Reuel Gerecht and Jeffrey Goldberg vs. Pamela Geller: Geller wins

It is testimony to the effectiveness of my colleague Pamela Geller, in raising awareness of the issues surrounding the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero and Islamic supremacism in general, that the mainstream media is gunning for her with relentless fury. The cartoon above is apt, and applies to Jeffrey Goldberg's vicious and ignorant attacks upon her in The Atlantic. Even though this present piece isn't an interview, the principle is the same: a full-out campaign is on to discredit her, and the truth be damned in the process.

In "Reuel Gerecht on Pamela Geller's Foul Anti-Muslim Ideology," by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, October 13, Goldberg explains that he sent some assertions Pamela Geller made about the Qur'an and Islam in her recent New York Times interview to Islamic scholar Reuel Gerecht:

In a recent New York Times interview, the blogger Pamela Geller leveled many serious charges against Islam; she stated that Muslims curse Jews and Christians during their five-times-a-day prayer; that the only good Muslim is a secular Muslim; and most perniciously, she said that the Qur'an has never been properly translated, insinuating that it contains dark secrets about Muslims and their religious responsibilities. This last bit struck me as outrageous, because, as a Jew, Geller should know that anti-Semites have spent nearly two thousand years insinuating that the Talmud contains secret instructions guiding the alleged Jewish attempt to dominate the world. To make the same unsupported charge against Islam is egregious.

Note that it is Jeffrey Goldberg, not Pamela Geller, who is talking about Muslims having "secret instructions" directing them to try to "dominate the world." All that Pamela said was that the Qur'an hasn't been properly translated; Goldberg then proceeds to excoriate her for what he thinks she was "insinuating." Well, any storefront clairvoyant can read tea leaves, and mothers are experts at evaluating tones of voice, but Jeffrey Goldberg is neither. He is supposed to be a serious writer, so instead of trafficking in what people are "insinuating," he would be well-advised to stick with what they actually say.

I sent some of Geller's quotes to my friend Reuel Gerecht, a genuine expert on Islam, to see what he thought of them. Reuel, as many of you know, is no apologist for radical Islamism; quite the opposite. He believes we are at war with a dangerous ideology. But he also has respect for Islam, and a great deal of knowledge of it. Here is what he says about Geller's assertions:
I have to plead an embarrassing ignorance about Pamela Geller. I was well aware of the Internet-driven opposition to Feisal Abd ar-Rauf's Ground Zero/Park 51 mosque, but had not entered her name into my memory. I don't read blogs much--except Goldblog and those that publish me--and I was more than a little taken back when Jeffrey sent me a note containing comments by Ms. Geller about English translations of the Qur'an. The intersection of politics, public policy, and scholarship isn't always pretty, and we are most often fortunate that scholars don't write our domestic and foreign policies. However, there is a certain deference that activists must give to scholars when they tread on what is clearly academic terrain.

Deference? Is that an argument from authority? How about we have a certain deference for the truth and accuracy, instead of just pulling rank?

A good cause--and Ms. Geller's general concern about the harm that violent Islamic militants can do is an estimable fight--is no excuse for agitprop and what amounts to a slur against some of the greatest scholars of the twentieth century. According to the New York Times, Ms. Geller has stated:
Now I also believe that a true translation, an accurate translation of the Koran, is really not available in English, according to many of the Islamic scholars that I've spoken to. That's deeply troubling. And I don't think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they're cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. I don't think they know that.

Let's take the Qur'an first, Muslim prayers second. Concerning the translation of the Muslim Holy Book, who might these Islamic scholars be? Since Ms. Geller is without Arabic, it's impossible for her to compare the original to a translation. She must depend upon others, who, if I follow Ms. Geller, are involved in a conspiracy to hide the ugly truth about Islam. If the translations were more "accurate," we would all see what's apparent to Ms. Geller, who ascertained the truth despite the blinding scholarly conspiracy. One has to ask whether Ms. Geller has perused the translation masterpiece by Cambridge's late great A.J. Arberry or my personal favorite, the awesomely erudite, more literal translation and commentary by Edinburgh's late great Richard Bell? Both gentlemen are flag-waving members of Edward Said's most detested species--Orientalists. Now if you look at these translations--especially if you look at Bell's, which is blessed with exhaustive notes in a somewhat complicated formatting--even the uninitiated can get an idea that Muhammad had trouble with Christians and especially Jews during his life. If you look at the Qur'anic commentary by Edinburgh's late great William Montgomery Watt (another Orientalist), who was always attentive to Muslim sensibilities in his writings, you can also fine [sic] in clear English Muhammad's unpleasant ruminations about Christians and Jews.

Note again that Pamela Geller only said that "a true translation, an accurate translation of the Koran, is really not available in English, according to many of the Islamic scholars that I've spoken to." No dark conspiracy theories about hidden content. That was all she said.

Now -- is it true? Gerecht takes her to be casting aspersions on the work of the great scholars A. J. Arberry and Richard Bell. Both are indeed great scholars, and the integrity of their Qur'an translations cannot be impugned. I have loved Arberry's for many years, and wrote this about it here several years ago:

For years I have liked Arberry's for its audacious literalism and often poetic English. Compare, for example, 81:15-18:
فَلَا أُقْسِمُ بِالْخُنَّسِ الْجَوَارِ الْكُنَّسِ وَاللَّيْلِ إِذَا عَسْعَسَ وَالصُّبْحِ إِذَا تَنَفَّسَ

...in Pickthall and Arberry: Pickthall: "Oh, but I call to witness the planets, the stars which rise and set, and the close of night, and the breath of morning..." Arberry: "No! I swear by the slinkers, the runners, the sinkers, by the night swarming, by the dawn sighing..." Shades of the Symbolists. Arberry gives a hint of how the book sounds in Arabic, in which it is full of beguiling rhymes and rhythms.

Arberry's is an outstanding and accurate translation. Arberry, however, was not a Muslim, and accordingly his translation is not often used by Muslims, and when a non-Muslim cites it or other translations written by non-Muslims (such as N. J. Dawood's excellent edition for Penguin), Islamic apologists tend to dismiss it with the palpably false mystification that a non-Muslim cannot be trusted to render the Qur'an accurately or adequately. Thus in order to take that rhetorical weapon out of their hands, I generally use translations written by Muslims and for Muslims in my work, and these are the ones generally also used and cited by Muslims themselves.

For example, the USC-MSA's popular and useful online reference site now disingenuously entitled "Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement" offers three Qur'an translations by three Muslims: Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, and M. H. Shakir. All of these are flawed in various ways. Shakir's depends heavily on Pickthall's and Ali's. Ali's is the most transparently apologetic whitewash: in Qur'an 4:34, the verse enjoining the beating of disobedient women, he has "beat them (lightly)," although "lightly" does not appear in the Arabic. Both Ali's and Pickthall's are written in a stilted pseudo-King James Bible English that frequently cloaks in obscurity passages that are hair-raising in Arabic.

Another common Muslim translation, that of Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan, is more of a Saudi Wahhabi political tract than a translation. Note, for example, their revealing and anachronistic parenthetical gloss in Qur'an 8:60: "And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom God does know."

