Reza Aslan, apologist for Iranian Islamic dictatorship, defames anti-Sharia resistance

reza_new_small.jpg"Does this hair makes me look moderate?"

In November 2008, Kenneth Timmerman reported that the National Iranian American Council “has been lobbying Congress to win support for an agenda that mirrors the goals of the Tehran regime. The name of this group itself is misleading. Rather than assemble a broad cross-section of Iranian-Americans, most of whom came to this country to escape the totalitarian clutches of the Islamic dictatorship, NIAC has alienated them by brazenly portraying the Tehran regime as moderate, reasonable, and misunderstood.”

Persian Journal reported in 2007 that “NIAC and its main spokesman, Trita Parsi, have become apologists for the regime in Tehran.”

The adorably tousle-headed faux moderate Muslim spokesman Reza Aslan is a Board member of the National Iranian American Council. It’s no wonder, then, that Aslan wants Barack Obama to “stand up to Israel” and make a deal with Tehran’s genocidally-inclined antisemite, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Aslan is also, predictably enough, clearly afraid of the growing resistance to the stealth jihad and creeping Sharia in the U.S.. However, since he can’t very well win friends and influence people even among the Leftists he regularly dupes at the Daily Beast by openly plumping for a religio-political system that denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women and non-Muslims, he resorts to the familiar refuge of the intellectually and morally bankrupt: character assassination of those who are sounding the alarm for freedom and against Sharia.

“America’s Sharia Hysteria,” by Reza Aslan in the Daily Beast, October 12:

The loudest and most hysterical voice among the Muslims-are-taking-over-America chorus belongs to the pseudo-scholar and professional noise-maker Robert Spencer who, along with Pamela Geller–most famous for her theory that Obama is Malcom [sic] X’s bastard Muslim love-child–formed the organization behind the anti-mosque protests that have erupted all over the country. Spencer is convinced that Sharia has begun to take over the American legal system. His proof? The new Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan.

Note that Aslan, like the Leftist pseudo-journalist Justin Elliott of Salon, links to Gawker, not to Atlas Shrugs. If this tacky taqiyya practitioner had bothered to do some fact-checking, Aslan might have found this statement from Pamela Geller on the actual post in question: “The ‘Atlas says that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child’ charge has gone viral among leftards and lizards. The only problem with it is that it is false. I am not the author of this post, and I posted it because the writer did a spectacular job documenting Obama’s many connections with the Far Left. The Malcolm X claim is one minor part of this story, and was of interest to me principally as part of the writer’s documentation that Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been where the Obama camp says she was at various times. I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child, and never did — but there remain many, many unanswered questions about his early life and upbringing.”

But what cares Reza Aslan for truth or accuracy? Absolutely nothing. Read on.

In an interview with the conservative website The Daily Caller, Spencer claimed that Kagan “would knowingly and wittingly abet the advance of Sharia,” in her tenure as Supreme Court justice because, as a liberal, she shares with Muslims “a hatred of the West and Western civilization.”

Aslan doesn’t tell you, unsurprisingly, that as dean of Harvard Law School, according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, Kagan “became the champion of sharia.” McCarthy explained: “While Kagan was at the law school, her patron, Harvard’s president Larry Summers, accepted a stunning $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies to lionize Islam’s history and jurisprudence. The cash came from the Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the billionaire investor whose attempted $10 million contribution to the Twin Towers fund had been refused by New York mayor Rudy Giuliani when bin Talal blamed the 9/11 atrocities on American foreign policy. Summers, the anti-Giuliani, not only took the money but named the program and an endowed professorship in the prince’s honor. And why not? By then, as Ben Shapiro reported, Harvard’s law school already had three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of sharia….Yet there were no condemnations from Dean Kagan over the prince’s lavish gift. To the contrary, she proceeded to forge the law school’s ‘Islamic Finance Project.’ Its purpose is to promote sharia compliance in the U.S. financial sector.”

Aslan mentions none of this, instead opting to give the easy marks who read his Daily Beast column the idea that I made up the material about Kagan out of whole cloth. Accuracy, you see, would get in the way of a good smear.

