islam (who, like another propagandist for Islam, John Esposito, is, as you corrected me, a Christian) -- a claim to the effect that post-Four-School ijtihad (Ghazali's "limited ijtihad") was just as free and breezy and flexible and dynamic and enlightened and progressive as pre-Four-School ijtihad (Ghazali's "independent ijtihad"). That's just a claim. It has to be backed up by an argument -- and, given the prodigious dimensions of such a claim, an argument would require an entire book's worth of data + interpretetations of that data. For, the defense of such a claim depends on the following:
1) a working definition of flexible jurisprudence vs. rigid jurisprudence
2) a defense, using a large sampling of data, of the proposition that pre-Four School (and culminating in Four School) ijtihad was flexible according to #1
3) a defense, using a large sampling of data, of the proposition that post-Four School ijtihad was as flexible as pre-Four School (and culminating in Four School) ijtihad.
A journal article, by its shorter length than a book, could certainly present a provisional thesis of 1-2-3, but to be persuasive, it would probably require a whole book.
At any rate, absent sufficient data structured by interpretations of that data comporting approximately with 1-2-3 above, mere asseverations to the effect that post-Four School ijtihad was just as wonderful and dandy as pre-Four school ijtihad don't pass muster.]

I knew I could count on you to respond this way, which is why I posted what I did. First of all, the scholars in the bibliography of my paper do indeed show exactly what you are asking. The proof is contained in the dozens of books and scores of articles I have referenced. It is impossible to go over all this information myself. I wrote a broad outline of the topic and still ended up with 50,000 words. If you want your answer, then you will have to read the material in the bibliography as a start, and you will begin to get your answer. Of course, if you can’t even read my paper, I am sure you are unable to read the material that I did.

Anyway, the funny part of all this is that the quote I presented to you is not really Hallaq’s, BUT IS ACTUALLY A QUOTE OF SCHACHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can direct all of your criticisms and scorn to you Orientalist idol. The quote I gave is from page 73 of Schacht’s “Introduction to Islamic Law,” and you can read it here:

http://www.amazon.com/reader/0198254733?_encoding=UTF8&token=N%20GfhoKJ6gjlPlIXP95DHesr8YbO1gMbmgsicYLlQvy7kdXGvDOQhg%3D%3D&query=%26%2334%3Bthat%20of%20their%20predecessors%26%2334%3B&page=83#reader_0198254733

Maybe you should read books you agree with using the same skepticism as you read the ones I am quoting. Actually, maybe you should start reading, period, and do little less writing until you actually learn something.