What's more, even the best, most literal translation of the Qur'an does not give the full flavor of some phrases and passages, since the general English reader will not be aware of their precise theological significance in Islam. For example, the phrase "strive in the path of Allah," which appears in numerous places and various permutations in the Qur'an, refers in Islamic theology specifically to fighting hot war, with weapons, not metaphorical verbal conflict or some other kind of conflict. But unless one is reading along with commentaries, this phrase will look more like a pious exhortation to be more religious than a call to take up arms.

Now what did Pamela Geller say? "Now I also believe that a true translation, an accurate translation of the Koran, is really not available in English, according to many of the Islamic scholars that I've spoken to." That is a general statement made in conversation and not in a scholarly setting with any intention of forensic precision; nonetheless, it is generally true: ask any honest native Arabic speaker and they'll tell you that Qur'an translations in English in the main do not convey the full martial flavor of the original, and the principal translations have the defects noted above. As she was speaking in context about what Western non-Muslims as well as Western Muslims generally understand about Islam, the existence of largely accurate translations like those of Arberry, Bell and Dawood does not render her statement false: she was speaking about popular understanding, not about what is known among academics.

Gerecht continues:

Now what all of this means to contemporary Islamic militancy is a very long discussion, for which I suspect that Ms. Geller doesn't have abundant patience.

He said at the beginning that he hadn't heard of her, and suddenly he is a judge of her character. I expect this sort of cheap shot from sleazy Islamic supremacists like Reza Aslan, but not from someone of the stature of Reuel Gerecht.

Islam has been having awful problems absorbing modernity; its travails so far--let us underscore--have been less bloody than what we witnessed as Christianity modernized.

While this assertion is taken for granted among scholars of a certain ilk, it is by no means proven, and stems largely from a much greater familiarity among Westerners with the conflicts in Christian Europe in recent centuries than with the history of Islam. When one examines the history of jihad wars, the picture begins to look quite different.

Any non-Muslim certainly has the right to study, question, and criticize the Islamic faith, as Muslims have the (well-exercised) right to let loose against what they see as the imperfections of Christianity, Judaism, and humanist secularism (the West's dominant faith). As Iran's robust, astonishing intellectual wars over the last twenty years have shown, it's good for Muslims and non-Muslims not to pull their punches. Muslims should never be treated as children, which is a debilitating disposition found widely now on the American Left. (President Obama has not helped.) But the great Islamic scholars of the past did not lie. There is no conspiracy. We are blessed with illuminating English translations of the Muslim Holy Book. Ms. Geller might consider blogging less, and reading more.

Gerecht's haughty arrogance toward Pamela Geller is as unbecoming as his presumption, noted above. In any case, I have established above that some of the principal English translations of the Qur'an are distorted in various ways (and there are plenty more examples of such distortions), and that some of its key concepts cannot be immediately grasped by the uninitiated reader. Thus Pamela Geller's point -- in which she said nothing about any kind of "conspiracy" -- was made. Mr. Gerecht might have considered her own words more carefully, and not Jeffrey Goldberg's poisoned and tendentious packaging of those words.

And about Muslim prayer: I certainly have no perfect way of knowing what Muslims think when they pray, but I really do think they know what they're doing.

That is a very large and vague assertion. Muslims "know what they're doing" when they pray, and yet Gerecht must know that most Muslims are not Arabs, and yet no matter where they are and what language they speak, they must pray in Arabic; huge numbers recite syllables by rote without having any precise idea of what they're saying. They may know what they're doing, in terms of engaging in Islamic prayer in a general sense, but is Gerecht saying that they know all the details of what they're saying and the theological and political implications thereof? I have spoken to many non-Arab Muslims who have confirmed this, and it has been widely reported, particularly in connection with the madrassas in Pakistan. Is Reuel Gerecht really interested in denying it?

If westernized Muslims are facing the Almighty, they know what's in their hearts. Devout Muslims need not hate Jews and Christians to worship the Creator.

Pamela Geller didn't say they did. She said, "And I don't think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they're cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. I don't think they know that." That is not the same thing as saying that Muslims must "hate Jews and Christians to worship the Creator."

Christians have slaughtered Jews through the centuries. But it would be theologically atrocious to believe that the Christian message requires Jewish blood. (Christians' killing Jews so often did provoke some Christians to question the foundation of their faith--a theologically estimable exercise.) The Prophet Muhammad is certainly a different kind of historical figure than Jesus, but it should not be startling to discover that Muslims through the centuries have not seen the prophet's slaughter of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina as a mainstay of their creed.

In this Gerecht is saying that just as Christian doctrine doesn't require Christians to slaughter Jews (although he seems to harbor an immense distaste for Christianity, far exceeding any revulsion he may feel toward Islamic jihadists and supremacists), so also Islamic doctrine doesn't require Muslims to slaughter Jews. This is, again, a red herring, since Pamela Geller didn't say that it did, but Gerecht has perhaps forgotten this key hadith, in which Muhammad says that the wholesale slaughter of Jews by Muslims will usher in the end times: "Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews."

There is, by the way, nothing like that in Christianity.

In my experience--and I'm intuiting here--most Muslims do not think about Jews and Christians at all when they pray.

What Muslims think about when they pray was not what was at issue. Look again at what Pamela Geller said: "And I don't think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they're cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. I don't think they know that." Not only did she not say anything about what they were thinking about; what she actually said was that many Muslims in the West do not know that their prayers involve curses of Christians and Jews.

So if they don't know it, how could they be thinking about it? Gerecht's response to Geller sounds as if he read what she wrote very hastily and carelessly, or only through Goldberg's venomous spin.

Now -- what about those prayers? In the course of praying the requisite five prayers a day, an observant Muslim will recite the Fatihah, the first surah of the Qur'an and the most common prayer in Islam, seventeen times. The final two verses of the Fatihah ask Allah: "Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray." The traditional Islamic understanding of this is that the "straight path" is Islam -- cf. Islamic apologist John Esposito's book Islam: The Straight Path. The path of those who have earned Allah's anger are the Jews, and those who have gone astray are the Christians.

This is not my interpretation; it comes from the classic Islamic commentaries on the Qur'an. The renowned Qur'anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that "the two paths He described here are both misguided," and that those "two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why 'anger' descended upon the Jews, while being described as 'led astray' is more appropriate of the Christians."

Ibn Kathir's understanding of this passage is not a lone "extremist" interpretation. In fact, most Muslim commentators believe that the Jews are those who have earned Allah's wrath and the Christians are those who have gone astray. This is the view of Tabari, Zamakhshari, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, the Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Arabi, as well as Ibn Kathir. One contrasting, but not majority view, is that of Nisaburi, who says that "those who have incurred Allah's wrath are the people of negligence, and those who have gone astray are the people of immoderation."

Wahhabis drew criticism a few years back for adding "such as the Jews" and "such as the Christians" into parenthetical glosses on this passage in Qur'ans printed in Saudi Arabia. Some Western commentators imagined that the Saudis originated this interpretation, and indeed the whole idea of Qur'anic hostility toward Jews and Christians. They found it inconceivable that Muslims all over the world would learn as a matter of course that the central prayer of their faith anathematizes Jews and Christians.

But unfortunately, this interpretation is venerable and mainstream in Islamic theology. The printing of the interpretation in parenthetical glosses into a translation would be unlikely to affect Muslim attitudes, since the Arabic text is always and everywhere normative in any case, and since so many mainstream commentaries contain the idea that the Jews and Christians are being criticized here. Seventeen times a day, by the pious.