Now, Spencer also believes that the decision by Campbell Soup to create a line of halal soups to accompany its kosher line is another sign of the Muslim takeover of America (“why is Campbell’s Soup rushing to do [Muslims’] bidding?” Spencer wrote in his blog. “M-M-Muslim Brotherhood Good?”), so he is obviously a nut who should not be taken seriously on any subject.

Aslan hopes people won’t take me seriously, because I am telling the truth about him. And I am going to continue to do so. His commitment to the truth, meanwhile, is not quite so absolute. If Aslan were interested in accurate reporting instead of defamation and personal destruction, he might have noticed that on October 9, I wrote this about the halal Campbell’s Soup: “Actually, I couldn’t care less if Campbell’s Soup introduces a halal line: if there are Muslims in Canada who will buy the soup, then that’s the free market for you. Nor is it a sign of Sharia coming to America, unless Campbell’s is planning to make all of its products halal, which it is not.”

So not only did I not say that the halal soup was “another sign of the Muslim takeover of America,” I actually said directly and explicitly that it wasn’t.

Note also how this execrable libel artist alters a quote from me. He says that I said this: “why is Campbell’s Soup rushing to do [Muslims’] bidding?” Go back to the source, however, and you find this: “ISNA has admitted ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. So why is Campbell’s Soup rushing to do its bidding?” So Aslan took a clear reference to Hamas-linked ISNA and altered it to appear as if I was referring to all Muslims.

Over the years, I’ve run into quite a few Islamic supremacist liars and deceivers. Few have been as vile and inept at their deception as Reza Aslan. I would, nonetheless, happily meet him in debate in an open forum. But I know that he won’t, because his lies would be exposed.

UPDATE: I’ve now tried twice to post a link to this exposure of Aslan’s lies at the Daily Beast, but neither of my comments has shown up. Approving the comments yourself over there, Reza? Meanwhile, Aslan’s article went out in today’s “American Muslim News Briefs” mailing from Hamas-linked CAIR. Will the vaunted moderate repudiate the support of this Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood group? I won’t be holding my breath.

Entitlement: Nigerian jihadist sect Boko Haram demands amnesty from government
Iran arrests two foreigners for not properly misunderstanding Islam
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    The weight of the truth is such that all these lies spun about Islam by its apologists are just going to reach an end point where they will not work any longer. Notwithstanding the doltist remark by Bush in the days after 9/11 (which gave the ROP claim a life beyond the grave), the claim that Islam is a religion of peace can only work for so long in the face of the enormous amount of damaging evidence, which mounts daily, that the ROP claim is utter nonsense. And people are noticing more and more the anti-social behavior of Muslims.

    Continuing to spread the truth about Islam, thereby informing the yet-unreached, is the way to go. Aslan is no intellectual powerhouse.

    I put my money on the truth every time.

  2. says

    Greetings:

    I live in the San Francisco Bay area. Last night, at 11pm, the local PBS television station broadcast a program purportedly about “Anti-semitism” in which the good Mr. Azlan made several appearances. The gist of the program was that “anti-semitism” was a Euro-Christian phenomenon and that what exists on it in the Arab-Muslim world is a much more benign version. I was only able to get through the first 20 minutes or so of the program. Unremarkably, there was no mention in what I saw of all the koranic quotes concerning the Jews or where all the Christians and Jews of the Middle East have gone. Sic transit gloria.

  3. says

    “By then, as Ben Shapiro reported, Harvard’s law school already had three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of sharia….”

    I’m a little bit puzzled, to be honest. I have no legal background, but even I can see that Shari’a is about placing a boot on everyone’s throat and giving them absolutely no room to move; no freedom of speech, no human rights, women discriminated against, etc…

    So, wouldn’t studying Shari’a at a prestigious law school not expose all this inhumanity? (I think *everyone* should study Al Qur’an, the Sira, a couple of the Hadiths and delve into ‘Umdat al Salik once in a while.)

    These studies would expose the startling contradiction between Islam and the democratic, secular world we live in.

  4. says

    Correct and accurate knowledge about Islam, Mohammed and Sharia is spreading so rapidly that basically all Muslim spokesmen (e.g., Reza Aslan) and dhimmi spokesmen (e.g., Mayor Bloomberg) have anymore is saying soothing words about Islam which are not true or demonizing those who criticize Islam for being so incompatible in so many ways with Western values. That’s all they got. What they don’t have is the truth on their side and that’s why they are resorting to the desperate measures of misinformation (sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly) and defaming.