The Hadith also contains material linking Jews to Allah's anger and Christians to his curse, which resulting from their straying from the true path. (The Jews are accursed also, according to Qur'an 2:89, and both are accursed according to 9:30). One hadith recounts that an early Muslim, Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail, in his travels met with Jewish and Christian scholars. The Jewish scholar told him, "You will not embrace our religion unless you receive your share of Allah's Anger," and the Christian said, "You will not embrace our religion unless you get a share of Allah's Curse." Zaid, needless to say, became a Muslim.

So once again, what did Pamela say? "And I don't think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they're cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. I don't think they know that." There appears to be abundant foundation for that idea in the content of Islamic prayer and the ways those prayers have been understood by mainstream Islamic theologians.

Suffering, in all its merciless variety, takes center stage, I suspect. When I've watched Muslim pilgrims come to Sunni and Shiite tombs and sacred sites in Egypt, Turkey, and Iraq, I've not seen a conquering people. I've usually just seen misery and the human hope that good fortune will come with a better heart. I've seen fraternity among a men who live in lands where fraternal behavior is rare. Ms. Geller would do well to travel more. It's a very good and essential cause to fight jihadism, but such a struggle should not incline us to maul Islamic history or to treat Muslims as if they were merely a walking version of this surah or that legal treatise. Christians and Jews and atheists are much more than the sum of their parts. So, too, are Muslims.

No amount of travel will change the contents of Islamic prayers or the nature of English translations of the Qur'an. Reuel Gerecht would have come off better if he had taken care to be less condescending -- his superciliousness is especially unbecoming since the facts are not on his side.

« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

59 Comments

| Leave a comment

Tom Davis | October 13, 2010 6:44 PM | Reply

So Mr Goldberg wrote "In my experience--and I'm intuiting here--most Muslims do not think about Jews and Christians at all when they pray. "

How does one get a deep meaningful experience from an intuition? How silly.

sheik yer'mami | October 13, 2010 7:33 PM | Reply

Another failed wakademic.

Many Jews are strangely defensive when one criticizes Islam, I have seen it many times, and yet it never ceases to amaze me.

Just a week ago I was being lectured about Islamic hospitality, the "Golden Age" and how well the Jews did under Islamic rule by an octogenarian.

I found myself arguing against a brick wall.

gravenimage | October 13, 2010 7:42 PM | Reply

Great cartoon by Gary Brookins. Very apt.

From above:

Ms. Geller would do well to travel more.
...............

Yes—I'm sure as a Jewish woman, Ms. Geller would be welcomed anywhere in Dar-al-Islam. sarc/off

No matter how much the media and pundits defame this brave Cassandra, it doesn't change the truth of her message. Jihad *does* present a grave danger, and I think more people in the West are coming to realize it.

The adversity to the hideous proposed Ground Zero mosque was not ginned up by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. It is something that most Americans are appalled by, all on their own.

Isabellathecrusader | October 13, 2010 7:42 PM | Reply

I actually think Pamela travels too much and could use a few more days off. That goes for Robert too.

twitter.com/HereticsCrusade | October 13, 2010 7:49 PM | Reply

Robert, I will bet you one paper gold star that Goldberg's text was the problem; this guy sounds very reasonable; the elitist stuff jars the ear... Betcha he got a carefully edited version of what Pamela said with Goldbergs demonizing conclusions leading the way...

Cyril Lucar | October 13, 2010 7:50 PM | Reply

Excellent defense of Pamela, Robert. Your work is characteristically careful and insightful. The problem with these types of scholars is that they use the tools of their trade to abuse discourse.

Pamela speaks about something that is generally true (accurate translations are not really available, meaning in use by Muslims and commonly read by laypeople) and he finds little known (albeit academically important) instances which demonstrate that that she said was not precisely true. Then he pours his academic derision on her statements as if he can dismiss her with so many words. He's over-reading her words to attack her. It's dishonest.

But he changes tactics and approaches the "cursing Christians and Jews" comment by UNDER-READING it. Since the passage doesn't directly saw Islam, Jews and Christians then she must be making something up out of thin air it doesn't matter if millions(hundreds of millions) of Muslims have the understanding of those prayers as Pamela, he's going to pretend that the passage has nothing to do with Islam.

Throw a bunch of red herrings and deliberate misrepresentations and you have a hurried screed. It just has nothing to do with the truth, about either Pamela or Islam.

dby | October 13, 2010 8:22 PM | Reply

It has become beyond tedious to hear so many of our elite, our chattering classes, both Christians and Jews, equate every criticism of islam and past and present moslem thought and practice, with anti-semitism.
The first line of defence, in what i know to be a war, is education; the second line of defence is more education, about islam, its history, its tenets and the methods it uses to achieve its stated objectives.
Ms. Geller is a warrior for truth, for educating Americans and others about islam.
Mr. Goldberg is ' a useful idiot' for islam, as he attempts to deny the truth of islam and undercut the legitimacy of those who are trying to educate Americans.
To defend ourselves, we must know the truth.
Bless those who spend so much of their time and energy spreading the truth, educating Americans about the enemy and their ways.

yinyangsun | October 13, 2010 8:26 PM | Reply

So they put words in Pamela's mouth then proceed to refute her based on their assumptions. How silly!

as a Jew, Geller should know that anti-Semites have spent nearly two thousand years insinuating that the Talmud contains secret instructions guiding the alleged Jewish attempt to dominate the world. To make the same unsupported charge against Islam is egregious.

It's no secret. Muslims tell us outright they want to dominate the world and they quote the Qur'an to prove it!

As Iran's robust, astonishing intellectual wars over the last twenty years have shown, it's good for Muslims and non-Muslims not to pull their punches.

What planet is he on?

Muslims through the centuries have not seen the prophet's slaughter of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina as a mainstay of their creed.

Er, Muslims see Muhammad as the perfect man who should be emulated on every point.

When I've watched Muslim pilgrims come to Sunni and Shiite tombs and sacred sites in Egypt, Turkey, and Iraq, I've not seen a conquering people. I've usually just seen misery and the human hope that good fortune will come with a better heart.

Miserable in large part due to Islam. Just because every Muslim isn't a chest thumping warmonger 24/7 doesn't negate Islamic doctrine. These people don't hold the power. The Muslim leadership does, and they have made clear that Islam is supposed to dominate the world.

Tom Davis | October 13, 2010 8:51 PM | Reply

"As Iran's robust, astonishing intellectual wars over the last twenty years have shown.."

Yeah, sodomy by prison interrogators sure is robust and astonishing. The intellectual part comes with the purifying washings.

Tom Davis | October 13, 2010 8:53 PM | Reply

...and prayers. Forgot about those

Richard | October 13, 2010 9:18 PM | Reply

It is one of the most dishonest and yet effective tools of critique: to reframe someone's words and then argue with your own narrative of them. And it's effective because so many people have lost, or weren't educated with, critical thinking skills. Most people today can't parse a string of ten words and know what they mean. This was playing to the sheeple and Robert tore them up. Bravo.

Beer Me
-Rick

demsci | October 13, 2010 9:25 PM | Reply

I am glad at least that a part of the grand debate is sort of taking place, hostile though it is. I think debate is what the Critical Islam Analists and their readers and allies very much want.

And that knowledge about Islam and it's anti-Democratic nature they abundantly have. And I also think that they are very determined and exhaustively patient when challenged down to the very details.