  5. says

    Mr. Spencer,
    On a plus side, this lying scumbag wouldn’t have any material with which to weave his lies if he wasn’t an avid reader of your erudite postings on JW and your books!

    In fact he may be causing some to fact-check on JW. Who knows that may lead to more educated lefties. Well, maybe not that last thought.

    OT: Thank you ever so much for my Islamic education. I now have two of your books, Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s: Nomad, and your and Ms. Geller’s: The Post-Am Presidency!
    I have also noticed a slight shift towards exposing the Islamic elepahant in the room at the National Post and the Toronto Sun.
    Thank you and please be safe.
    Dave

  6. says

    Actually, as far as appearances go–it’s all in the eyes. They are truly windows into the soul. I know it’s a subjective observation, but IMO this guy shares the same piercing, emotionless gaze that I see in Rauf and El Gamal. The term “dead eyes” comes to mind. Of course, it may just be my imagination.

    To me, the eyes don’t lie. I would say the song “Smiling Faces” would fit the bill, but in my observations, these guys don’t even smile.

  7. says

    Quran 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

    9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”

    8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

    8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”

    9:38 “Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah’s Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place.”

    So who should I believe, Reza Aslan, or my lying eyes?

  8. says

    “While Kagan was at the law school, her patron, Harvard’s president Larry Summers, accepted a stunning $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies to lionize Islam’s history and jurisprudence. The cash came from the Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the billionaire investor whose attempted $10 million contribution to the Twin Towers fund had been refused by New York mayor Rudy Giuliani when bin Talal blamed the 9/11 atrocities on American foreign policy.

    Why didn’t Harvard ‘Law’ School reject this ‘seditious’ gift from prince Alwaleed to implement Sharia into the American financial system? New York Mayor Giuliani had the good sense to say “No thank you” to the Saudi prince. Unfortunately, Harvard along with major US banks are only too eager to grab at these crumbs full of strings to bolster their listing ships. May they lean so far over they sink with it. Craven, gutless beggars the lot.

  9. says

    ” But I know that he won’t, because his lies would be exposed “.

    How true. You could undo all of his ” work “, in a single paragraph.

    This suave apologist, Aslan, would never debate you in any type of forum, because it does not suit his purpose.

    Guys like him can only snipe from afar, and hope that anyone who reads his “articles “, will take it as the truth, without doing any investigating on their own.

  10. says

    I don’t remember Sharia or the study of Sharia at Harvard being discussed during Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings.

    One would think that as a Jew, Kagan might be very attuned to the mortal threat inherent in Islam for the Jewish people. And as Buraq wrote in his post, the study of Sharia ought to show how incompatible Sharia is with US law, but apparently not so in Ms Kagan’s case. It would seem that a good reading of the basic Islamic books ought to be required of a student before he or she ever gets to law school.

    I don’t understand why she wouldn’t try to bite the hand that feeds her poison.

    The president must not have a second term and with it the chance to nominate new justices to the supreme court, because it is not just the high court that he influences by his choices but other positions in the law as well.

    Wellington has written that aggressive Sharia Muslims have the Constitution “by the balls.” If the stealth socialist president is not voted from office, Sharia Muslims may eventually have the Constitution by the throat as well when they seek and gain positions on the bench and in the legislature. One’s ability to point that out will be cut off as new Sharia law squeezes the voice of free speech into silence.

    The likes of Mr. Azlan are relatively easy to spot once one reads a little deeper into Islam. What is more difficult to deal with is the influence of the leftist-socialist-liberal who either out of stupidity or bad intent, aids in the destructive metamorphosis of US legal culture.

    As for Azlan himself, Mr. Spencer has written that Azaln is an inept liar – that’s true. I would say that he is inept as an actor as well, though I understand that an actor really is in essence a liar. Of course it is not fair to judge someone from a photograph. The shutter of a camera can trip faster than 1/1000 of a second and something so fleeting can be recorded as if it were the only thing true. But when I look at Mr. Alan’s photograph I see contempt covering embarrassment covering fear. He has a few layers to strip away before he can portray confidence, compassion, and ease with any sort of aplomb.