If their challenges, or moves, are being taken by opponents I think a long chess-game will ensue and I am highly confident that Islam will be put check-mate if it will be totally played out.

I see a few possible good outcomes; When Islam is deeply known and discussed it will become clear that the so-called radical Muslims, together with Critical Islam Analists, have the more accurate picture of what the original Muslims really meant.

More so than the picture that so-called Moderate Muslims maintain. Which very probably will be shown to be highly dependent on cherrypicking what is liked and ignoring what is disliked. Or even on plain widespread ignorance.

As Moderate Muslims just simply seem the less diligent students of Islam, the ones with the moderate DILIGENCE. While the radical Muslims AND the critical Islam analists are the ones with the radical DILIGENCE.

As far as I am concerned also a good outcome of a thorough debate would be the conclusion that the Islamic most important guiding texts are just INADEQUATE.

Precisely because Muslims stubbornly refuse to update them. They should be considered void as they stand because of vagueness, ambiguity, incompleteness, self-contradiction. They are just too vulnerable to multiple interpretations, misunderstanding and misuse.

And any idiot can call himself a Muslim anyway, hardly any conditions are asked for that "trade-mark-name".

So, when Muslims, claim to tell the truth about Islam, they can be told, just like Geert Wilders was told the other day, that "truth-telling" is no defence of Islam or criticism on it, just another opinion about Islam!

So bring it on, Muslims and Islam-defenders!

Instead of almost always trying to smother this grand debate with complaints of hate-speech, antagonizing Muslims, generalising Muslims and discrimination. All relying heavily on the opinion that being Muslim is an accident of birth instead of an individual choice with consequences.

Understanding and debating Islam on an ever larger scale means that the time is on the side of the Critical Islam analists and their readers and allies.

Eastview | October 13, 2010 9:42 PM | Reply

"I have to plead an embarrassing ignorance about Pamela Geller." -- Reuel Gerecht's lead off sentence in his reply to Goldberg.

Gerecht's response was not surprising. It is what we have come to expect from Muslims. It appears that Goldberg bought Gerecht's assessment of Pamela uncritically, but here, too, his swallowing this nonsense without a smidgen of fact checking is what we have come to expect from the Leftists.

I wonder if Mr. Goldberg carefully thought through the consequences of writing this article, or was his hate so intense that he just plowed ahead, completely oblivious to the warning signs that should be noticeable to all by now that he's completely out of step with most Americans on this issue. Maybe he hasn't noticed yet but his carelessness has inadvertently left him between a rock and a hard place. If the big crunch comes, as many believe it will, he will receive no protection from the anti-Islamists who will be faced with the problem of how to deal with such treasonous behavior. Perhaps he will comfort himself in the knowledge that he is in the company of many fellow travelers who will similarly discover that they were on the wrong side of history.

But even in the unlikely event the Islamists get their way and Shariah comes to America, what place will there be for him? He will be considered every bit as expendable as all those good communists who helped overthrow the Shah when Khomeini achieved power.

Poor Mr. Goldberg. The verbal cannon he thought was pointed outward when he fired was actually aimed at his foot. I wonder how long it will take the neural signal to reach his brain?

It is unfortunate that Atlantic doesn't allow comments to their articles. I had a few thoughts I wanted to share with Mr. Goldberg.

Courreges W | October 13, 2010 9:51 PM | Reply

"It is unfortunate that Atlantic doesn't allow comments to their articles. I had a few thoughts I wanted to share with Mr. Goldberg."

Click on the link to the article, and you'll see his e-mail address is posted.

So, share your thoughts!

Livingengine | October 13, 2010 9:54 PM | Reply

"I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of the mosque project are giving him what he wants. " - Jeffery Goldberg
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/if-he-could-bin-laden-would-bomb-the-cordoba-initiative/60833/

Mr. Goldberg is standing up for his friend. He is standing up for Muslims. It is a pose that requires no courage at all.

Bipolar Izlamic Incompoop | October 13, 2010 10:08 PM | Reply

I don't need to be a master of the German language nor a scholar of Mein Kampf to know the insane evil of hitler by his words and deeds.
Ditto for mohamed and the evil 1400 year history of the murderer for profit, his successors and assigns.
I don't need no stinkin' badge !~

Bipolar Izlamic Incompoop replied to comment from Courreges W | October 13, 2010 10:09 PM | Reply

Call him or get his email.

efoc | October 13, 2010 10:29 PM | Reply

"In my experience--and I'm intuiting here--most Muslims do not think about Jews and Christians at all when they pray."

This guy would do well to consult www.memritv.org and see the rife antisemitism vomited forth by Islamic clerics daily, weekly, monthly and yearly throughout the Islamic world. In my opinion, and not to put too fine a point on it, video evidence is surely far better than this guy's clearly failed "intuiting".

St. Patrick | October 13, 2010 10:36 PM | Reply

"Any non-Muslim certainly has the right to study, question, and criticize the Islamic faith"..

Can he put that in a mo-toon balloon?

"When I've watched Muslim pilgrims come to Sunni and Shiite tombs and sacred sites in Egypt, Turkey, and Iraq, I've not seen a conquering people. I've usually just seen misery and the human hope that good fortune will come with a better heart".

Thanks to "inshallah fatalism" and Saudi greed..

Buraq | October 13, 2010 10:36 PM | Reply

As Reuel Gerecht seems to live on the rarefied air breathed in the ivory towers of academia, he would maybe prefer to answer the question posed by the philosopher, David Hume, 1711 -1776.

"Which is more likely -- that a man should be used as a transmitter by God to deliver some already existing revelations, or that he should utter some already existing revelations and believe himself to be, or claim to be, ordered by God to do so?"

Goldberg and Gerecht's Pharisee-type nitpicking ignores the fundamental question of why the creator of universes would choose to do something illogical like revealing His revelations to Man a second time.

Islam is built on a lie. And the only way Muslims and their apologists can deflect attention from this simple, obvious fact is through violence, murder and vitriolic criticism.

Meeker | October 13, 2010 10:44 PM | Reply

Surely there's a touh of irony here, isn't there? Geller giving a "freebie" to the Islamists who counter damaging quotations from the Koran by saying "of course you don't know Arabic, so how can you understand the *true* meaning?". And then Gerecht giving a freebie to the Islam Critics by pointing out that there are indeed accurate translations, so that Islam Critics can say to Islam-apologist and would-be rebutters "oh yes, there are indeed good translations and we can indeed known what the Arabic says".
Re Goldberg: I've seen some of his other stuff and it's ok, quite sound. He should've been more careful here.
By the way: The law of unintended consequences: I didn't know till now that the Muslim prayer had these curses against Christians and Jews. I suspect via this article more folk will find out about that too.
I'm an atheist, but if I were to think of a Christian prayer that might be said a number of times per day then I guess -- practicing Christians might correct me here -- it would be the Lord's Prayer which I can still remember from my Believing days. What a sublime and poetic contrast it is to the hateful Fatihah, which I've now been introduced to thanks to Mr Goldberg. Unintended consequences......

Kinana of Khaybar | October 13, 2010 10:50 PM | Reply

"I sent some of Geller's quotes to my friend Reuel Gerecht, a genuine expert on Islam, to see what he thought of them."--Jeffrey Goldberg as quoted.