  11. says

    Yes, I have misspelled Aslan’s name as Azlan. Sorry. I hope there is no Sharia penalty for that. If I have to pay for something, some Infidel crime, I would rather have it be for something much bigger.

  12. says

    I must agree with Sharon, this vile character has eyes typical to so many muslims who are innately cruel and devoid of compassion. Even dead fish eyes don’t look evil, just lifeless. The obvious pains taken to appear secular and Westernized while seething with islamic supremacy, rage, and committment to the jihad exacerbate his diabolical aura. I doubt if he is capable of producing a genuine, warm smile. This man on a mission has one goal and he, like so many other ambitious muslims and their league of useful idioits, are running scared. They have run out of plausible lies.

  13. says

    True, you can’t read too much from a photograph, except that this is the photograph which Aslan has chosen to represent himself.

    Yes, the hair style is non-Muslim, and he’d be dragged into a barber shop in Iran, no doubt. So he’s presenting himself as a modernized Muslim, whatever that is, representing the religion for the Western audience.

    I too find his gaze creepy, empty, and not filled with any light or love or humanity.

  14. says

    Mr. arrogant boy Aslan, you will fall deeply!

    http://newstime.co.nz/uk-muslim-leader-the-flag-of-islam-will-fly-over-the-white-house.html
    ABC TV Talk Show “This Week” October 3, 2010
    by Christiane Amanpour
    Holy War
    “Should Americans fear Islam?”

    UPDATE After the show: An Open Letter to Reza Aslan the Savior of so called Moderate Muslims! 197 KB …You seems like an all-rounder “Islamic pundit” to me who can fool the whole world with myriad of unadulterated lies about Islam.

    …1) Could you give me some good reasons and facts why Saudi Arabia and Iran should not be called true model of the pure Islamic Sharia-based countries?

    …7) Could you tell me why and how “Islam” has been hijacked by the radical Muslims? Is the Islam any kind of Ship or Plane or Train or single vehicle which can be hijacked? Why Billion Muslims could not protect that “Islamic Ship” from the hands of relatively very small numbers of radical jihadi Muslims?….

  15. says

    “The loudest and most hysterical voice among the Muslims-are-taking-over-America chorus belongs to the pseudo-scholar and professional noise-maker Robert Spencer who, along with Pamela Geller–most famous for her theory that Obama is Malcom [sic] X’s bastard Muslim love-child–formed the organization behind the anti-mosque protests that have erupted all over the country.”

    Too bad many Americans have been to your store and aren’t buying what you are selling, Asy baby. Oh no! Your Dork Jihad isn’t working.

    “Aslan is also, predictably enough, clearly afraid of the growing resistance to the stealth jihad and creeping Sharia in the U.S.”

    Yes, be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

  16. says

    In order to combat this threat called Islam,is with the truth. But this truth, in view of the menacing violence displayed by the Islamic liars has to be backed by a greater violent threat.

    We have been playing with these Islamic liars long enough, since the first oil embargo in 1973.From there on we have been without knowing it paying the tax demanded from infidels to Islam. under the disguise of ” Supply and demand” theory ,we have paid through our nose the tax they have demanded . All our economical resources have gone to our enemies, Islam and communism ( China).For what ? ( If you remember, we are a free nation, because of a tax that was being imposed on us)

    We have placed ourselves in an unsustainable position, that will only get worse. It is better to get mad once , than to get annoyed 1000 times. We better react soon, before it is to late.One of our real friends,Israel, has been warning us for decades and have been confronting the threat on the first line.

    Under the sheep skin of religion, Islam is dominating the world and with the unknown tax,it is strangling our why of life until we summit.

  17. says

    I know this is not very PC … but as much as boy-wonder here is trying to cultivate his fast-lane, Westernized image … he just looks
    effeminate to me. Not that I have anything against effeminate folks. Just that he looks like one. Wonder how that would play in his beloved Iran?

  18. says

    “America’s Sharia Hysteria”
    ……………

    That’s been a real theme among those who are trying to discredit the anti-Jihad movement. Here’s a nasty piece about the supposedly paranoid “Veterans against Jihad”:

    (my apologies for cutting and pasting the whole piece”it is an article on “Care 2 Causes”, and I couldn’t figure out how else to post it without giving everyone here full access to my email)

    “Veterans Against Jihad the Latest Anti-Sharia Group to Emerge”

    A bubbling theme from the far-reaches of the paranoid right has made its way into mainstream political discourse and, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ranks of our nation’s military. The idea is that the United States legal system is threatened by the ever-encroaching menace of Sharia law. Sharron Angle has mentioned it, Oklahoma is considering a constitutional amendment to ban it, and some states use it as a basis of denying the legitimacy of Islam all together.

    It doesn’t matter that even in Muslim-majority nations strict Islamic legal codes are the exception. The threat of Sharia law has now become a talking point of the right and appears to be inspiring organizations to rise up against this imagined enemy.

    Of the latest is the group Veterans Against Jihad (VAJ). Founded last spring by two retired Marine Corps veterans, the goal of VAJ is to “encourage Veterans to more actively respond to challenges threatening our Constitution [and] awaken American Citizens to Islam’s Jihadist religious mandate.” To that end VAJ is asking all veterans to renew their Oath of Enlistment and reaffirm their loyalty to the Constitution.

    But like all groups, VAJ’s understanding of constitutional fidelity is selective, as is their opposition to religiously inspired law. The group is not shy that it’s mission is to “reclaim America for Christ” and has aligned itself with other far-right groups that have a decidedly intolerant view of religious diversity.

    The concern about the increasing presence of Sharia law is quickly joining anti-immigration memes as a popular way to spread nativist fear and ideology. It should come as no surprise then that the mainstream politicians that embrace and even campaign on this rhetoric have been embraced by the far right elements of the tea party movement. Nativism and populism have a long history together in our political culture and this latest groundswell represents just another chapter of fear in response to cultural, economic and political change. Let’s hope it’s a short one.
    ……………..

    The sneering tone is unmistakable”note that the author *never once* asks whether Shari’ah actually represents a threat, or even if the adoption of full Shari’ah would be a bad thing.

    There are 178 comments on this story, which I have omitted in the interest of brevity. Despite Care 2 being an extremely “liberal” site, though, a surprising number of posters do seem to realize that Shari’ah is a threat.

  19. says

    Oily and slippery both inside and out …”Greeza” Aslan is more like it.

    Hey ASSlan, sharia or no sharia, the mosque @GZ is beyond tacky, so stick to the subject, slick!

    I mean you wouldn’t know TACKY if it hit you upside the head – oh wait, it already has! …a tacky ball of wax has invaded your hair. Yuk, go shower & shampoo. Please! Although it appears that there is little hope for your slimy insides.

  20. says

    I’ve spent the last hour looking at various articles about the National Iranian American Council, and I still don’t know if they are fronting for Tehran, or merely oppose war as a way to deal with Iran, because they don’t want their many relatives in Iran bombed. What seems clear is that they don’t think Iran on the way to getting nukes requires a U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Opposition to a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is perhaps foolish, but does it mean they are fronting for Tehran? They are in favor of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights (not the Cairo Declaration) and it seems they have repeatedly opposed Tehran’s abuses of human rights. They claim that a military attack on Iran would only strengthen the anti-democratic anti-human rights forces. I suspect they do not support Tehran, and that their lobbying to stop a military attack stems from a non-ideological concern about the survival of their relatives. They have opposed sanctions against Tehran in the past, but aren’t they in support now? Not sure about that. So I’m still undecided about the National Iranian American Council.

    However, I did learn something about Reza Aslan. I went to Amazon and read an excerpt from one of his books, No god but God, and I don’t know if Aslan is naive or an intentional deceiver, but his book, at least in the passage I read, denies and makes excuses for the theo-military core of Islamic doctrine. For example, on page 81 he says that the the primary religious meaning of jihad is an inner struggle. He refers to military jihad as a secondary meaning of jihad, while conceding that the military meaning has been the more commonly used one. He says, feebly I think, that the military meaning has been more common because Islam does not separate the inner jihad from the outer. He retails the Islamic apologist line that in Islam military jihad is considered “the lesser jihad.” But he does not tell us that Islamic scholars are agreed that this notion of military jihad as “lesser” is only found in a weak or fabricated hadith. The hadiths considered “sahih” or reliable make military jihad the primary kind, and barely mention any other sort. A weak or fabricated hadith about greater and lesser jihads has no weight against Islam’s actual core doctrines or in Islamic law. Here is a useful excerpt from an article on this issue:

    Scholars

    Lesser vs Greater Jihad Hadith

    The “lesser versus greater jihad” hadith’s isnad (the completeness of the chain of narrators and the reputation of each individual narrators within the chain of oral tradition) has been categorized by scholars as “weak” (da`if), and generally in Islamic law, only the authentic (sahih) and good (hasan) hadiths are used in deriving the rules. The weak hadiths have no value for the purpose of Sharia.[6] Contemporary Islamic scholars have even classed it as “maudu” (fabricated), meaning this narration, by some, is not even considered to be a hadith at all.[7]

    Dr. Abudllah Yusuf Azzam
    “is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi `Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality….The word “jihad”, when mentioned on its own, only means combat with weapons, as was mentioned by Ibn Rushd, and upon this the four Imams [the four founders of the four Sunni schools of Islamic law] have agreed.”[8]

    Ibn Taymiyahh (also known as Shaykh ul-Islam to Muslim clerics)
    “There is a Hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet [peace be upon him] said after the battle of Tabuk: ‘We have returned from Jihad Asghar [lesser jihad] to Jihad Akbar [greater jihad].’ This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind.”[9]

    Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani
    “This saying is widespread and it is a saying by Ibrahim ibn Ablah according to Nisa’i in al-Kuna. Ghazali mentions it in the Ihya’ and al-`Iraqi said that Bayhaqi related it on the authority of Jabir and said: There is weakness in its chain of transmission.”[10]

    Al Bayhaqi
    Its chain of narration is weak. Ibn Hajr said that this was a saying of Ibraaheem bin Abee Ablah, a Taabi’ee, and not a Ahaadeeth of the Messenger (SAW). [11][12]
    Hajar ibn al Asqalani ‘Kashf al-Khafaa’ (no.1362)

    Al Haakim’
    His hadith are unreliable.[13]

    Abu Yala al Khalili
    He often Adulterates, is very weak and narrates unknown hadith. Their is also a narrator, Yahyah bin Alulah, who is a known liar and forger of hadith (Ahmed).[13]
    Mashir al Ashwaq, Ibn Nuhad pg 1/31

    Amru bin Ali an Nasai and Ad Darqutni
    His hadith are renounced.[13]

    Ibn Adi
    His hadith are false.[13]
    Tahzeeb ut Tahzeeb 11/261-262]

    Abu Dahadbi’
    Abdu Hatim said he is not a strong narrator, Ibn Ma’een classified him as weak and Ad Daqatuni said he is to be neglected.[13]

    Mufti Zar Wali Khan (who is given the title Sheikh ul hadith) mentioned in his Dora Tafsir that this hadith was fabricated by Sufis.[14]

    The lesser versus greater jihad “hadith” has been shown by Islamic scholars to be, not only weak, but false. It serves no purpose in Islamic law or thought, and contradicts sahih hadith and the Qur’an itself. Therefore, the concept of a lesser and greater jihad has no validity within Islam. We leave you with the words of Western scholar, David Cook:


    In reading Muslim literature — both contemporary and classical — one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible.[16]

    In the hadith collections considered trustworthy, one finds, for example, a hadith that says the best method to rectify an unjust situation is by the hand. Then the same hadith enumerates a series of methods of decreasing value. As the methods become less physical and more verbal or inward, the sahih hadith says those methods decrease in value.

    Can anyone locate for me that sahih hadith about the hand being the best method to rectify a situation? If I’m not mistaken, Robert Spencer has cited it recently…

  21. says

    Reza Aslan whitewashes Muhammad’s caravan raids.

    First, notice how Aslan, on pages 82 and 83 of No god but God, makes Muhammad’s caravan raids look bloodless:

    By declaring Yathrib a sanctuary city, Muhammad was deliberately challenging Mecca’s religious and economic hegemony over the Peninsula. And just to make sure the Quraysh got the message, he sent his followers out into the desert to take part in the time-honored Arab tradition of caravan raiding.

    In pre-Islamic Arabia, caravan raiding was a legitimate means for small clans to benefit from the wealth of larger ones. It was in no way considered stealing, and as long as no violence occurred and no blood was shed, there was no need for retribution. The raiding party would quickly descend on a caravan — usually at its rear — and carry off whatever they could get their hands on before being discovered. These periodic raids were certainly a nuisance for the caravan leaders, but in general they were considered part of the innate hazards of transporting large amounts of goods through a vast and unprotected desert.