Reule Gerecht is indeed no apologist, but the extent of his expertise may be questioned. For example, would an expert on Islam, specifically on jihadism and movements to establish or further establish sharia ("Islamism"), write something like this:

"The neo-Taliban in Afghanistan, like the Pakistani Taliban, are the children of al-Qa'ida. Only in Afghanistan and Pakistan have we seen jihadism actually take root in large numbers. No place else in the Muslim world was laid waste like Afghanistan."
[my emphasis]

That's Reuel Gerecht, in a letter to his friend Jeffrey Goldberg, published in the latter's article "Reuel Gerecht on Why I'm Wrong About Afghanistan" in The Atlantic, Oct 14 2009.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/10/reuel-gerecht-on-why-im-wrong-about-afghanistan/28356/

I wonder whether this comment is some kind of unintended gaffe? Or perhaps Gerecht hasn't a full grasp of the geographic distribution of modern jihadist movements? Has he never heard of Somalia? Sudan? Lebanon? The Palestinian Territories? Kashmir? Chechnya? Hasn't "jihadism" taken "root in large numbers" in these places? How large do the numbers (or percentages) have to be before they meet Gerecht's criteria? I'm not suggesting he's never discussed these other places. I'm just wondering why an expert on jihadism would make such a seemingly bizarre statement.

Eastview replied to comment from Meeker | October 13, 2010 11:04 PM | Reply

"...Islamists who counter damaging quotations from the Koran by saying "of course you don't know Arabic, so how can you understand the *true* meaning?"

Of course, this is nothing but Arab narcissism. Does one need to know Greek to understand the Pythagorean Theorem, or German to understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Does the essence of a mother's love depend on what language she speaks? Is the flash of pain of a smashed finger any greater or less depending on which of the thousands of languages one speaks? Any "message from God" worthy of being considered universal is independent of language. To whatever extent the "message" of Islam depends on being expressed in Arabic for its proper interpretation, it is to that precise extent that it is not universal.

Relic | October 13, 2010 11:06 PM | Reply

Speaking of demonizing - Maureen Dowd said former VP Cheney is looking good these days, "a gaunt-looking Dick Cheney is out of the hospital and back to raking in money defending torture and pre-emptive war."
..anyone know what Bill C. is up to, no doubt there's piles of Chinese Money somewhere??

Battle_of_Tours | October 13, 2010 11:11 PM | Reply

From "her recent New York Times interview to Islamic scholar Reuel Gerecht":

Let's take the Qur'an first, Muslim prayers second. Concerning the translation of the Muslim Holy Book, who might these Islamic scholars be? Since Ms. Geller is without Arabic, it's impossible for her to compare the original to a translation. She must depend upon others, who, if I follow Ms. Geller, are involved in a conspiracy to hide the ugly truth about Islam.

False. There are many scholars of Arabic, including apostates of Islam, who are qualified to reveal what is in the Koran and Hadiths. This includes the sinister five times daily, ""And I don't think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they're cursing Christians and Jews five times a day." This includes the many "Muhammad's unpleasant ruminations about Christians and Jews" in their 'holy' scriptures. We are not fools to fall for Gerecht's false analogy, rubbish.

Battle_of_Tours replied to comment from Battle_of_Tours | October 13, 2010 11:19 PM | Reply

Erratum in "We are not fools to fall for Gerecht's false analogy, rubbish."

That was to be Goldberg, not Gerecht. Sorry, but it doesn't change the message.

demsci replied to comment from Buraq | October 13, 2010 11:36 PM | Reply

Yes Buraq, indeed Islam was built on a lie. But we would not bother with it if Islam was harmless or a negligible force.

Now we can say: Look, only apostasy from Muslims is logical and acceptable. Or: there can only be ONE truth about Islam and we have debate hard to find it.

Or we can try the middle road; WE say Islam is false and its texts are hopeless, worthless. But by that token multiple interpretations are indeed possible for self-confessing Muslims and we might next to apostasy strive for Democratic Muslims who choose, out of the multiple possible interpretations, that interpretation that adapts to Democracy.

We can at least tell this to these damned Islam-defenders, like Jeffery Goldberg everywhere, who keep insisting that the combination Islam-Democracy is possible and that many Muslims indeed do not pose any threat to democracy and on aggregate not even much ill feeling.

Bingo replied to comment from sheik yer'mami | October 13, 2010 11:43 PM | Reply

I call those Jews "kapos." There are many of them.

learner_hermit | October 13, 2010 11:56 PM | Reply

Misunderstanders of Islam (a synopsis):

Moqtada Sadr - 30 year scholar of Islam - Death in the cause of Islam is the way to Allah;
Ayotallah Khamenei- Life long scholar of Islam- Death in the cause of Islam is the way to Allah;
Sheikh Biz Baz - Life long scholar, Mullah at Mecca,Death in the cause of Islam is the way to Allah;
Sheikh Qaradawi - life long scholar of Islam, Death in the cause of Islam is the way to Allah;
Sheikh Abu Bakar, life long scholar of Islam, Death in the cause of Islam is the way to Allah;
Sheikh Tantawi, life long scholar of ISlam, Death in the cause of Islam is the way to Allah;

These are from Indonesia, Middle east, UK and all are highest of highest in terms of scholarship in Islam (there are millions like these). Offocurse Mr RG an academic hiding behind the freedoms of US is somehow more enlightened than the above luminaries of Islam

Oh the misunderstanders.....

sean | October 14, 2010 12:34 AM | Reply

If Pam's taking this amount of flak, she must be spot on target.

sheik yer'mami replied to comment from Livingengine | October 14, 2010 1:23 AM | Reply

"I know Feisal Abdul Rauf"-

that alone is a dead giveaway.

My, these people are dense.....

El Cid | October 14, 2010 2:23 AM | Reply

The koran, I suspect, belongs in hell. Whence I suspect it came.

Ravinarin | October 14, 2010 2:28 AM | Reply

I am a Hindu from India. Many people are under the impression that 'Hinduism' is a religion. It is, only in a limited sense. The fact is that Hinduism is a way of life and the religion of Hindus is called "Sanatan Dharma" Much of Hindu tenets are similar to those values and principles enshrined in the US Constitution and those of many civilised countries.

It is this Hindu way of life that muslims and Islamic invaders continued to savage and attack for over 700 years. Over 2000 Hindu temples were destroyed by Muslims. Hindus had absorbed into their society refugees from all over the world..Jews, Persians even Christians and Muslims.

It took India 800 years to get rid of the muslim rule and their savages. Americans and other countries in the western democratic world should learn from our history and our mistakes and not wait another 800 years to correct the mistakes being made today.

Chervil replied to comment from sean | October 14, 2010 3:07 AM | Reply

sean | October 14, 2010 12:34 AM

If Pam's taking this amount of flak, she must be spot on target.

Exactly right. How very neatly put.

Always On Watch | October 14, 2010 3:18 AM | Reply

The Islamophiles and shills for Islam cannot allow that Pamela not be demonized. After all, demonization is the only weapon against the truth.

Wellington | October 14, 2010 3:54 AM | Reply

Fine dissection by Robert Spencer of lesser persons' mode of argument.