    Though small and sporadic at first, Muhammad’s raids not only provided the Ummah with desperately needed income, they also effectively disrupted the trade flowing in and out of Mecca…

    Why does Reza Aslan make no mention of what core Islamic texts say about those raids, for example, what is said on page 287 (425 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad:

    [The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had. Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him…

    More evidence that Aslan is a deceiver or profoundly ignorant.

  22. says

    “NIAC and its main spokesman, Trita Parsi, have become apologists for the regime in Tehran.”
    ……………

    Here’s Trita Parsi, from three tears ago, holding forth on the idea that the Islamic Republic got along with Israel just fine”the Jews always knew those threats to wipe them off the map was just rhetoric”at least, until they messed things up by deciding to take that rhetoric seriously.

    It’s all the Jews fault, you see.

    “The Iran-Israel cold war”

    http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-irandemocracy/israel_2974.jsp

    Here he is, ecstatic at Obama’s groveling Nowruz greeting:

    “Will Tehran Tango? Obama’s Historic Norooz Greeting”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trita-parsi/will-tehran-tango-obamas_b_177222.html

    He concludes:

    “The Iranian people could not have wished for a better Norooz greeting.”

    Well, he’s certainly right about that.

  23. says

    Reza Aslan is simply a liar.

    See this review of his book:

    http://revuse.wetpaint.com/page/Book+Review:+How+to+Win+a+Cosmic+War

    I continue to believe that the mainstream media is on a hellbent mission to whitewash Aslan and those like him. I sent my review of this book to someone who wrote a typically bland review of the same book for a mainstream newspaper. That person thanked me and said he really enjoyed my review — but simply would not answer follow-up questions about why he wrote such an anemic, toothless assessment of the same exact book.

  24. says

    Reading this stuff makes me want to throw up its so disgusting. Whats really sad about it is that its true. The wolf in sheep’s clothing is among us.

  25. says

    Aslan has a long history of equivocation and dissimulation when it comes to Islam and its conflicts with the non-Muslim world. “No God but God” and “How to Win a Cosmic War” both argue that non-Muslim worries about Islamic triumphalism and plans to conquer the world/institute a worldwide caliphate/Sharia law are hysteria. He even ends the latter book with the admonition: “How to win a cosmic war? Don’t fight it in the first place.” Aslan also graces this volume with a back-of-the-book “glossary” of terms. Those issues he refuses to recognize (at least publicly) he simply dismisses as non-existent, Orwellian-1984 style. Thus, his entry for “Islamofascism” simply says that this term cannot be defined because the phenomenon dose not exist. In other words, Islam cannot be a totalitarian ideology that works by stirring up the mob sentiments and worst aggressive instincts of its followers. Thus saith Aslan the dissimulator. Can you say “taqiyya”?

  26. says

    It isn’t his hair do that gives him away. It’s his EYES.

    The soul shows in the eyes. You can always tell the heart of a man (or woman) by their eyes.

    And his aren’t “moderate” if by moderate one means “innocent of the threat to do violence.”

    His hair only looks dirty. Some good ol’ Head and Shoulders might be a good beginning for him.

    When a person does not have truth on their side, neither can they come up with logical arguments for their beliefs. His sound like hogwash. And I knew I didn’t like Kagan. Now I have more reasons for “why.”

  27. says

    Your suggestion is eminently logical and sound, Buraq, which is why it won’t be implemented at most law schools across the country, especially at a place like Harvard, because there are fools, damn fools and then there are academic fools, the worst of the bunch. Really, the higher the intellect, generally the lower the level of both common sense and moral intelligence. It’s a trade-off by nature and not that good of one I might add.

  28. says

    Wonder how that would play in his beloved Iran?

    I don’t know about that, but he could never get past the hair police…His tie would also bring suspicion…
    Spencer also wears ties, but his ties are above suspicion…If it’s true that the tie makes the man, Spencer is way ahead of Aslan…

  29. says

    Correct and accurate knowledge about Islam, Mohammed and Sharia is spreading so rapidly that basically all Muslim spokesmen (e.g., Reza Aslan) and dhimmi spokesmen (e.g., Mayor Bloomberg) have anymore is saying soothing words about Islam which are not true or demonizing those who criticize Islam for being so incompatible in so many ways with Western values.
    ——————–
    Someone posted this video earlier of a debate featuring Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray debating Islam apologists Reba Khan and Maajid Nawad. If you don’t have time to watch the whole thing, I will summarize just to say that at the end they showed a polling of the audience and their views of Islam as a Religion of Peace. The polling took place before and after the debate.

    In the beginning the number of people believing Islam was “a religion of peace” was very high, the anti numbers were very low and undecided was in-between those numbers. At the END of the video, the anti numbers surpassed both the other numbers. Basically what happened is that when exposed to the truth by Islam’s own apologists in THEIR OWN WORDS, Americans wake up to the fact that Islam is NOT the religion of peace they claim it to be. Is it any wonder why 70%+ people are against the Ground Zero Mosque?

    By the way, if you haven’t gotten an app to download youtube videos, I highly recommend doing so. The app I use allows you to download the videos from any website. Handy for those short lived videos showing Islamic Apologists in their full glory.

  30. says

    Mr. Swami, you got me to check-out boy-toy’s tie again. Junior isn’t even in the same league, tie-wise, with Mr. Spencer! But then, Spencer is an adult, a real man, and this kid is just a jeuvenile muslinquent, a wimpy little poseur. He probably gets his clip-ons from Mus-Mart.

    But, that got me to thinking … of all the photos of Mr. Spencer that I’ve seen he’s always in a suit & tie! I think that’s perfectly appropriate for the work he’s doing, but just wondering if he’s ever been photographed (published) in casual attire?

    This is way OT & I’m blaming you, LOL!

  31. says

    Duh Swami wrote:

    Wonder how that would play in his beloved Iran?

    I don’t know about that, but he could never get past the hair police…His tie would also bring suspicion…
    …………….

    Yup. In the “Islamic Republic of Iran”, the suit and tie would be considered suspiciously Western; his being not just beardless but entirely without facial hair save for fashionable stubble (even “liberal” Iranians sport mustaches) would seem all too “un-Islamic”, and his hair would be considered”I kid you not”to be a “Jewish style”…Ahmadinjad’s “helmet hair” is considered much more “Islamic”.

    Reza Aslan probably wouldn’t be able to make it more than a few blocks in Tehran before being stopped by the religious police.

    As Robert Spencer has noted, though, this look sure does fool the Kufr.

  32. says

    Kamala, that was awesome, hon. I especially like this part:

    In the heat of the Jordanian debate, this parliamentary coalition of several Islamist groups, most of whom affiliate with the Muslim Brethren, issued a fatwa that declared honor-killings are seen as favorable by Islam; male relatives should punish their female relatives and not leave this duty to the state. Ibrahim Zayd al-Kaylani, head of the Jordanian Islamic Action Front (IAF)’s Ifta ‘ committee, said that a man who restrains himself from committing an honor killing, leaving this unpleasant burden to the government, “negates the values of virility advocated by Islam.” Article 340, Kaylani added, is based on “the Islamic principle that allows a Muslim to defend his honor, property, and blood.” Muhammad “Uwayda, dean of Zarqa University’s Shari”a College and a member of the lower house, stated that while the Shari”a does prohibit individuals from taking the law into their own hands, “cases where a man catches his wife committing adultery are the exception.” The IAF issued a fatwa to the effect that “canceling Article 340 would contradict the Shari”a.”

    “Negates the values of virility advocated by Islam.”

    I love that. So the knuckle draggers actually do advocate Sura 4:34 with that cute little admonition to beat your wife. I guess if they can’t beat their wives faces in then their virility might be negated. What a pathetic bunch of girly men. See picture above for confirmation.

  33. says

    ‘Thus, his entry for “Islamofascism” simply says that this term cannot be defined because the phenomenon dose not exist. In other words, Islam cannot be a totalitarian ideology that works by stirring up the mob sentiments and worst aggressive instincts of its followers.’

    In other words, if Aslan sticks his head up his butt none of us will see that Islamofacism does exist. Sorry Aslan, it doesn’t work that way. Your emperor is naked.