Thomas Pellow | October 14, 2010 3:58 AM | Reply

Sections of the 'liberal-left', and Islamic supremacists (often operating easily together) are losing the argument on Islamization of Europe and America, and on GMZ; so they increasingly use lies, misrepresentations and ad hominem attacks, as currently against Pamela Geller.
These unsavoury ploys extend beyond America, as Melanie Phillips has found out:

"Left Foot Falsehoods"

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6371244/left-foot-falsehoods.thtml

Ravinarin | October 14, 2010 4:13 AM | Reply

The Koran and prayers from it have been challenged before:

Muslims in India have often sought shelter under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) for preventing every public discussion of their creed in general and of their prophet in particular.1 Quite a few publications which examine critically the sayings and doings of the Prophet or other idolized personalities of Islam, have been proscribed under Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) as a result of pressure exerted by vociferous, very often violent Muslim protests. Little did they suspect that the same provisions of the law could be invoked for seeking a ban on their holy book, the Quran.

The credit for this turning of tables goes to Chandmal Chopra of Calcutta. It was he who filed a Writ Petition in the Calcutta High Court on 29 March 1985 stating that publication of the Quran attracts Sections 153A and 295A of the I.P.C. because it “incites violence, disturbs public tranquility, promotes, on ground of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities, and insults other religions or religious beliefs of other communities in India”. He also prayed for a rule nisi on the Government of West Bengal “to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus be not issued to it directing it to declare each copy of Quran whether in the original Arabic or in any of the languages as forfeited to the Government” in terms of Section 95 of the Cr.P.C.

The case had caused considerable excitement among the “believers” (Mu'mins) and interest among the “infidels” (KAfirs) in April-May, 1985. The press in India and abroad gave many headlines to what was rightly regarded as an unprecedented event in the history of religion. It was the first time that a Pagan had questioned the character of a document hailed as the very Word of God by a People of the Book. The roles now stood reversed. So far it had been the privilege of the Peoples of the Book to ban and burn the sacred literature of the Pagans.

Read the full text at: http://voi.org/books/tcqp/chi1.htm

The Indian Law on Freedom of Speech is not as free as the US First Ammendment. Therefore a challenge to the Koran may not go unheard.

Tziona replied to comment from Buraq | October 14, 2010 4:22 AM | Reply

...Islam is built on a lie. And the only way Muslims and their apologists can deflect attention from this simple, obvious fact is through violence, murder and vitriolic criticism.

Tell it like it is!! Man, that's a keeper.

Edgar | October 14, 2010 4:37 AM | Reply

There are plenty of people (including some who should know better) who think that they can dismiss Pamela Geller simply by claiming that she is an "anti-Muslim bigot".

Take a look at the article here:

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/2010/10/irony-of-melanie-philipss-response-to.html

about Melanie Phllips's response to two articles, the first of which defames both her and Pamela Geller.

* The first article infers (rather than states openly) that both Melanie and Pamela are anti-Muslim bigots, without offering a shred of evidence against either.

* The second article claims Melanie is not an anti-Muslim bigot but states openly that Pamela is an anti-Muslim "lunatic bigot", without offering a shred of evidence against her.

* Melanie's article praises the second article for coming to her defence, while ignoring the fact that the second article had made a far more openly offensive claim.

So who is going to defend Pamela Geller against the cumulative claims against her? The irony, sadly, is that it is not going to be Melanie Phillips.

The problem is that the stock response of any 'liberal' to people who are prepared to stand up to the threat of Islamism (as opposed to Muslims) is that they are 'bigots' or 'racists'. Just as there is no evidence that Melanie is a bigot or racist, nor is there any evidence that Pamela Geller is. In fact, the demonising of Pamela Geller by the main stream media is no different from its demonising of Israel. It all boils down to a combination of anti-semitism and dhimittude.

duh_swami | October 14, 2010 4:43 AM | Reply

Robert always does a good job cleaning up the messes made by smear artists...The problem is there seems to be a big pool of stagnant mentalities, like mosquito's multiplying in a stagnant pond...As soon as you swat one, there is another to take its place...Viciously smearing Pamela can have the reverse effect hoped for...Instead of making her look bad, it can make her look like a lone mother warrior taking on the forces of evil...The more they smear her, the better she looks...The more they pound her, the worse they look... They already look pretty foolish...But there is always the possibility of achieving stupidity...

Hermit | October 14, 2010 4:53 AM | Reply

God, please listen to Ravi Narayan.

What the quaran said and didn't say is immaterial and you can argue about it till the cows come home. Look at what islam does, learn from its past conquests, look at the plight, the genocide of Hindus, Parsees, Jews and Christians in their own lands conquered by islam then tell me islam arrives in peace and that it bears no malice toward a non-believer.

Never mind your Pickthall and Arberry or your Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Splitting hairs. Look at history, visit India and see the rampant destruction of a once proud and peaceful civilisation that now lays asunder, go to Pakistan where, with the help of US, the converted of Hindu ancestors are still baying for Hindu blood. Still thirsty for a Pagan's sacrifice. Still.

Never let it be said that you were not forewarned for never in the history of mankind has civilised people wilfully engineered their own destruction as we are witnessing in the West today.

Never.

You have been warned.

kikl | October 14, 2010 4:55 AM | Reply

Well Robert, your refutation of Mrs. Gerecht's statement in relation to Pamela Geller is precise and accurate.

Just an aside: Mrs. Gerecht's name literally means: "fair" (not pretty, but fair, urgh) or "just" (not in a legal but in a moral sense, urgh). So, in English she would be called Reuel the just;-)

Now, they say "Nomen est omen", but in Mrs. Gerecht's case this theory doesn't appear to apply.

Alarmed Pig Farmer | October 14, 2010 5:17 AM | Reply

Goldberg explains that he sent some assertions Pamela Geller made about the Qur'an and Islam in her recent New York Times interview to Islamic scholar Reuel Gerecht:

If I could give Geller any advice (and I can't, because it is her out there in the public eye, not me) I'd tell her to delve further into the Islamic scriptures and history, and to not back away from criticizing the belief system.

*** 5:73 ***

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word of blasphemy, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

Islam is a corrective belief system, the central tenet of which is the principle that to not be a Moslem is a crime, a capital crime. There is mountain of evidence that substantiates this fact.

*** Bukhari Vol 7 Bk 71 Nbr 661 ***

Magic was worked on Mohammed so that he began to imagine that he had done something although he had not.

Several weeks ago Sean Hannity had on his radio show Brigitte and Wafa for nearly an hour, reading from the Ko-Ran and Hah-Death and explaining the process by which the system of Islamic thought operates. To me it was a breakthrough moment, for the rule has always been to discuss individual Moslem events decoupled from their ideological causes. It was a stunning broadcast because for perhaps the first time millions of Infidels were exposed to the roots of Islam, its contents.

This is what Geller is starting to do. Her problem, though, is that of format, where she appears on mind-dead sound bite shows such as O'Reilly where depth and perspective and logical deduction are cut off by a stupid question from the questioner so as to not offend Moslems with a straight accounting of the facts.

Money grubbing clowns like O'Reilly do not want to explore the contents of Islam. Why, that could harm ratings and endanger the news entertainer hosts and their loved ones. That's a tough challenge that Geller have to fight through, and it ain't gonna be easy.

staringattheview.blogspot.com | October 14, 2010 5:26 AM | Reply

I believe Pamela is correct in her belief that most English translations of the Quran are whitewashed. I invite anyone with the interest and the time to read Ruba Qewar's analysis that the famous Quran 4:34 instruction to banish disobedient wives to separate beds actually means to tie them up like a camel on the edge of your property. That translation actually fits the context of the verse much better than the way it is usually translated. The link is here:

http://staringattheview.blogspot.com/2010/09/ruba-qewar-from-church-to-mosque-back.html

Alarmed Pig Farmer | October 14, 2010 5:58 AM | Reply

perniciously, she said that the Qur'an has never been properly translated, insinuating that it contains dark secrets about Muslims and their religious responsibilities. This last bit struck me as outrageous, because, as a Jew, Geller should know that anti-Semites have spent nearly two thousand years insinuating that the Talmud contains secret instructions guiding the alleged Jewish attempt to dominate the world. To make the same unsupported charge against Islam is egregious.

Of course, Goldberg's charge of "unsupported" is total unmitigated bullcrap. That's ok, cuz I learned long ago that reading The Atlantic is to decouple onself from reality.

*** 4:160 ***

Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did we Moslems disallow to the Jews the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many people from Allah's way.

Has this Jeffrey Goldberg fellow ever considered checking his facts before asserting them? And if 4:160 doesn't cut it, go find the Hah-Death where the tree begs the Moslem to please come on over and kill the Jew hiding behind his trunk. Or several dozen other Allah commands and Mohammed traditions. Or Abu or Asma or Khaibar or Qurayza or thousands other scriptures and uncontested historical facts.

Like with too big to fail, Islam and Moslems are too awful to acknowledge.

How can this ignorant ahistorical clown get paid for being so egregious? The answer lies in academic fraud, fake history, agitprop, somnoprop and blind fear driving willful ignorance to not acknowlege the horrible facts of Islam and all Moslems everywhere.

lkeevy1 | October 14, 2010 6:11 AM | Reply

l am a logical person, what the koran says or not says to a Western non-Muslims matters not very much, but rather what the Pious muslims knows of his koran has more of a direct consequence to all of God's creatures! how can an elite change my mind on the koran when the causes and effect of islamic terrorism happens all over the world?
We the people know that islam is a curse upon this world and needs to be destroyed, Robert and his people can debate these low life islamists and their appologists using their words against them! Kudos Robert!

Isabellathecrusader replied to comment from Eastview | October 14, 2010 6:34 AM | Reply

"...Islamists who counter damaging quotations from the Koran by saying "of course you don't know Arabic, so how can you understand the *true* meaning?"

'Of course, this is nothing but Arab narcissism...Does the essence of a mother's love depend on what language she speaks? Is the flash of pain of a smashed finger any greater or less depending on which of the thousands of languages one speaks?'

Exactly, Eastview. My experience of angry Muslim behavior is not negated because I don't speak Arabic. These folks were p.o.'d in English at the time of our exchange.

Stormwarning | October 14, 2010 6:35 AM | Reply

Uh...Robert?

I feel that the cartoon above might be offensive and demeaning to the fictional spree killers represented, and to the entire culture of fictional spree killers...

StephenA55 | October 14, 2010 7:29 AM | Reply

Sadly it seems the open season continues.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/13/ground-zero-islam
Charles Johnson has just posted a rather rancid piece on Miss Geller and her friends at the Guardian's comment site: CIF.
Lots of innuendo and it seems to me an attempt to place her and her work outside the category of people that reasonable people should listen to. Smears without substance, and plainly malign. Some commenters to the piece are rejecting his attempt to tell them what to think, but there is little sympathy for her as a woman and a journalist so far, at least in the first 15 comments.
See here:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/13/ground-zero-islam

arcadia | October 14, 2010 7:29 AM | Reply

It would do well for Pamela to travel more to learn about Islam. Where? Iran, yea they are really open there to infidels. How about Saudi Arabia? Are there any churches left there or Jewish Temples where one may want to pay a visit for the weekly prayer? This guy is a fool. Only Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. are expected to show tolerance. Heck if Muslims don't know what they are saying then how is anyone suppose to know what they believe. It's like Catholics who one time prayed only in Latin which no one knew, then they went to saying prayers in the language of the country the believer lived in so that he/she could understand. At one time it was forbidden for Christians to read the bible because they might misinterpret it. Well guess what? This is the 21st century and people demand to be informed as to what it is they are suppose to believe in, and interestingly enough, it works. Maybe the followers of Islam could use to do the same. Think for themselves.

Oldironsides | October 14, 2010 7:40 AM | Reply

Like a few others have mentioned, this article is a "keeper" because it clearly explains the problem people have in explaining the passages in the Qur'an. Here is an excerpt from an article I wrote in my blog a few months ago.

Saturday, August 14, 2010
How much do Muslims really understand about Islam?
http://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-much-do-muslims-really-understand.html

When I was young I went to church at a time when the Catholic Mass was entirely recited in Latin. I didn’t understand a word of it but learned to follow the exchanges between the priest and the altar boys by memory. The priest would say: “Dominus vobiscum” and we would reply, “Et cum spiritu tuo”. It was years later that I learned the meaning of these words: “The Lord be with you” “And with thy spirit”. The Mass was celebrated the same way throughout the world with the same Latin exchanges until the liberals in the church decided to change it into the local languages. The old Latin Mass had a very mystical appeal that made it a very special event and the change to local languages caused a great division among faithful Catholics. But that is another story.

I am mentioning this as a way of comparing it to how Muslims worship in a mosque by reciting verses from the Qur’an. They too recite everything in Arabic because that is the way it is written in their holy book. Even though many Muslims are not able to read the words, to enable accuracy the verses are recited in a melodic fashion similar to the way an English language song is sung in a foreign country. And like many Catholics years ago, very few Muslims understand the meaning of the words they have been taught to recite from memory because Arabic is a very difficult language to read, write and speak by people who are not Arabs.

This lengthy preamble is meant to illustrate a single point that will be taken with great contention by many Muslims. That point is that in reciting the numerous verses in the Qur’an calling for hatred and killing of unbelievers, which the Qur’an defines as everyone who is not a Muslim, many of the worshipers have no understanding of what they are saying. Whereas the Mass is filled with messages of love, the Qur’an is filled with messages of hate.

To perfectly illustrate this fact read the following article written by a Muslim who became disillusioned by the contradictions. Pay close attention to the second paragraph as it confirms everything I have said.

Should Almighty God Order Human Being to Kill Fellow Human?
by Syed Kamran Mirza, 24 January, 2005

In the theological dogmas of Islam there are plenty of unanswered questions to which most apologists play same old game of sidetracking and putting lame excuse to the “out of context”, or faulty Quranic translations. Among them, I like to discuss one question about which I have been asking/searching the truth for long time, but till today nobody could give me satisfactory answer. This is the question of “killing/slaying” human being by another human being. Several years back when I read Holy Quran from beginning to end, I was totally dismayed when I found Allah telling/advocating to “kill” another human being by numerous Ayats. I could not conceive this idea of insisting by Allah to kill somebody. How come? Question which bothered me most is why an omnipotent/almighty God will ask for killing human being—His own creation? Who knows, may be this advice by Allah to “kill Kaffirs” is working as the main fuel/ingredients behind the very spirit of Islamic Jihad—helping create more and more Osama bin-Laden and other potential killer terrorists?

My father used to read Quran twice a day (after Fazr and before magreb) with so much devotion until his death. One day I asked him if he (my father) understand what he was reciting with such a melody and devotions. My father’s answer was negative. My father did not understand a single word of what he was reciting daily. Now I can count how many thousands of times he uttered the word “killing”, of course, with sweet melody. We can even count how many trillion trillion times this word of “killing” is being uttered by devout Muslims throughout the whole world.

gravenimage replied to comment from demsci | October 14, 2010 8:59 AM | Reply

Demsci wrote:

I am glad at least that a part of the grand debate is sort of taking place, hostile though it is. I think debate is what the Critical Islam Analists and their readers and allies very much want.

And that knowledge about Islam and it's anti-Democratic nature they abundantly have. And I also think that they are very determined and exhaustively patient when challenged down to the very details.

If their challenges, or moves, are being taken by opponents I think a long chess-game will ensue and I am highly confident that Islam will be put check-mate if it will be totally played out.
.....................

Demsci, I heartily agree. As appallingly stupid as Jeffrey Goldberg's take on things is, at least he is talking about substantive matters.

So often, criticism of Pamela Geller goes to such matters as her fast-talking New York style, or the fact that she looks smokin' hot in a bikini—neither of which has the least thing to do with whether she is right about the threat of Jihad and Shari'ah.

The other matter is that when people like Jeffrey Goldberg bring up Islamic history and texts, it becomes entirely obvious to any honest person that Islam is, at the very least, quite troubling. No amount of obfuscation on the part of Jeffrey Goldberg and his ilk can disguise this simple fact.

Battle_of_Tours replied to comment from Ravinarin | October 14, 2010 9:08 AM | Reply

Viz., Read the full text at: http://voi.org/books/tcqp/chi1.htm

Thanks for this information, Ravi. This is inspirational, the same language can be used in the West, that Islamic scripture "incites violence", bigotry (especially hatred of Jews), enmity against all non-believers, disrespectful of women and equal rights, and is generally destructive of public tranquility and social harmony in so many ways. Islam with its Sharia is purely a failure on the First Amendment, they want a Koran dominant theocratic government, which is seditious. We know Islam is not merely a "religion" because it demands total obedience, which means also 'submission' (Islam), so it is a theocratic tyranny against our natural human rights, such as protected by our Constitution. The wording on any future bill to seriously limit Islam, especially Sharia, must be very clear. We should not tolerate such a seditious and disruptive ideology, one that has proven itself both violent and hateful, in our constitutional laws and jurisdiction. In fact, we should use these laws to do as you said, "turn the tables" on Islam. As more and more of us become educated on the socially damaging tenets of Islamic ideology and practice, including their five times daily 'prayer' calls for hatred of Jews and Christians, the sinister aspects of their demands for our dhimmitude, and onerous treatment of women; these will be exposed and legislated out of existence. We don't have to 'hate' them, just put them out. Islam is not untouchable, nor formidable.
It is only a matter of time, imminent time.

This need to change laws regarding Islam/Sharia is so elegantly stated by Syed Kamran Mirza, in "Should Almighty God Order Human Being to Kill Fellow Human?" - posted by Oldironsides

My father used to read Quran twice a day (after Fazr and before magreb) with so much devotion until his death. One day I asked him if he (my father) understand what he was reciting with such a melody and devotions. My father’s answer was negative. My father did not understand a single word of what he was reciting daily. Now I can count how many thousands of times he uttered the word “killing”, of course, with sweet melody. We can even count how many trillion trillion times this word of “killing” is being uttered by devout Muslims throughout the whole world.

This was written by a Muslim! We may have more allies in this anti-Jihad than we know. Do not fear them, nor hate them, just quietly disarm them. Our Constitutional laws are durable enough to do this.

Isabellathecrusader replied to comment from Oldironsides | October 14, 2010 9:38 AM | Reply

Ironside, you said:

The priest would say: “Dominus vobiscum” and we would reply, “Et cum spiritu tuo”. It was years later that I learned the meaning of these words: “The Lord be with you” “And with thy spirit”...And like many Catholics years ago, very few Muslims understand the meaning of the words they have been taught to recite from memory.

I find your statement very odd. The Catholic Missal (prayer book) had the Latin words on the left and the English translation on the right. I knew what Dominus vobisum meant when I was a very small child. Unlike the Qu'ran in Arabic, no one was hiding the meaning of the words in Latin. It was plain to see for anyone who took the time to read it. But you had to read it and you had to think about it, the latter missing in the Muslims-reading-the-Qu'ran equation.

Donald DaCosta | October 14, 2010 12:54 PM | Reply

This article is representative of the monumental struggle going on in the west regarding Islam; "the religion of peace" or the instrument of violent conflict sanctioned by that "religion."

Those familiar with Ms. Geller's and Mr. Spencer's writings and public appearances over the years through Atlas Shrugs and Jihad Watch respectively, have more than likely concluded that these, and their many other like minded colleagues, are reasonable, intelligent, rational people with an in depth knowledge of Islam and sincere in their efforts to alert the West to the very real danger of political Islam while, at the same time, not fomenting hatred, fear and distrust of Muslims who share the faith but not the Jihadist mentality.

Unfortunately there are many in the West who are somewhat or totally unaware of this threat and will form or reinforce their opinions based on commentary by inept journalists and experts like Jeffrey Goldberg and Reuel Gerecht and never exposed to intelligent, reasonable, factual, "footnoted" rebuttals like this by Robert Spencer.

It is fervently hoped that this unbalanced scale of hapless ignorance caused by faulty, incompetent, unprofessional reporting followed by sloppy, disingenuous sophistry will eventually be out weighed by the truth.

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are major participants in this effort and are to be commended and supported by truth seekers everywhere.

Oldironsides | October 14, 2010 5:56 PM | Reply

Isabella, it was an illustrative point to lead in to the rest of the article. Don't get hung up on the small details.

Kepha | October 14, 2010 6:17 PM | Reply

While my sympathies are 100% with Pamela, journalists strike me as people who have to report first impressions quickly. Hence they are more than likely to accept oft-repeated cliches as truth and refuse to look very deeply at either the things on which they are called to report or the observations of their fellows. Add to this the general ignorance of anyone's theological language in the jounralistis profession coupled with deeply-ingrained Western habits of tolerance, it is no wonder that the MSM jumps on Robert and Pamela as "bigots".

Indeed, they are a little like Syed Kamram Mirza's father, reciting the Qu'ran without understanding what is coming out of their own lips. I wonder if this phenomenon may not explain why, in my travels, I have received decent treatment at Muslim hands and ran into even highly devout Muslims whom I liked? Now, perhaps, you understand why Uncle Kepha feels a great deal of pain to consider what looks like a looming intercivilizational war.

And, here I must offer my thanks to this blog for encouraging the study of source texts such as Salih Muslim and the Hadith. This is neither bigotry nor obscurantism, but an attempt to understand people's deepest motivations--even if what is discovered is scary.

aynrandgirl | October 15, 2010 6:42 AM | Reply

When I've watched Muslim pilgrims come to Sunni and Shiite tombs and sacred sites in Egypt, Turkey, and Iraq, I've not seen a conquering people.

That's an astonishingly bizarre assertion. There would be no Sunni or Shiite tombs in those places but for their being conquered by Islam.

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.

FrontPageMag.com

Books by Robert Spencer

The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert Spencer

Islamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian Future

Muslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer

The Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks

“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
— Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
— Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
— Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
— Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
— Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
— Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
— Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
— Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
— Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
— Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
— Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
— Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
— Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
— Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
— Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
— Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
— New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
— Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
— New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
— Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
— Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
— Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
— Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
— Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
— Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
— Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
— Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”